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.

 Chongara wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Isn't the line between "looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'" and "staring inappropriately in a creepy manner" also a totally subjective line that's never going to be able to be pinned down in this discussion right alongside what counts as 'designed to be sexy' cloths?

When I was a builder I was involved in a construction project at the local university. There was an official "three second" rule regrading workers looking at female students and of course a strict "no cat-calling" policy.
This policy was known to both workers and students. It was definitely pinned down

Guys were removed from site after a student complained (not fired, just transferred to a different project).

I personally was cat-called at by a car full of girls. I thought it was hilarious and a little bit flattered, and got many congratulations from the guys when word went round the site.

To take this a bit further. If you're in doubt about the line or think someone particularly the person you might be looking at might disagree about where the line is: Just don't look. You're in control of your head, you're in control of your eyes and it's as easy too not look at someone as it is too look at them. It's as easy to leave people alone as it is to bother them and in general that's the best call.

It's important to remember that as a general rule:

You are aren't important
You are aren't interesting to anyone but yourself, your friends and your family.
Nobody wants your opinion.
Nobody wants your approval.
Nobody wants your attention.
Everybody is doing their own thing for their own reasons, largely for themselves. From what they eat to what they wear they're doing it for themselves or sometimes specific individuals they actually give a gak about.
The chances of your improving somebody's day by sticking your self in it is less than your chances of improving it by doing so.

This is true generally, and doubly to triply so if you're just some random dude considering any potential interaction with just some random woman.
*You here is is general, not feeder an/dor jonolikespie specifically.

Sorry, but I don't roll that way.

I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.

If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Not only that, but if she isn't prepared to give just a little time for someone whose identity/situation isn't 100% clear, I don't see why I should then have any sympathy for someone in the same situation.

It was done with the best etiquette, without leading questions, and remained completely neutral.

Again - this is by no means a confrontation. I'm just a little concerned that their first reaction was to be just as close-minded in her response as so many others were to here.

That post was shared all over the place (meaning the whole internet, or at least parts where it could be relavent) so you are probably not the first person who contacted her about this in that manner (and there were probably many other and worse comments). Certain people like to couch their words carefully (often to just be able to say that they were not aggressive while deliberately trying to provoke others) so your very careful phrasing might just look like like somebody looking for more stuff to "work with".

Your perspective in this situation might be very different than hers too. Your one non-confrontational approach might be just another of who knows how many post (of varying quality and trollishness). It might be "just a little time" from your point of view but the same can't be guaranteed on the other side so what you see as the "first reaction" might be just another of many replies. Usually people who have a public persona and are accessible via e-mail tend to have a process to deal with this stuff and are also used to this to some degree. In this case one post blew up a bit for a person who most (or even all) of us have never heard of and who probably wasn't prepared for that amount of contact/mails.

You can hope that the other person is just sitting there all day answering everybody in a calm and collected manner and is willing to spend their time on each reply just for your singular benefit. That's not how it works for regular humans except if they are paid to do this (customer service, community management,…). This was a rather controversial post so I would assume that a good chunk of contacts were rather abusive. How about this as a reason for some sympathy?

Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.

The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Sorry, but I don't roll that way.

I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.

If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.

I'm inclined to think the same, my rights don't end where your feelings begin. It's not illegal to look at someone, if I somehow offend someone well I'm sorry for that, but if you're attractive I'm going to look.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Sorry, but I don't roll that way.

I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.

If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.

I'm inclined to think the same, my rights don't end where your feelings begin. It's not illegal to look at someone, if I somehow offend someone well I'm sorry for that, but if you're attractive I'm going to look.

There's a difference between something being illegal and something being rude. I could, for example, hurl all manners of unplesant verbal abuse at you, but it'd not be illegal. That doesn't change the fact that I'd be an donkey-cave for doing so. Similarly, ogling someone is not illegal, but we expect people to have at least a modicum of self-control.

 Kojiro wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.

The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...

Yeah, look at all the people in this thread refusing to have a dialogue! They've just immediately shut down any and all debate and insisted on shouting down their opponents.

Meanwhile, your side of the debate is a shining example of the ideal debater. Open to new ideas, willing to discuss them, capable of seeing other people's views, and definitely not dismissing the OP out of hand and basing all subsequent interactions from the premise that there is no issue whatsoever.

Personally, my experience in this debate has been brilliant. I *definitely* haven't seen *any* instances of people arguing in bad faith, or making assumptions about the people they're disagreeing with. I've had so. much. fun. in this thread.

so much.

 Goliath wrote:
I've had so. much. fun. in this thread.

so much.

Let's be honest, no one is going to change their minds here, including me. This isn't a debate, it's a brawl, as these gender topics always are. 15 pages, over 400 replies, over 11,000 views.

I believe you when you say you've had fun in this thread. You're getting something out of it. You wouldn't have clicked on it otherwise.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
I've had so. much. fun. in this thread.

so much.

Let's be honest, no one is going to change their minds here, including me. This isn't a debate, it's a brawl, as these gender topics always are. 15 pages, over 400 replies, over 11,000 views.

I believe you when you say you've had fun in this thread. You're getting something out of it. You wouldn't have clicked on it otherwise.

No, I legitimately haven't enjoyed myself. This thread has made me the angriest I've been in the better part of a year, and lost me my quick reply. It has been a clusterfeth from beginning to end and it should have been killed 13 pages ago.

 Goliath wrote:
No, I legitimately haven't enjoyed myself. This thread has made me the angriest I've been in the better part of a year, and lost me my quick reply. It has been a clusterfeth from beginning to end and it should have been killed 13 pages ago.

Then please, walk away. If you're not getting anything from this thread, or feel it's doing you harm, why force that onto yourself?

I apologise if I've contributed to you feeling this way, if that's worth anything.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
No, I legitimately haven't enjoyed myself. This thread has made me the angriest I've been in the better part of a year, and lost me my quick reply. It has been a clusterfeth from beginning to end and it should have been killed 13 pages ago.

Then please, walk away. If you're not getting anything from this thread, or feel it's doing you harm, why force that onto yourself?

I apologise if I've contributed to you feeling this way, if that's worth anything.

It wasn't you, it was the accusation that I don't believe it's possible for a drunk male to be taken advantage of a few pages ago. ("Hey! You don't believe it's possible for that thing that happened to you to happen to males!")

And I post in these in the vain hope that I might actually be able to convince people to be nicer to one another, as foolish as that may be.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

#3 is actually cool. A little bit of sexiness, but a cool concept.

"A little bit" is kind of a funny way to put it since she has a cleavage cutout, bare entire lower part of torso, tiny pants and a garter belt. Let's call it the kinksuit it actually is.

Excuse me, did you ignore #1? She's far more covered up than the Mortal Kombat girls.

Yes, I ignored your comments on the first picture because there wasn't anything there for me to particularly disagree with. It looks like Mortal Kombat as far as I am aware. That the Boba Fett lady is only half naked instead of mostly naked doesn't stop referring to her outfit as "a little bit of sexiness" from being funny.

 Goliath wrote:
And I post in these in the vain hope that I might actually be able to convince people to be nicer to one another, as foolish as that may be.

This thread was in response to an article that framed the problem of unfair treatment of women in gaming spaces as terrorism.

People are tired of being called racist, sexist, bigots, whatever when they know they are not. To add terrorist... and then act surprised that the message is not well received?

 Goliath wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.

The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...

Yeah, look at all the people in this thread refusing to have a dialogue! They've just immediately shut down any and all debate and insisted on shouting down their opponents.

Meanwhile, your side of the debate is a shining example of the ideal debater. Open to new ideas, willing to discuss them, capable of seeing other people's views, and definitely not dismissing the OP out of hand and basing all subsequent interactions from the premise that there is no issue whatsoever.

Personally, my experience in this debate has been brilliant. I *definitely* haven't seen *any* instances of people arguing in bad faith, or making assumptions about the people they're disagreeing with. I've had so. much. fun. in this thread.

so much.

Yeah sure, because you represent all/[i] "SJW's".

When people say that typical "SJW's" aren't interested in dialogue, they're talking about the people who actually do try to shut down debate and free speech, no platform people they disagree with, conduct hate campaigns etc. You're here, debating the issue, ergo you are by definition [i]not a typical "SJW". The fact that you behave yourself does not change the fact that the typical person " on your side" does not.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yeah sure, because you represent all/[i] "SJW's".

When people say that typical "SJW's" aren't interested in dialogue, they're talking about the people who actually do try to shut down debate and free speech, no platform people they disagree with, conduct hate campaigns etc. You're here, debating the issue, ergo you are by definition [i]not a typical "SJW". The fact that you behave yourself does not change the fact that the typical person " on your side" does not.

Here's the thing though. They aren't here.

In every single one of these threads you have one side attempting to argue against a group of people that isn't partaking in the discussion because they just don't exist on this forum. The other side then spends the entire thread debating with strawmen about what "SJW said X" or "Tumblr users would advocate Y", with the result that you get people on this forum (me, for example) being accused of holding legitimately hurtful positions because they have the temerity to disagree with the mob.

Are they a fringe outlier? Do they hold the majority opinion? Do they even exist outside of Tumblr and some university student unions? Who the feth cares? They're not taking part in this debate, so why are you people lowering yourselves to their level of discourse? If they're as bad as you advocate then you're dirtying yourself by sinking to their level when there are perfectly sane, rational people on here being driven away from discussions on this subject area due to the sheer vitriol that gets thrown in their general direction in an attempt to balance the SJWs.

Please. Make better posts. Because the level of anger and hatred in these discussions is driving intelligent, rational posters to either leave or start posting arguments that they are absolutely better than.

People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.

 MattofWar wrote:
People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.

Or perhaps people should take a long, hard look about what they "know".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 MattofWar wrote:
People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.

Or perhaps people should take a long, hard look about what they "know".

If a given individual can't know their own positions on things, how can we tell what their positions are?

They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they? Their racism and sexism must be unconscious and ingrained and beyond their ability to be aware of it.

Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male. That's how the sexism and racism shame game works.

 MattofWar wrote:
People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.

So the response to someone using hyperbole to illustrate that there is a perceived problem in a community isn't to consider their point and look at whether there might be a problem, it is in fact to shout and get angry about them *daring* to insinuate that there might be a problem.

There is absolutely no problem and how dare she suggest that. I know exactly what she has experienced and she is 100% for sure lying about everything she wrote in that post because my experiences are universal and so I know with absolute certainty that no-one has ever experienced harassment in this community.

 MattofWar wrote:
If a given individual can't know their own positions on things, how can we tell what their positions are?

Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male.

They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they?

Oh hey, it's the lesser-spotted argument in bad faith! It's been a couple of days since I've seen one, but they seem to pop up in this thread fairly regularly for some reason. And you know the fun part? This is about five posts below my post about debating arguments that the people in this thread are actually making, rather than what some hypothetical SJW bogeyman from Tumblr might argue. Take a wild guess at which one you're doing.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The fact that you behave yourself does not change the fact that the typical person " on your side" does not.

Apart from the fact that it takes an immature, not yet fully formed or fully capable mind (intellectually) to talk in "they" vs. "us" as if it was something binary, when there are clearly several "they"s and "us"s and probably lots of people who are members of both "they" and "us", depending on what adjectives you use to define them, and apart from making the (rather ridiculous) assumption that there is a cohesive, organized "they"[i.e. SJW]-movement, to begin with, at least in a sense that could move a sensible discussion forward, I find it a bit condescending (and hence ironic, coming from an ostensibly immature mind) to tell someone they behaved (well).

I know there ARE people who run around in SJW- t-shirts or who claim to be part of a "movement" but it is not the place of non-SJW-party members to titulate others as SJW, when clearly all they want to say "a-holes that want to spoil my pleasures by having a different opinion from mine".

As others have said before, sensible people should really know beforehand if they want to participate in a forum discussion, because a) it is THE INTERNET, b) it is the OT subforum, for FSM sake! and c) even if it was not, a lot of Dakkanites are literally teenagers or early twens.

Which I do not think is something bad per se, but having been a teenager and twen and having had lots of teenagers and twens as friends while being a teenager and twen, I think I am entitled to the observation that teenagers and to a lesser extent twens, especially males, usually know gak about gak and are biologically coded to see in black and white only, while deeming themselves to be the kings of the world and certainly more clever than their parents, teachers and other people with a lot more life experience (if anything, it is not like dumb people are forced to get smarter when they get older...).
- Not exactly the best prerequisites to contribute to a fruitful or positive discussion.

More fun, but do not expect to get enlightenment out of it!

I think the woman in the OP-quoted article sounded a bit over the top, almost as if there was something to the theory that certain people attract abuse (which would be a really sad thought). But I certainly did not feel attacked by it. She said basically, that the attitudes of a minor part of the gaming community toward women is horrible (sexual abuse, sexist opinions), and that a lot of of the rest do not care enough or as much as they should (if they were decent human beings). Wrapped in a lot of anger but a) it is the internet and b) if what she wrote was true, I would be angry, as well.

And if I am to take this thread as a representation of that community (with all the caveats this has to have) : Well, I tend to agree!

My experience of tabletop gaming is a totally different one, but then I am a male, the number of women in my gaming groups has never been higher than 1in4, we were always very happy to have them around - without resorting to groping, drugging or chanting stupid sexists things (more than once in a while and then not apologizing for it, at least).

And now I am old enough and mature enough to not hang around with immature a-holes in real life (more than I have to). That is reserved to the internet.
Maybe I was just lucky that my two main occupations as a teenager were video games and girls, so rarely had to suffer from social situations where I was crowd-minded by other testosterone-driven teenage males into being a sheeple follower and being ashamed of it afterwards?

 Goliath wrote:
So the response to someone using hyperbole to illustrate that there is a perceived problem in a community isn't to consider their point and look at whether there might be a problem, it is in fact to shout and get angry about them *daring* to insinuate that there might be a problem.

No. I'm not getting angry that they dare to insinuate that their might be a problem. I'm getting angry at the constant accusations of sexism, racism and bigotry at the community as a whole. When someone commits a crime, those who share a skin color or gender with the criminal are not guilty by association. Neither are they complicit.

I am also angry when people intentionally shake the confidence of women in the process of reporting sexual assault. That's reprehensible. Most jurisdictions (including Winnipeg and Brandon where the author is saying these events took place) have a very rigid protocol for sexual assault complaints. They will make sure you are currently safe. Then direct you to the closest place where forensic evidence will be collected (by all female nurses). Investigators will meet you there and advise you on how the system will proceed.

I'm disgusted at the thought that someone might not report an assault because of articles like this one which presents doing so as a waste of time.

There is absolutely no problem and how dare she suggest that. I know exactly what she has experienced and she is 100% for sure lying about everything she wrote in that post because my experiences are universal and so I know with absolute certainty that no-one has ever experienced harassment in this community.

The appropriate response to hearing someone's tale of discrimination is not to "listen and believe." It's to weigh the actual words and come to your own conclusion. Do you honestly believe that a 13 year old girl went into a retail location and a group of men all chanted "old enough to bleed old enough to breed" and yet no one else who has gone to this store has had any such experience worth reporting? Why aren't the Winnipeg community pages blowing up with allegations? That's what happens when there is a real problem-- there are multiple victims and they come forward.

Another serious problem with the piece is that it makes allegations against specific companies and people from the safety of relative anonymity. No one can defend themselves. The pressganger for Winnipeg and Brandon was a specific person (two people actually, but only one was active) in 2007. There's just enough information that anyone in the local communities can figure out who she is talking about. She alleges they laughed off sexual assault that she experienced when it happened right in front of him. That is a specific person in a real gaming community (I have the two names of the two pressgangers in the area at the time). Now they have to prove a negative from almost 10 years ago or be thought of as a sexist who was complicit in a sexual assault?

Should I post their names so we can all shame them (or just the one who was active at the time) based on an unsubstantiated accusation of an incident from a decade ago?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:
Oh hey, it's the lesser-spotted argument in bad faith! It's been a couple of days since I've seen one, but they seem to pop up in this thread fairly regularly for some reason. And you know the fun part? This is about five posts below my post about debating arguments that the people in this thread are actually making, rather than what some hypothetical SJW bogeyman from Tumblr might argue. Take a wild guess at which one you're doing.

My response was in direct response to another poster's comment! WTF?! I quoted the exact post I was replying to in my post. Now who's showing bad faith?

The only legitimate response to the idea that you can be a racist or sexist and not know it is to ask how others know it. And this idea of ingrained or cultural racism and sexism always comes down to the same thing. Are you male? Ingrained cultural sexist. Are you white? Ingrained cultural racist.

Sorry, but I do know that I don't discriminate against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, relgion or anything else. I bet most of the people on Dakka know they are not bigots too.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.

You misspelled uncomfortable. You don't give a damn how uncomfortable you might make people, you will not behave like a beta.
Hint: you can try chest-thumbing to accentuate your words, next time. Because that is definitely how you come out when you say how much you won't ever change your behavior to accommodate other peoples because that would be WEAK and UNMANLY.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.

It is funny you mention the burka, because that is basically what any good Islamist apologist would say. “If you don't wear the veil, people will treat you like gak and will be justified in doing so”. At least those are not beta, am I right?

 Kojiro wrote:
The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...

I think what you mean is “Some personalities are definitely not willing to engage with every angry random who decided that he is ENTITLED to have a debate even though there are literally hundreds of people with the very same opinion and arguments that are asking for the same, making having a discussion with each one something multiple people could have a full-time job doing”.

 MattofWar wrote:
They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they? Their racism and sexism must be unconscious and ingrained and beyond their ability to be aware of it.

Yeah. It's backed up by a lot of experiment.


Add an healthy dose of “there’s none so deaf as those who will not hear” in some case. If someone is extremely angry, and double down on how he is right to be angry, when someone suggests that he might be sexist, I am pretty sure he is not going to do a lot in term of introspection on the subject .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MattofWar wrote:
Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male.

Nope. Go to my video at 12:03 in the above video.

I accept all of that research. I just don't believe that anyone who is making an conscious attempt to treat everyone fairly should still be considered a racist or sexist because of an unconscious bias that exists on average. Sorry, but people can actually choose to be fair to others despite their unconscious baggage.

I know that I'm not a bigot. I know this because I am aware of unconscious bias and still act in a manner that is non discriminatory.

Everyone should look into their unconscious biases and then not treat others poorly. That way you can know you are not a sexist and it is unfair when someone lumps you in with those who sexually assault and calls you complicit with acts you did not commit.

People should be sick of constantly being called racist or sexist when they know they are not. And if we do come across someone who thinks they are not sexist but we think they are, instead of calling them a white terrorist, maybe we should share this google video with them so they can come to understand that there are unconscious issues to overcome.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MattofWar wrote:
They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they? Their racism and sexism must be unconscious and ingrained and beyond their ability to be aware of it.

Yeah. It's backed up by a lot of experiment.

Spoiler:

Add an healthy dose of “there’s none so deaf as those who will not hear” in some case. If someone is extremely angry, and double down on how he is right to be angry, when someone suggests that he might be sexist, I am pretty sure he is not going to do a lot in term of introspection on the subject .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MattofWar wrote:
Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male.

Nope. Go to my video at 12:03 in the above video.

The whole unconscious biases means people are still racist is total BS. Racism and other forms of bigotry is all about peoples beliefs. Believing in something means that you accept the idea in your conscious mind. A person who does not belief in racism but has unconscious biases, like every person living btw, is not racist. The only way you can claim they are is if you move the goal posts and change the definition of the terms you are using.

Formal defintion of racism according to google:

racism
Defintion of belief


Edit: If I say I believe in god. That means I have consciously accepted that idea. You can not unconsciously belief in god.

 MattofWar wrote:
Sorry, but people can actually choose to be fair to others despite their unconscious baggage.

They definitely can try. But the thing about unconscious bias is that, well, you don't notice it. And the more you are angry when people tell you you are being racist, or sexist, the less you are going to listen to them, and the easiest it will be for those unconscious bias to remain unnoticed.
Am I right on that?
Seems to me that you are very, very sensitive about being called racist or sexist (because it hurts your feelings) and that this can't help you to root out those unconscious bias.

You can't use unconscious actions/reactions as an excuse to castigate somebody. That's like being mad at somebody for blinking. If it's an unconscious ingrained response then the person isn't doing it deliberately or with any malicious intent. There will always be a certain amount of personal bias in each of us but that minimal ingrained subconscious bias isn't going to harm society, it's just an inherent part of human nature.

People should be held accountable for the actions they choose to take or abstain from taking not for ingrained subconscious responses. Macro reactions to subconscious micro biases is a disproportionate level of response.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
The whole unconscious biases means people are still racist is total BS. Racism and other forms of bigotry is all about peoples beliefs. Believing in something means that you accept the idea in your conscious mind. A person who does not belief in racism but has unconscious biases, like every person living btw, is not racist. The only way you can claim they are is if you move the goal posts and change the definition of the terms you are using.

Formal defintion of racism according to google:

Whoah! So you are not racist, you are just treating people differently because of their skin color! That means there is no problem and we should all be very happy and not change a thing!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
The whole unconscious biases means people are still racist is total BS. Racism and other forms of bigotry is all about peoples beliefs. Believing in something means that you accept the idea in your conscious mind. A person who does not belief in racism but has unconscious biases, like every person living btw, is not racist. The only way you can claim they are is if you move the goal posts and change the definition of the terms you are using.

Formal defintion of racism according to google:

Whoah! So you are not racist, you are just treating people differently because of their skin color! That means there is no problem and we should all be very happy and not change a thing!

Unconscious bias does not equal racist. Sorry but it is the truth. Also I never said there weren't problems.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MattofWar wrote:
Sorry, but people can actually choose to be fair to others despite their unconscious baggage.

They definitely can try. But the thing about unconscious bias is that, well, you don't notice it. And the more you are angry when people tell you you are being racist, or sexist, the less you are going to listen to them, and the easiest it will be for those unconscious bias to remain unnoticed.
Am I right on that?
Seems to me that you are very, very sensitive about being called racist or sexist (because it hurts your feelings) and that this can't help you to root out those unconscious bias.

Just because somebody accuses you of being racist or sexist doesn't automatically mean that you are racist or sexist. It'sa subjective opinion about the perception of somebody's actions or speech. It's not an objectively quantifiable distinction. It's like a sense of humor, just because you don't think a joke somebody tells you is funny doesn't mean it's objectively not funny and the person who told you the joke is wrong to think it's funny.

There is one way I now realize I have been very stupid in this thread.

The original article was an hyperbolic attempt at getting attention. I gave the attention.

I'm committed to treating everyone equally. If that's not enough for some people I don't know what to tell you.

If anyone wants more people to be committed to equality, I would caution against the use of comparisons to terrorism and accusations of being complicit with crimes. It just polarizes the issue and gets people like me to argue against you when we really should be on the same side (treating everyone equally).