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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.

Yes, it's a good sign of it being a thing in society.

...besides the fact that the man in question was found GUILTY by a court. And the fact that the entire issue has nothing to do with sexism. But apart from that, yes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.

That doesn't speak to acceptability though. Only to practicality. I mean, the woman suggesting that women just get their bone on even says "this isn't right, but it's what you'll have to do to keep your career", doesn't she?

 streamdragon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.

That doesn't speak to acceptability though. Only to practicality. I mean, the woman suggesting that women just get their bone on even says "this isn't right, but it's what you'll have to do to keep your career", doesn't she?

In that particular case I don't think it's so much about sexism as it is about Human Resources policies and societal behavior in general. Male doctor pressures female doctor for sex, gets turned down, female doctor lodges complaint/charges against male doctor, male doctor's career is ruined, other doctors and administrators now see the female doctor as a person who might create a very messy PR situation and expensive litigation if somebody says or does something she objects to so they collectively ostracize her and keep her away from working in nice hospitals to avoid any incidents with her. The male doctor was punished for his wrongful actions but the reporting doctor also ends up being punished because even though on one hand we repeatedly encourage people to report incidents on the other hand we always hold people who file the incident reports as at least partially responsible for the fallout of those reports. All we've done is create a messy litiguous no win situation for people.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.

Yes, it's a good sign of it being a thing in society.

...besides the fact that the man in question was found GUILTY by a court. And the fact that the entire issue has nothing to do with sexism. But apart from that, yes.

KiloFiX put it better than I could in that thread:

 KiloFiX wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
You guys need to re-read the OP.

The women that brought on the sexual harassment suit against her superior won the case. But the simple act of filling the charges usually means that the person that makes the complaint never works in that field again.

I know she won, but what I was getting at is that if sexual harassment were taken seriously, there would also be a component that protects against reprisal.

There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.

After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.

After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.

Hell no. How would you be able to work with such a relationship? You will get a sizeable amount of money and then have to look for another job. There's only so much the law can do. You can't force people to trust.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.

After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.

Hell no. How would you be able to work with such a relationship? You will get a sizeable amount of money and then have to look for another job. There's only so much the law can do. You can't force people to trust.

Also, how the hell do you judge how well a person's career would have progressed if they hadn't done XYZ? By consulting a crystal ball?

The latter part of this video is interesting and has a lot to do with the subject imo

Please don't just post videos, but briefly gives us some keypoints on what it's about / what point you want to make :/

 Sigvatr wrote:
Please don't just post videos, but briefly gives us some keypoints on what it's about / what point you want to make :/

Femnism and GamerGate are "Thought Germs" (think memes).
Angry Thought Germs are shared more.
Opposing thought germs actually cooperate in a symbiotic way
-when everyone agrees, its hard to stay interested and engaged.
-angry competing Thought Germs create a more vocal and engaging debate, therefore sucking in and involving more bystanders.
When opposing groups get big, they don't argue with each other. They argue with themselves about how angry the other side makes them.


So applying the logic presented in the video to video games, basically, SJW's and GamerGaters create a feedback loop. Both sides feed off each other.

Thanks a bunch!

Yes, I fully agree. Both sides share one attribute: they don't want to make any compromise or have a discussion, they just want themselves and their own opinion re-affirmed.

And I think it's a good observation because it's hard for both sides because they need each other to remain relevant.

It's like an accident. You know that it's wrong, but you just HAVE to look at it.

It's basically Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene / meme theory explained directly relating to the internet.

Which, actually thinking about it... Is an evil genius move. Take the whole 'God is dead / religion is evil' concept to manufacture the opposing side, allowing the original selfish gene / meme theory stuff to propagate and bounce off of the opposing anger.

That's like, Joker level diabolicalness...

Anyhow, the point was pretty easy / obvious really, the opposing sides of any debate, no matter what it is, will always create a boogeyman of the worst elements of the other sides debate and the loudest volumes will be taking against that boogeyman, as opposed to the reality of anything.

To sum it up even more. Gaming culture isn't any different from any other culture anywhere ever. :p

This is all my interpretation, of course

It explains tacobell of lost souls in an accurate way


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
To sum it up even more. Gaming culture isn't any different from any other culture anywhere ever. :p

I still feel internet culture is a more accurate description than gaming culture.

Well, yeah, but internet culture = gaming culture = culture in general, was kinda my point :p

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Spoiler:

Milo Yianappoulos, a British writer who defends gamers from the charge of sexism

Ah ah ah that description of Milo is priceless!

Milo cares.

Personally, I don’t understand grown men wasting their lives playing computer games. It seems a bit sad to me... I’m more relaxed about violent video games than most, because it seems unlikely that they alone make people act out in real life. So what if they’re the last resort of the frustrated beta male? It’s not for me to legislate what weirdos in yellowing underpants get up to in their spare time.

Milo cares so much about gamers

Milo is a feminist. Just a Christina Hoff Sommers style feminist.

I'm not even talking about that*. Milo has twitter posts, articles, and a book or two where he expresses contempt for gamers and uses really mean language to describe them. He only jumped onto Gamer Gate as a means to attack his political opponents, not to defend gamers.

*And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official

 Crablezworth wrote:
The latter part of this video is interesting and has a lot to do with the subject imo

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc[/youtube

]

Ok I have to be honest that video somehow reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from a movie.

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

He doesn't sound like the nicest guy (getting into a fight with Stephen Fry would generally be seen as unforgivable with the British public).

However, I believe the key phrase in that sentence would be the "received a letter that contained dead mouse impaled by a razor blade."

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Please don't just post videos, but briefly gives us some keypoints on what it's about / what point you want to make :/

Femnism and GamerGate are "Thought Germs" (think memes).
Angry Thought Germs are shared more.
Opposing thought germs actually cooperate in a symbiotic way
-when everyone agrees, its hard to stay interested and engaged.
-angry competing Thought Germs create a more vocal and engaging debate, therefore sucking in and involving more bystanders.
When opposing groups get big, they don't argue with each other. They argue with themselves about how angry the other side makes them.


So applying the logic presented in the video to video games, basically, SJW's and GamerGaters create a feedback loop. Both sides feed off each other.

Yep. That's... nothing new, really. After all, that's how political discourse in the US functions. In fact, the media designs it to function that way. They don't actually care all that much, so long as people keep watching.

 Compel wrote:
He doesn't sound like the nicest guy (getting into a fight with Stephen Fry would generally be seen as unforgivable with the British public).

However, I believe the key phrase in that sentence would be the "received a letter that contained dead mouse impaled by a razor blade."

I don't know maybe the guy just thought he was hungry.






In all seriousness though the dead mouse thing is a little fethed up.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not even talking about that*. Milo has twitter posts, articles, and a book or two where he expresses contempt for gamers and uses really mean language to describe them. He only jumped onto Gamer Gate as a means to attack his political opponents, not to defend gamers.

Yeah, I know, that is why I picked this part of the transcript out. The very first article from him I ever read was about how Elliot Rodger killed not because of his sexist ideas, but because of video games. But “his political opponents”, as quite well illustrated by this article, are feminists. Hence the reference to Christina Summers. See, it all ties in .

 Compel wrote:
He doesn't sound like the nicest guy (getting into a fight with Stephen Fry would generally be seen as unforgivable with the British public).

However, I believe the key phrase in that sentence would be the "received a letter that contained dead mouse impaled by a razor blade."

I think the key argument in this sentence is the implication that he received it because he “defends gamers from the charge of sexism”. I believe it has much more to do with the fact he is “not the nicest guy”, and him acting as such.

So you're saying he deserved it? Blame the victim much?


What most people are saying about milo I feel is pretty accurate. He only latched on to one side to benefit himself and he's a bit of a phony who plays fast and loose with his own past. He's basically sarkeesian with a penis.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So you're saying he deserved it?

I am saying he received this for a reason other than one the implied.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So you're saying he deserved it? Blame the victim much?

No one ever said anything of the sort.

We were pointing out that the idea he is defending gamers is a shallow thing for him, given how many times he's insulted gamers over the course of his career

 LordofHats wrote:
We were pointing out that the idea he is defending gamers is a shallow thing for him, given how many times he's insulted gamers over the course of his career

Agreed.

I'll simply posit that he has his contemporaries on the other side of things.