Senate Misogyny, Entitlement, and Pop Culture

That is what I meant by saying that there should be the same basic level of policing on the internet as their is in real life. I just don't see simply calling someone a mean word to be a contrivance of oppression. Just don't feed the trolls and the block button is always an option.

 

What relevance does this have to this conversation. We're discussing ideas, not people.

 

Oh, simple name-calling, like "you're an idiot" to another person? One could easily retort, "you, sir/ma'am, clearly mark yourself as a horrible example of a human being."

Sure, slurs and insults probably shouldn't be censored. I am not really familiar with Twitter, so I don't know if simple insults are being censored, or the censorship is for far more grievous things.

But it IS possible to go to far.

 

elohellllllll

 

And that is where we come to a consensus. Yeah, being called names and belittled eats a dick (and you should fight back) but it can be combated with the mentality of sticks and stones may break your bones, but words may never hurt you. Getting serious death threats and being doxxed however, is something that should be punishable by law, just like in real life.

 

How is it relevant, Nave?

Mostly because I don't think the most empowered class of person in the West has their thumb on the pulse of the less and least empowered classes.

 

Can you perceive how white males tend to come under far less attack than women and people of color? It's easy to campaign for what you described when you are unlikely to deal with its consequences to any meaningful degree. Women and minorities around the world face harassment daily, and if it stems from their jobs, there is no way they can get away from it. It's something they must face, or else they are required to leave their jobs for something less public or otherwise vulnerable to harassment.

 

As evidenced by this graph, men face more harassment online overall, but women face more severe harassment in certain categories. So no, it is not a gendered issue.

 

Oh, dear, who will defend the poor men?

<snark, yes>

It shouldn't make an iota of difference what gender a harassed person is, is all that I'm saying, and yes - words CAN hurt people. Not always, of course.

 

I find those numbers dubious.

"Called offensive names" and "purposely embarrassed" should be 100% for both genders, and "physically threatened" should probably be around 50%.

 

Ironic that ivory is white-esque, and you're atop an ivory tower of white male privilege Nave.

 

I'd say that the fact that you're trying to guilt me into conceding my point says more about you than it does about me.

 

What I find really hilarious is that you never actually said you were white but he actively chooses to make that assumption when he could very well be completely wrong about it. You just have to love those pristine argumentative skills.

 

Argumentative skills are the only thing that matters.

 

I agree. Which is why I found both of Ender's previous posts to be absolutely laughable.

 

I agree as well. Your argumentative skills are top notch good sir. Quite commendable. I tip my hat to you.

 

whelp, this thread became a cluster****. y'all shoudl just talk about epic fantasy sagas like normal people

 

Nave, honestly - the fact that, with the amount of visibility the notion of innate bias and privileges has had, that you would make comments that are deaf and blind to the concepts is quite frankly startling.

This is the post that bears the most relevance to the discussion:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...ent-and-nerds.50020587/page-269#post-53815258

What you don't account for here is that being able to enter into a discussion in which you have nothing more than words hurled at you that mean little is something not everyone has.

That's why we end up having to implemented quota-esque approaches. That's why we have to censor some statements. Because words have a very real power, and if those words evoke a world in which a person remains excluded on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexuality then the words are not simply a test of psychological resilience. They are emblematic of barriers to entry to society.

 

There must be ways of engaging with Darth Nave without attacking his/her perceived ethnicity. I think it must be possible to change someone's mind about gender stereotypes without employing ethnic/racial stereotypes to attack the person.

 

I admit freely that I reserve the right to go totally ape**** on people who I find to be absolutely repulsive. That whole "don't get on their level" thing is bunk. What you can't do is let them actually get you angry or make you lose control. But making a rational decision to name call or flame the hell out of somebody is sometimes appropriate. Sometimes you just need to tell someone to put a gun in their mouth.

The corollary, of course, is that it's up to the website I'm using to do so to edit/ban/block at their own discretion. Maybe Twitter is hypocritical or irrational in the way they react to certain things. All you have to do to avoid said hypocrisy/irrationality is not use Twitter. I don't; never have really. Yiannopoulous gets to say what he wants to say; he doesn't get to say it wherever he wants. I would have the right to make him leave my house if he was in my house using offensive language; Twitter has the right to make him leave their website. And if that's a huge issue that needs to be dissected and argued about, then that's about the first-worldiest of all first-world problems. You got banned from a website. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people face the same thing every day, dude. It's not the end of the world and you are not the face of some social rights movement. This is not a horrible fate; the struggle is not real. You can't tweet; get the **** over it.

 

I disagree. Vehemently.

 

I clearly don't.