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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
No thats not at all what I siad...

You said:

"in my experience its usually only the people who are annoying who get insulted"

And...

"If you find yourself being insulted frequently maybe you are just being annoying?"

These are your words, not mine. This is what you said. And your conclusion is nonsense, based on ass-pulls instead of facts.

Compare that to this:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7.

No difference in actions, just different names. Result? 27 times more insults directed at feminine names over masculine ones.

Or this:
http://www.themarysue.com/academic-study-game-harassment/

In order to standardize the experimental conditions, verbal messages were pre-recorded in both a male and female voice. These were made up of unassuming things such as “hi everybody,” “nice job so far,” and “thanks for the game, bye.” The researchers then played public matches, transmitting the messages via voice chat. Matches played without engaging in voice chat were used as a control.
[...]
Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice. In addition, the female voice received more queries and more messages from other gamers than the male voice or no voice.

Again, no difference in actions, nothing "annoying"-- merely a change in voices and usernames. Female voices received three times more harassment and insults than male voices.

That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's studies showing a similar, if less extreme bias even within the scientific community. Pretending that the gamer community doesn't have a problem with misogyny doesn't make the problem go away. It really just makes it worse.

 Melissia wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.

Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.

The most recent data I've seen actually suggests the opposite - men receive more online threats, harassment, etc... But the types of harassment directed at women tend to be more offensive.

Of the studies I've seen (several of which have been part of rotation of quotes in my signature in the past, actually), the number has been well above a 3:1 ratio of harassment sent towards women vs sent towards men. My personal experience mirrors this. Not only is the harassment greater in quantity, but it also tends to be more vicious.

Actually I've seen statistics that show that men are more likely to be harassed overall. As I spoke with somebody in person as a joke. The internet will never be pleased with you. Ignore it, it'll rage. Accept it, it'll rage. There is no peace, there is no safety. There is only war.

Also Adept really? Murder is a justified crime is a silly thing to argue and it really makes no difference to I am going to murder you. Murder = beat, rape = beat. Both are unsavory terms though. Honestly at most I use rekt and stomped though, maybe owned here and there but that's about it.

And to Swastakowey... on the internet? Being insulted is a part of it. Everyone's annoying on the internet to somebody and there's nobody that's spent a significant time on the internet without being spat at with some negative bile or something of the sort.

Also gamers isn't some lump to toss in some category of misogynists. Some are going to, some are going to be misandrists, a lot are going to be emotional, and a ton are just going to be ordinary people that tend to just live their life, do stupid things, make mistakes, and move on (but from then on all their posts, all their foolish posts will be on the internet. Forever. *screams*)

 StarTrotter wrote:
Actually I've seen statistics that show that men are more likely to be harassed overall.

Citation needed. The weight of evidence is against your claim, so I'm assuming it's an ass-pull.

Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Can't find it but there's a list about the top individuals as well based on professions. It's actually interesting to break it all down

And fwiw, 'I am going to murder this girl' sounds pretty nasty to me too.

Not quite as loaded as rape though.

 Ashiraya wrote:
And fwiw, 'I am going to murder this girl' sounds pretty nasty to me too.

Not disagreeing with that. The whole "I am going to murder you/thisgirl/thisguy" is all stupid but then again I've seen arguments over homosexuality with the most violent insults lobbed at each other on a video about coffee. It's a shame people can't be as empathetic as they are in person when they are online.

From the link you gave:

Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Underlying misogyny?

Oh Jesus...

It seems you failed your Blather test. Reroll with a fate point?

 Melissia wrote:
From the link you gave:

Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.

Honestly that's strange considering what it's immediately followed up with. Still, I think it's important to note that it's more everyone's getting screwed in the end. Also a question as to why it's focused on younger women particularly when added with the on average notation.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Still, I think it's important to note that it's more everyone's getting screwed in the end.

Not when people use that as a justification for the status quo.

Also, look at the three links I gave above, which show three separate studies of much higher quality than the Pew poll.

StarTrotter: I have not ever seen anyone seriously try to defend rape. There is definitely a difference between the two. You really believe there is no difference in the crimes?

 Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
No thats not at all what I siad...

You said:

"in my experience its usually only the people who are annoying who get insulted"

And...

"If you find yourself being insulted frequently maybe you are just being annoying?"

These are your words, not mine. This is what you said. And your conclusion is nonsense, based on ass-pulls instead of facts.

Compare that to this:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7.

No difference in actions, just different names. Result? 27 times more insults directed at feminine names over masculine ones.

Or this:
http://www.themarysue.com/academic-study-game-harassment/

In order to standardize the experimental conditions, verbal messages were pre-recorded in both a male and female voice. These were made up of unassuming things such as “hi everybody,” “nice job so far,” and “thanks for the game, bye.” The researchers then played public matches, transmitting the messages via voice chat. Matches played without engaging in voice chat were used as a control.
[...]
Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice. In addition, the female voice received more queries and more messages from other gamers than the male voice or no voice.

Again, no difference in actions, nothing "annoying"-- merely a change in voices and usernames. Female voices received three times more harassment and insults than male voices.

That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's studies showing a similar, if less extreme bias even within the scientific community. Pretending that the gamer community doesn't have a problem with misogyny doesn't make the problem go away. It really just makes it worse.

I would like to see a link to all the accounts made in these tests. I wanna see that there is no bias in these studies. When I read this all I can see is a case of "he said she said".

My partner receives no special insults on the internet. Heck if anything she is treated better. I can use her voice on DayZ and people are surprised and it can get me out of situations. With my own voice I simply get shot. No threats, no rape talk no nothing. Not even on CoD.

Instantly I have the same evidence your studies has (I looked through, found some quotes at best as evidence). Just my word vs someone elses.

I believe women get rape threats online because it annoys them. Just like an asian would receive abuse to match his situation. Just like a kid (commonly called squeakers) would be insulted based on his situation. The list goes on.

To avoid insults, dont be annoying. Or avoid playing with children. I have found I limited the amount of insults greatly by simply shutting up. They will stop insulting you if they get no reaction. Its something we all go through.

BlaxicanX wrote:I disagree. People use this same line of logic to attack video games and, before that, movies: "making a game out of committing violent acts encourages youth to commit violence." Yet, the majority of research has shown that playing violent games does not enhance aggression or encourage violent acts, and neither do movies.

People have the mental capacity to identify the distinction between virtual and reality, and people also have the capacity to recognize that behavior that may be acceptable in one situation may be entirely unacceptable in another. If what we see or do in virtual reality had a tangible on us when outside of that environment, movies like Robocop would have turned us all into sociopaths by now.

This isn't limited to video games. How do you think morality is created and defined? This stuff isn't somehow hardcoded into our genetical makeup - at least the majority isn't; obviously there are certain instincts that lay the groundworks etc yadah yadah, but the details are solely a product of contemporary society, and thus subject to change through the ages.

It's kind of the reason for why we consider something as amoral that used to be an everyday thing centuries or millennia ago.

All of us are a product of their respective collective environments - the values our parents tried to teach us, what we experienced at school, what we are presented with in everyday life. This includes media, and their effect on society. And the media include video games.
Obviously video games are not solely responsible for how a person behaves. This is a silly thesis and, as you said, debunded by numerous studies. That they are entirely irrelevant as a factor of the greater whole, however, is just as false. It merely depends on how an individual was also influenced by the many other factors, and how receptive or stable they are as a person (because, surprise, people do react differently to social stimuli). And here, your "majority of research" does in fact support this statement.

And since you mentioned Robocop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_White

BlaxicanX wrote:But on meta level, between random people playing each other in a non-official environment, I don't think "it's offensive" is ever a valid reason to not say something, simply by virtue of the fact that any word or statement is potentially offensive in the right context. "You're about to get whipped" would be considered pretty casual banter to 90% of the gaming community. But I'm black, and I could certainly construe a highly offensive reference to an unfortunate time of pain and suffers for my ancestors from that statement.

Could you? Because unlike with rape, I am unaware of black people being whipped being a cultural problem right now.

But this comment actually reminds me of the Elite Dangerous premiere event, where one of the novel authors was asked what he liked about the game, and he went on a geeky, cheerful rave about the Empire of Achenar and how you could own slaves there. Talking to a black host.

I now noticed two interesting things: On the wider internet, a bunch of people immediately gakked their pants because in the US, this is apparently against some sort of political correctness and grounds for a scandal, yet those attendees and watchers from Europe didn't even register this as weird until it was pointed out to them. Same goes for the host and the author, both of whom were British folks. A good example for how comments can be taken differently depending on who you are talking to, I suppose, and how pressing certain issues are for their social class.

Melissia wrote:Much like gravity, the meaning is there whether you want it to be there or not.

Boom!

Swastakowey wrote:They will stop insulting you if they get no reaction. Its something we all go through.

The best way to tackle cultural issues. Ignore them, they'll go away on their own! Just ask the military and the universities.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would like to see a link to all the accounts made in these tests. I wanna see that there is no bias in these studies. When I read this all I can see is a case of "he said she said".

and then you immediately go list some anecdote after complaining about "he said she said".

 Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would like to see a link to all the accounts made in these tests. I wanna see that there is no bias in these studies. When I read this all I can see is a case of "he said she said".

and then you immediately go list some anecdote after complaining about "he said she said".

Please, read the reply.

I said after that, instantly I have the same evidence you have. Meaning my evidence is the same. He said she said.

Stop twisting my words. Its dishonest.

 AdeptSister wrote:
StarTrotter: I have not ever seen anyone seriously try to defend rape. There is definitely a difference between the two. You really believe there is no difference in the crimes?

Yeah, murder is worse because at least with rape there is the possibility you will live (both are really gakky though).

 Soladrin wrote:
I was talking about his fans, not Kas himself. Should have clarified that.

Oh. I am not sure country of origin matters as much for who is going to be fan of some player in esport as in sports that put a lot of emphasis on “national teams” and “regional teams” like soccer, rugby, basketball, baseball, …
I may be wrong though.

 mattyrm wrote:
The first bloke sounds like an absolute moron with little to no understanding of how to speak to people. In British English you sometimes say the word "rape" in a different context, but I think every man with any understanding of social nuance doesn't use it.

He is not British, and he has no reason to care about British English because he is not targeting a British audience. The audience he was targeting is very used to this kind of language. You ought to take a bit more time to understand how he came to this imo.

 mattyrm wrote:
So yeah, he was a moron for saying it, but its hardly the crime of the century.

Oh, no, it is not. And you might notice I even explicitly said he seemed like a nice guy. What is actually the problem is third party people jumping to his defense despite his will and harassing Maddelisk. That is not the crime of the century either but there is only one crime of the century for each 100 years, and so I hope we are allowed to talk about other problems .

 Kojiro wrote:
I think the problem we're running into here is that there are two definitions of rape at work. The tradition, forced sexual contact version we uniformly abhor and a common parlance version that means 'to easily defeat'.

Actually, I think the problem is that there are three definitions of rape at work. The first one is about some bad guy coming to a woman stranger and using physical force to have sex with her without her consent. Straight-out comic book villain style. That form of rape is uniformly abhorred. Then, there is the definition that this is about anyone having sexual intercourse with someone else without explicit, willful consent. The lack of consent may be because of intoxication, or pressure that do not involve actual physical violence, or anything else, really. That one certainly is not uniformly abhorred. This is where you will find tons of people finding excuses for the rapist and/or blaming the victim. If not even celebrating the victim as a hero.
The last one means “to easily and completely defeat”.
Now, I personally think that if the second definition was uniformly abhorred, if rape victim did not have to deal with all the stigma attached to it, and if all those problems were solved, saying “I am going to rape you” would not be frowned upon any more than “I am going to murder you”. But it is clearly not the case yet.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if a guy had said this to a guy, we wouldn't even have this thread.

If a guy said this to a guy, and was banned from the tournament as a result, and people started harassing the victim who had no role in this whole thing by saying that rape taunt are perfectly acceptable, I would have made a thread if I heard about it.

Your retelling of your wife's anecdotal internet experiences are not of equal value to this discussion as several actual peer-reviewed scientific studies on the matter.

Debates don't work that way.

If it helps, my own experiences heavily contradict those of Swastakowey's wife, so let our anecdotes cancel each other out there and return to the debate.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
StarTrotter: I have not ever seen anyone seriously try to defend rape. There is definitely a difference between the two. You really believe there is no difference in the crimes?

Yeah, murder is worse because at least with rape there is the possibility you will live (both are really gakky though).

Far point. My argument really comes down that I can't see it ever being acceptable to publicly threaten to rape someone without there being consequences. That people keep arguing that is should continue to be acceptable online seems...strange.

 Melissia wrote:
Your (supposedly accurate) retelling of your (supposedly existant) wife's (supposedly truthful) internet experiences are not of equal value to this discussion as actual peer-reviewed scientific studies on the matter.

I feel the same about those articles you linked. With so much bull crap on the internet there needs to be proper sources being used. Your sources are a bunch of people supporting your views saying things. Thats it. No sources (some shameless plugs though). The only links are "people writing about her experience". I could make an article only showcasing good experiences and it would have the same credentials.

Find me actual statistics backed up by evidence. If I handed that in at high school as evidence I would have failed. Especially since its so one sided. I went back and looked for more evidence in those articles, yet I only see a bunch of people saying how bad they feel treated on the net (and how offended they are at some comedians etc).

When you look at statistics from a business and look at the graphs and so on. Its full of information. It also has links to relevant info, where the stats came from and the list goes on. It has to be full proof.

Those articles are crap. They have nothing but plugs to people who support that view. Anyone can do that for any topic.You may hold it in high esteem but ultimately as a factual piece its pretty bad.

Lets take link one.

It starts off trying to shock you (already bad as a piece of factual text). No evidence beyond some typed pout quote. Then it goes on to say that mysigony is real because officers didnt take internet threats seriously (and they shouldnt, I mean get real). It then lists "famous" internet female authors most extreme hate mail. Ok im sure anyone remotely famous gets hate mail. It then lists laws from back when telegraphs are in use. Which is a very different and far more controllable situation. It then says women who are harassed online are expected to get over it... LIKE EVERYONE ELSE and that its somehow unfair. It then lists "facts" that are not credited to any source and has a bunch of examples from select people.

Thats pretty much it. Then it complains with how women (not everyone) arent protected from the harsh internet.

Its pretty much a bias article that someone took from a magazine the pacific something. One source for the majority of its facts and that source is the whole article...

So an opinion backed by people of the same opinion is your evidence.



Everyone on the net is insulted. EVERYONE. If a game is played using an internet connection then you will be a victim. That itself is a problem. Not the fact that women are involved.

And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I feel the same about those articles you linked. With so much bull crap on the internet there needs to be proper sources being used.

Tough gak. Your crappy anecdote isn't worth anything compared to real studies.

 AdeptSister wrote:
And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.

I hate it. But what I hate worse is when someone twists the problem into something its not.

As I have said many times it effects everyone. Someone here is trying to say one group has it worse and is therefore more of a problem. When in fact we all share this burden.

I hate the insults. But im not gonna pretend women have it worse.

But im happy to put up with it simply because im not silly and understand its some faceless person in a random spot on this earth insulting me. I dont view it as a conspiracy against my kind. Im not paranoid and think some hive mind among people is at large persecuting people.

In short, its a problem, but not a pressing one. Certainly not a problem thats worse for a select group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I feel the same about those articles you linked. With so much bull crap on the internet there needs to be proper sources being used.

Tough gak. Your crappy anecdote isn't worth anything compared to real studies.

Prove its a real study? The article itself doesnt even try to prove its a real study.

Critical thinking is needed. Find some real sources please.

Tough gak your articles are bull. Find better ones. Or better yet, expect people to read your articles when you post them. Not look at the heading and be fooled.

fwiw, I'd be more surprised if anyone threatening me online would actually make an attempt to deliver, since most of the time it's just keyboard warriors trying to put a scare into their victim.

 remilia_scarlet wrote:
fwiw, I'd be more surprised if anyone threatening me online would actually make an attempt to deliver, since most of the time it's just keyboard warriors trying to put a scare into their victim.

Actually I got hit by one at a time. I was playing a MMO and somebody got on and basically started to screw with me. Killed the monsters I was working on farming, kept on following my character around and hopping servers, started listing things I liked and then posted a message with my home address. I actually started freaking out. Later found out it was one of my friend's sibling.

As someone who says things in private that would make Melissia throw me off a bridge, I find the actions after the fact by the perpetrator and the organisation to be fine. He's sorry, they brought him up on it, all good.

The guy starting a gak storm should get mocked roundly for being an idiot.

As has been said in a related thing, I feel that if the "I'm gonna rape them" was used against a male player in that tweet, the organisation should follow the exact same course.

Also, anyone whose evidence is solely anecdotal and/or blogs, your argument loses most of its weight. Anyone.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 remilia_scarlet wrote:
fwiw, I'd be more surprised if anyone threatening me online would actually make an attempt to deliver, since most of the time it's just keyboard warriors trying to put a scare into their victim.

Actually I got hit by one at a time. I was playing a MMO and somebody got on and basically started to screw with me. Killed the monsters I was working on farming, kept on following my character around and hopping servers, started listing things I liked and then posted a message with my home address. I actually started freaking out. Later found out it was one of my friend's siblings.

I was threatened with violence a few times by a couple of crazy TERFs when I used to use tumblr, I got scared at first, but then I realized they had no idea where I lived and it stopped bothering me. I shut down my tumblr, though, because tumblr is gak.

So I'm going to be stepping nout from this whole argument though. Before I go though, I'd just like to put my opinion.

SC pro player said something stupid, he got disqualified from the tournament for it. Alright, everything seems fine. If you want to be treated like something official, well there are consequences. Anybody harassed because of this needs to drop it. It happened because it should have, nothing more nothing less. The pro can play in other tournaments until then, he got a "smack" to put some senses into him.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The guy starting a gak storm should get mocked roundly for being an idiot

I believe it's just he get ridiculed.