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.

Sining wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.

Not being american, I'm not sure but can't you carry guns normally in America?

Completely dependent on State.

In California, it's a big no.

So you can own a gun but you can't carry it around? Do you just keep it at home then

Sining wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.

Not being american, I'm not sure but can't you carry guns normally in America?

Generally speaking yes. There are some states that have no laws against open carry of a firearm. some require a permit to legally carry (with ammunition). Most of the time there are legal, "Gun Free Zones" which disallow people from carrying within that area. Elementary, middle and high schools are the prime example of this, as are banks.

Some colleges allow people who are legally "allowed" to carry, to do so on campus, and apparently the venue that Anita was supposed to speak at is one such place.

Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.

Sining wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny
Word Origin
noun
1.
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Your spin is remarkable

It is always irritating when people quote the dictionary to me, as if I am not an native speaker and as if dictionaries are complete records of all ideas a language is capable of expressing.

As for "spin" -- Women make up roughly half of the population. Just considering the ratio, women are clearly inestimably important to the constitution of society. A point of view that despises women for being women is hostile to society generally as a matter of logic.

The real "victim" in all this is the inability to have a rational discussion or heaven forbid, a debate in this charged environment.
We have media "celebrities" with polarizing viewpoints acting as lightening rods for anti-social fanatics (on either side you choose).

If I criticize Anita's work as being too simplistic and painting things in large strokes I can be labeled as a "hater" since she is in need of support of these personal attacks.
If I agree that there are many instances of what Anita pointed out that are "exactly" as she indicated and are "wrong" = in need of change, am I in the right?
Like with taking on any controversial topic, debate, discussion, finding a middle ground is usually what is needed.
Unfortunately Anita's more radical opponents would like to silence her end of the discussion and she and Zoe have had to prevent comments or discussions of various media they have control over.

The discussions are not going to happen, just a lot of yelling from the soapbox.
Anita was about to be able to get her message out with a university talk, the radicals feeling jealous, threaten her (and possibly meant to back it up with real action) since I guess they had no better means to get press time.

I wonder if Anita signed-on for a debate of what would be the best means of "reforming" the gaming industry: getting at root cause if the threats would have happened?
I am a fan of lively discussion, give and take, passively taking-in an Anita "appearance" is just another one-sided preach-fest which is getting frightfully boring on both sides.

 Talizvar wrote:
The real "victim" in all this is the inability to have a rational discussion or heaven forbid, a debate in this charged environment.
We have media "celebrities" with polarizing viewpoints acting as lightening rods for anti-social fanatics (on either side you choose).

If I criticize Anita's work as being too simplistic and painting things in large strokes I can be labeled as a "hater" since she is in need of support of these personal attacks.
If I agree that there are many instances of what Anita pointed out that are "exactly" as she indicated and are "wrong" = in need of change, am I in the right?
Like with taking on any controversial topic, debate, discussion, finding a middle ground is usually what is needed.
Unfortunately Anita's more radical opponents would like to silence her end of the discussion and she and Zoe have had to prevent comments or discussions of various media they have control over.

The discussions are not going to happen, just a lot of yelling from the soapbox.
Anita was about to be able to get her message out with a university talk, the radicals feeling jealous, threaten her (and possibly meant to back it up with real action) since I guess they had no better means to get press time.

I wonder if Anita signed-on for a debate of what would be the best means of "reforming" the gaming industry: getting at root cause if the threats would have happened?
I am a fan of lively discussion, give and take, passively taking-in an Anita "appearance" is just another one-sided preach-fest which is getting frightfully boring on both sides.

I think Anita would have an easier time of getting her point across if there wasn't so much bias; even going back to her kickstarter, she was putting the conclusion before the research ("I will show how", instead of "I will see if", for instance). Doing such paints a target on your back faster than most things you can do.

I for one would be incredibly happy if Anita were to stop talking, but not like this. These sorts of means (The threats) are just absolutely despicable.



Before anyone says anything, I want Anita to stop talking because she's wrong, not because she shouldn't have a voice.

There was kind of never going to be a rational discussion. We all knew as the verdicts were in before the kickstarter was even finished.

If anything, the only reason there is now a public discussion of the issue is because of Anita Sarkeesian. So, kind of have to pick which you prefer. A cluster feth discussion about an issue, or no discussion at all.

 Manchu wrote:
Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.

Not in the state of Utah! We're freakin' backwards, and it's pathetic.

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that U of U made literally no effort, at all, to try and create a safe environment for their speakers. Just in general. It's Utah. It's legal to carry a concealed weapon pretty much anywhere in the entire state, even on private property you do not own. Frankly I am not surprised there hasn't been a death on a Utah collegiate/university from a controversial speaker yet.

Though now that the cat is out of the bag because this is gaining enough traction nationwide, I'm sure some sycophant will capitalize on it.

 Manchu wrote:
Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.

Sining wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny
Word Origin
noun
1.
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Your spin is remarkable

It is always irritating when people quote the dictionary to me, as if I am not an native speaker and as if dictionaries are complete records of all ideas a language is capable of expressing.

As for "spin" -- Women make up roughly half of the population. Just considering the ratio, women are clearly inestimably important to the constitution of society. A point of view that despises women for being women is hostile to society generally as a matter of logic.

Ah yes, because your definition is special isn't it and that's the one that should be followed instead of what's actually written in whats the most commonly used reference guide for the language and the meaning of its words. I guess in the future, when struggling non-english speaking people learn english for the first time, they'll learn of misogyny as the being a hatred for society.

Also point A doesn't follow point B even logically. If it was, it would be the SAME WORD, not different. And you might as well lump misandrist into that new word you're considering making up as well since by that logic, people who hate men hate society as well. Since you're so open to creating new meanings, maybe you want to have the honor of creating this new word

nomotog wrote:
I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.

You do know that the majority of US states are now CHL states right? I doubt some angry neckbeard has even heard of a CHL much less have one.

The saddest part of this thread is how dismissive some people have become to the idea of an innocent person (who you may or may not agree with,) being murdered for believing in something and wanting to talk about it.

Sining wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.

Sining wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny
Word Origin
noun
1.
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Your spin is remarkable

It is always irritating when people quote the dictionary to me, as if I am not an native speaker and as if dictionaries are complete records of all ideas a language is capable of expressing.

As for "spin" -- Women make up roughly half of the population. Just considering the ratio, women are clearly inestimably important to the constitution of society. A point of view that despises women for being women is hostile to society generally as a matter of logic.

Ah yes, because your definition is special isn't it and that's the one that should be followed instead of what's actually written in whats the most commonly used reference guide for the language and the meaning of its words. I guess in the future, when struggling non-english speaking people learn english for the first time, they'll learn of misogyny as the being a hatred for society.

Also point A doesn't follow point B even logically. If it was, it would be the SAME WORD, not different. And you might as well lump misandrist into that new word you're considering making up as well since by that logic, people who hate men hate society as well. Since you're so open to creating new meanings, maybe you want to have the honor of creating this new word

Definition does not always equal meaning, and many words have uses outside of the simplistic definitions in the dictionary. Sorry.

And even worse, I recall my professor calling it the 'beginners guide to English', as the language as a whole is so complicated and evolves so frequently that what is contained inside is almost constantly outdated but for what has become static information.

I'm pretty sure all of the people in the thread condemn the threat even if they don't care for the individual


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Definition pretty much means meaning. You can have your own definitions, your own special meanings but at some point, when you want to have a rational discourse with someone, there must be a common framework and it does not come when one person has their own special meanings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, language evolves over time but as I've said, you need a common framework and the idea of misogyny = hatred of society as Manchu would like to claim isn't a widespread idea or even a common idea.

Sining wrote:
because your definition is special isn't it

To the extent that I have done so ITT, I have defined misogyny as hatred of women. As a separate matter, I am saying that misogyny is bad for all of society, not just women. The Elliot massacre example is relevant: this is a guy who was angry at everyone in society because he viewed women as things that he should get to possess.

Threatening women with violence because they want to speak publicly about misogyny is another good example of how misogyny is bad for all of society.

Sining wrote:
I'm pretty sure all of the people in the thread condemn the threat even if they don't care for the individual


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Definition pretty much means meaning. You can have your own definitions, your own special meanings but at some point, when you want to have a rational discourse with someone, there must be a common framework and it does not come when one person has their own special meanings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, language evolves over time but as I've said, you need a common framework and the idea of misogyny = hatred of society as Manchu would like to claim isn't a widespread idea or even a common idea.

And pretty much doesn't mean it does. :| Not in English, French, Spanish, or much anything else. If your theory were true, Google translate would be an impenetrable wall of language goodness.

I also never said anyone condoned it. I said they were dismissive. Go count the amount of 'lol probs hoax' posts. If you didn't think it was real and yet thought it was an issue, wouldn't you come into a thread about it to say more than you think it's a hoax?

Sining wrote:
Definition pretty much means meaning.

No it doesn't. For examnple, dictionary definitions try to capture denotative meaning and often do not address connotative meaning.

Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to all of society -- not just women.

I have no idea. You'd have to ask the people who made the comments because I can't read their minds, including if they were dismissive of the idea or not.

Okay, let me put it this way, Definition MEANS meaning. And I don't understand what you mean by an impenetrable wall of language goodness. Again, this might be due to lacking a common framework.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

I'm sorry I must have misunderstood you then. Considering misogyny is a hatred of women and you just claimed it's anti-everyone instead I would have assumed you meant it was a hatred of everyone. Although again though, I would point out that A doesn't necessarily follow B

Sining wrote:
I have no idea. You'd have to ask the people who made the comments because I can't read their minds, including if they were dismissive of the idea or not.

Okay, let me put it this way, Definition MEANS meaning. And I don't understand what you mean by an impenetrable wall of language goodness. Again, this might be due to lacking a common framework.

Manchu wrote: Misogyny is hating women.
Women = 50% of the population
Misogyny is hating 50% of the population
Misogyny is bad for the population

I do believe.

 Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.

You do know that the majority of US states are now CHL states right? I doubt some angry neckbeard has even heard of a CHL much less have one.

All states allowed concealed carry actually. The details of who can get permits or where you can go armed varies though.

Sining wrote:
I have no idea. You'd have to ask the people who made the comments because I can't read their minds, including if they were dismissive of the idea or not.

Okay, let me put it this way, Definition MEANS meaning. And I don't understand what you mean by an impenetrable wall of language goodness. Again, this might be due to lacking a common framework.

Ever type a French or Spanish sentence into Google translate and tried to send it to someone who speaks it natively?

It's not the same. The word's definitions are not what they always really mean.

Regardless, this isn't on topic, so I'll be letting this go, as you seem to be far more inclined to fight over semantics than ideas. It's not the opposing party's fault if you can't grasp abstract ideas, and they have no need to come "down to your level."

But are you listening and believing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there IS a difference between grammar and dictionary definitions. Google translate has little to no issues (I in fact want to say no issues with translating individual words since I haven't had a trouble) with translating individual words, which would support the supposition that definitions are static. Yet it has trouble when you chain a bunch of words together.

I can grasp that certain people would like to argue that their definitions are just as valid in their arguments. But really, lol no.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to society.

You really didn't make that clear with the post Sining is referring to:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

Your meaning is vague, and your second point is the problem. Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"? If hate is hostile to society (which I agree it is) why specifically link misogyny, which is understood to mean hate of women, to include men and women? It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.

From a statistical standpoint I am 'dismissive' of threats against Anita's life. There have arguably been thousands of death threats made against her, and a grand total of zero of them have actually been carried out.

Those are pretty strong numbers.

Sining wrote:
Nothing? I'm sure in the span of human experiences, there are events that would make people feel strongly about gaming. But I wasn't aware you were omniscient with the ability to be able straight away be able to tell that NOTHING justifies this kind of response. My fault, I didn't realise I was arguing with a god

I cannot think of a single opinion you might express that would justify threats of violence and sexual assault against you and those around you. While I'm not 100% up to date on these allegedly/possibly faked or exaggerated threats of late, people *were* making "beat up Anita" games around the time of the KS, and some of the comments made on videos I saw about her were truly vile. Like, 'made the average Youtube comments look good and eloquent' kinda garbage.

Purely as an example;

"I disagree with your opinions and feel you are misrepresenting a complicated issue." is one thing.

"I WANT TO RAPE YOU UNTIL YOU DIE AND THEN DO IT SOME MORE" is another.

People have pointed out that all public figures deal with risks of harassment and threats. I doubt many male public figures deal with remotely the same threats of sexual violence against them. Which is, in fact, not entirely tangential to some of the issues that her works are trying to address.

Full disclosure, I backed the KS and while I've fallen a bit behind on the video releases (spread out as they are), even if I disagree with some of her statements, I do agree with many of the general points made.

 Bromsy wrote:
From a statistical standpoint I am 'dismissive' of threats against Anita's life. There have arguably been thousands of death threats made against her, and a grand total of zero of them have actually been carried out.

Those are pretty strong numbers.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure that helps her sleep at night. "None of these nutbars have actually managed to violate or kill me yet, clearly it's not that big a deal."

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to society.

You really didn't make that clear with the post Sining is referring to:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

I did not anticipate that Sining or you or anyone else here would confuse a definition with an argument or vice versa. I stand by the argument that misogyny is anti-society.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"?

Because this thread deals with misogyny. If the thread dealt with racism, I would have posted

Racism is not just anti-(Black, Hispanic, White, etc); it is anti-everyone. Hatred of people based on race is hostile to society generally.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.

I dispute there is anything at all confusing about the statement that misoyny is hostile to society generally. Sining's strawman argument about me mis-defining the term misogyny is a red herring.

It doesn't really matter that the death threats won't be carried out. It matters that they were made.

The efforts to silence Sarkesian are bad because there should be no problem with letting her speak to people who want to listen to her, or make videos for people who want to watch them. She is not advocating genocide or violence that I have seen, so what's the harm? You may disagree with her and find her videos poorly made and poorly argued, that's fine. Feel free to ignore her. Silencing her is not required, nor should it be desired.

I mean, I hesitate to wade into the whole debate, but I am just surprised that people can have such an extreme reaction to someone pointing out that video games often portray women in a negative light, or develop female characters less than male characters. I would have thought that was obvious. Picking on the specific examples and getting angry over how the arguments are made seems to be like missing the woods for the trees here.

I have no idea why I'm being quoted at all in Forars post but I'm going to put it this way. I'm not justifying threats made on Anita. If you're quoting me, you'll notice I was responding to Scooty saying nothing should make people this obsessed with video games. Now keep in mind, this in a world where people can end up taking some pretty dark paths, so to use the definitive 'nothing' is kinda ludicrous, especially on a gaming forum where most people here feel somewhat strongly about gaming; but no where near strongly enough to threaten each other over.

If people can be driven to murder each other for stupid reasons, why can't video games be one of that reasons.

Whatever happened to people embracing the freedom to express ones self? Of freedom of speech? Of "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it!"?

It always baffles me how threatened some people can get over someone saying something like "Gee, maybe it'd be nice if there were more non-sex kitten female characters in games."

I consider myself a gamer, I love going to Video Games Live, contributing to a forum based on a gaming webcomic, but it is not impossible to step back and look critically at the very industry that provides me so much entertainment. And y'know what? Yeah, a little diversity would be nice. Not practically every (note, hyperbole present) lead character needs to be a grizzled white guy with short brown hair (/Yahtzee). There is room to embrace a broader/more diverse spectrum of humanity in gaming, and perhaps help draw in more people to the medium.

Efforts like this (*sigh* allegedly, at least) to silence that critical voice speaks poorly of the mind so afraid of someone simply providing a contrary opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sining wrote:
I have no idea why I'm being quoted at all in Forars post but I'm going to put it this way. I'm not justifying threats made on Anita. If you're quoting me, you'll notice I was responding to Scooty saying nothing should make people this obsessed with video games. Now keep in mind, this in a world where people can end up taking some pretty dark paths, so to use the definitive 'nothing' is kinda ludicrous, especially on a gaming forum where most people here feel somewhat strongly about gaming; but no where near strongly enough to threaten each other over.

If people can be driven to murder each other for stupid reasons, why can't video games be one of that reasons.

People being unhinged or unhealthy is not justification.

There is NO *opinion* that should lead to threats against your safety. Calling someone a donkey cave is one thing. Threatening to find them and harm them is another.

Some people being crazy (in terms of serious mental illness or just being terrible people) doesn't change that this is unacceptable behaviour. Not uncommon or surprising, but unacceptable all the same.

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to society.

You really didn't make that clear with the post Sining is referring to:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

I did not anticipate that Sining or you or anyone else here would confuse a definition with an argument or vice versa. I stand by the argument that misogyny is anti-society.

Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"?

Because this thread deals with misogyny. If the thread dealt with racism, I would have posted

Racism is not just anti-(Black, Hispanic, White, etc); it is anti-everyone. Hatred of people based on race is hostile to society generally.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.

I dispute there is anything at all confusing about the statement that misoyny is hostile to society generally. Sining's strawman argument about me mis-defining the term misogyny is a red herring.

No, Sining's argument about your misconstruing the word misogyny is about you misconstruing the word misogyny despite your attempts to spin it. A red herring about what?

Sining wrote:
I have no idea why I'm being quoted at all in Forars post but I'm going to put it this way. I'm not justifying threats made on Anita. If you're quoting me, you'll notice I was responding to Scooty saying nothing should make people this obsessed with video games. Now keep in mind, this in a world where people can end up taking some pretty dark paths, so to use the definitive 'nothing' is kinda ludicrous, especially on a gaming forum where most people here feel somewhat strongly about gaming; but no where near strongly enough to threaten each other over.

If people can be driven to murder each other for stupid reasons, why can't video games be one of that reasons.

I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.