how can we get more girls to play

[dck]

the speciesism in this place is disgusting.

[Hopeless]

the speciesism in this place is disgusting.

So you weren't a fan of the Pheldagrif?

[Nemora]

the speciesism in this place is disgusting.

So you weren't a fan of the Pheldagrif?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLekkdsNg1I

[zardo]

What does 'no, dude, just no' refer to? Blanket statements about races or genders aren't considered prejudiced? I disagree, and even the person who made the statement agreed it was an unfair generalization.

Well, I already explained how I don't think it's actually an unfair generalization at the expense of white men, but regardless (this kind of assumes you live in the "West" - if you don't it's of course different but sometimes still more relevant than you might think...):

Prejudice against women and minorities is nominally something we all know is not okay. But in reality it remains extremely prevalent with incalculable costs. So I think it is actually quite accepted in our society! Whereas if prejudice against white men seems superficially to be treated as minor that's because its actual effect *is* comparatively minor and most of the time white men have the luxury of shrugging it off. And for now we're still in charge. So I think it's a false equivalence, and that's what's meant by "ignorance of power dynamics." That doesn't describe every personal situation but it does describe the overall state of affairs. Nobody says life has to be easy for a white dude. But you get some things for free that you may not even think about. Making generalizations about anyone is poor form. But you don't get to go "hey look you're just as bad."

[One-Eyed Jack]

Judit Polgár is easily and uncontroversially the best female chess player of all time. To quote someone else, "Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. 'Geniuses are made, not born,' was László's thesis. He and his wife Klára educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject."

I think this has obvious and direct implications for crawl

[Siegurt]

http://xkcd.com/1392/

[kroki]

how can we get more guys into celebrity gossip

[XuaXua]

Thanked for the concept, not the generalization.

"Celebrity gossip" isn't a good equivalent to "playing crawl". I'd go more with a hobby much less prevalent and less gender-neutral that probably doesn't attract male attention like, I don't know, "extreme ironing".

Swear that's a thing, but Google images suggested that it's not as gender-biased as the name might imply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ironing

Maybe "kitten pattern crocheting technique collection and execution" might be a better equivalent to "playing crawl".

[TheDefiniteArticle]

Judit Polgár is easily and uncontroversially the best female chess player of all time. To quote someone else, "Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. 'Geniuses are made, not born,' was László's thesis. He and his wife Klára educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject."

I think this has obvious and direct implications for crawl

I think "three siblings are all chess masters" is not good support for "chess masters are made not born"

I further think that training people from birth to specialize in playing Crawl is a bad idea

For most of us white males we do "miss out" on what's really going on with race and gender because we don't *have* to think about it too hard, most of the time.

"Most white men are racist and sexist. It is because they are being thoughtless and don't realize they are doing it."

It would be hilarious if people were saying it on a comedy show instead of in real life.

Making generalizations about anyone is poor form. But you don't get to go "hey look you're just as bad."

It's not about how bad it is or who is in the wrong. That whole idea that some people are more oppressed than others only nurtures inequality and hatred. Your argument basically amounts to "it's okay to hate white people because they haven't gotten their equal share of hate yet".

We're not considered real geeks. Because...why?

I'm sure I'll get all kinds of shit for even daring to make this comparison, but being a geek wasn't cool twenty years ago. Look at the portrayal of geeks in movies, TV, and videogames (oh ha ha Otacon pissed his pants, get it, because nerds are pathetic losers, it is so funny everybody). Have you heard of the concept of cultural appropriation? If you can watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory without feeling insulted and angry, congratulations, I hate you.

Now that I've claimed to be a victim of something, everybody in this thread has completely disregarded everything I have to say, so giving some personal experience can't possibly make it any worse. I clearly remember the moment I became a "geek" in elementary school. I casually mentioned that I didn't like Star Wars at a moment when about half the classroom heard it. That was it. Social life over. For me, "conversation skills" came to mean "treat every verbal exchange as a walk across eggshells". I'm so afraid of sounding boring or weird that most people think I don't like to talk (Ha!). If I start talking about negative edge, or Yu-Gi-Oh!, or Asimov to the wrong person, I've just made a horrible impression and ruined a relationship. And sure that's probably an exaggeration in most cases, but it's happened more than once, so I don't take chances. For most of my young life, another person being a "geek" meant that I could speak freely without worry of driving them away. Even if we had no interests in common, we were sure to be able to appreciate those interests.

What I'm trying to say is this: Being a geek used to indicate a certain kind of enthusiasm. The meaning is ever-broadening, to the point where someone who occasionally remembers to watch Doctor Who is liable to call themselves a geek on that basis. And I should be happy about that. But what used to mean a kindred sensibility no longer does, so now I'm constantly calculating and recalculating the geekiness of everyone I interact with to try to know how safe I am. It makes me at times a bit of a jerk to people simply for being friendly, because friendliness does nothing to make me feel safe or comfortable.

Maybe this is just my issue and nobody else thinks like that. I kind of hope so.

Arguing against her from a statistical or scientific perspective makes as much sense as asking if a film review is peer reviewed or requesting the statistical distribution of an autobiography. She isn't doing science and she doesn't claim to be doing science so it doesn't make sense to hold her project to scientific standards. This project is talking about how women are depicted in video games and the experience of being a woman playing video games and participating in video game culture. You may not like what she has to say, but if you want to argue against it, you need to argue against what it is rather than what you'd like it to be.

Whether she claims it is scientific doesn't matter. The videos frequently receive hostility because people frequently present them as scientific. If someone argued a JFK conspiracy theory using the Oliver Stone movie as evidence, you would quite naturally object to the shoddy science. Her videos have already been claimed in this thread as a non-anecdotal example. And you are defending them with a comparison to film reviews, which are anecdotal almost by definition.

Answer to the original question: go ask them nicely.

If that was all it took, they would already be playing. Unless I'm the only person who talks about Crawl to real life people?

So your position is that the difficulties associated with playing Dungeon Crawl and playing basketball in the NBA are comparable? Or are you just being pedantic for no reason?

My position is that they are comparable inasmuch as both exclude a huge portion of the population. In the case of roguelikes (proper roguelikes, not action games like Spelunky and Diablo), "willingness to play" is a really major barrier.

ergo you're not allowed to have racist opinions

Please explain in full detail which of my opinions was racist. Because "sounds a lot like" means fuck all.

[damiac]

Anyway the real point is that the problem isn't all those "actual bigots" it's also the vastly greater number of reasonable normal people who refuse to believe that they could be part of the problem. It's not actually a dire moral failing to say something that reflects one or two of the many, many racist thoughts floating out there in the world that one might pick up, but intentions *don't* count in the grand scheme of things and when getting called out it's so much better to learn something than to get in a snit about it.

I couldn't agree with this more.

Perpetually, whenever these discussions come up- no matter the community- I hear, time and time again, that the problems are caused by the "small but vocal majority." And I have never, in my experience, found that to be true. We have a habit of thinking that sexism or racism or other isms are only really perpetrated by the terrible bigots. And people have a bad habit of jumping from "someone said what I did was sexist" to "they're saying I'm a sexist," which apparently means "they think I'm a terrible bigot" because apparently sexism is only perpetrated by the terrible bigots. It's not.

Yes, there are some that are extremely vocal and virulent about their hate- but it is actually microagressions that typically show me what a community thinks of my belonging there. Frequently, these are people who'd never think that they were doing something sexist/racist/etc. but... their actions, in small ways, tell me otherwise. When people say the problems are perpetrated by a few, they're shoving off the blame and not listening to how they, personally, could do better.

That's a fair point. I think part of this is due to the way these subjects are approached in pop culture, where when someone is 'proven' to be a 'bigot' they're instantly thrown in with the worst people in the world, so we sort of lose touch with the concept of more subtle forms of sexism and/or racism. So whenever someone brings up sexism or racism, my mind instantly jumps to the extremes, which there are plenty of examples of. But I suppose one could say the more subtle forms are actually more harmful, since it's easy to just write off those extreme examples as 'some people are assholes".

One thing that people need to acknowledge is that, thanks to the social power structures we're acculturated with from birth, all of us have, on some level, absorbed some amount of sexism or racism or homophobia, etc. And even when we're doing our best to dismantle that, we're going to make mistakes. So when we do make mistakes, we need to be willing to 1) acknowledge that we fucked up, 2) apologize, 3) listen, 4) work to do better in the future, 5) accept that our mistake might have pissed some people off and admit to ourselves that they have a good reason for that, and 6) not get defensive even in the face of that anger.

This, of course, is true, we are a product of our culture.
But that brings me back to what I said previously, that our culture likes to deal in extremes. If someone says "That was a sexist thing to say!" now I feel that they're saying I'm one of those horrible hateful people, which I do not think I am. So now I'm going to feel offended myself, and probably react defensively. Our culture doesn't like to help people learn to act in a non-offensive way, our culture likes to slap a label on someone and write them off. And we don't want to get labelled "Bigot".

So, I agree with what you're saying, getting defensive isn't productive, and if we do offend someone, we should try to correct the offensive behavior (assuming the offense taken was valid*). But we should also remember that when a person does do something offensive, our first instinct should be to correct them, not to label them.

I appreciate you taking the time to calmly express your thoughts, it's rare that a discussion like this (especially on the internet) is productive, but I feel I've learned something here. Hopefully seeing my viewpoints was useful to you in some way.

*Meaning, some people are offended by stuff like seeing interracial couples, or gay people holding hands. I don't consider those things to be something valid to take offense over.

[kroki]

...

That sounds like a stressful life to live there, TDA. Why not just be yourself and stop thinking about "ruining potential relationships" with talking about things you enjoy. Sure you don't mention crawl or star wars on a job interview or on a first date with a run of the mill girl but other than that who cares?

It would be hilarious if people were saying it on a comedy show instead of in real life.

I agree with you. These are terrible times we have to live in.

the evil whitey designed the computers we sit in front of and the internet we browse. he can't be that bad so stop with the hate/guilt. this topic reads like some tumblr rant

[all before]

That whole idea that some people are more oppressed than others only nurtures inequality and hatred.

What. So, the only way to fight inequality would be to to pretend that it doesn't exist?

Now that I've claimed to be a victim of something, everybody in this thread has completely disregarded everything I have to say

May your (undeniable, though in the grand scheme of things quite minor) experience of oppression lead you to some appreciation for the oppression of others unlike yourself. In this case, though, it seems like you're claiming your experience renders the experience of others immaterial, since any degree of inequality you face makes you equal to anyone else who is oppressed.

There was also a discussion of tone and complaints about white men "not being allowed" to express their views about non-white-men a bit back in the thread. I'm confused why people's feelings are suddenly so sensitive here, given the general level of assertiveness in the Tavern. Just like in discussing game design, if you state an opinion, expect people to put it under strong scrutiny. If that opinion happens to be not well founded or supported, expect people to say so. That's not disregarding your opinion or getting overly hostile, it's what makes any kind of real discussion possible.

[zardo]

It's not about how bad it is or who is in the wrong. That whole idea that some people are more oppressed than others only nurtures inequality and hatred.

I can't even




Anyway I'll just say I didn't remotely advocate hating white men and explicitly disavowed scapegoating people as evil racists. And I'm not asking people to feel guilty about their history or privilege, either. I'm just asking they put a little bit of thought into recognizing (and hopefully working to undo) oppression as it exists right now.

[and into]

Mod note: Deleted a hostile (not just disagreeing) response to TheDefiniteArticle — I suspect the author was being ironic or tongue-in-cheek but still didn't seem appropriate.

[Hopeless]

TDA your lengthy post definitely evoked some empathy in me. It also explained to my mind some of the reason you post the way you do. Thanks for that. I don't agree with your conclusions in general but I do agree with this "It's not about how bad it is or who is in the wrong. That whole idea that some people are more oppressed than others only nurtures inequality and hatred." But there are caveats.

a) Hatred is a poison. Partaking of it only feeds it and makes it worse. So that is why I agree with the sentiment you expressed here.
b) However, there is a reason why white men get dumped on now: Years of dumping on others (and it goes on even still with White Male Privilege a thing still.)
c) Better to end oppression via finding common ground, working on communication and making peace than to be bitter, hostile and angry with the world because you feel put upon. As I said before, hate begets hatred and is not its own cure.

Also, on being a nerd/geek: I am in agreement that the terms have been purloined by the public (or hollywood if you blame a tv show, Im good with that.) The truth of the terms have become known. People are and can be nerdy and geeky in myriad ways. Star Wars geeks are no less so than those who dress up like Klingons. Or those who cosplay. Or those (like myself and many other gamers) who started out playing D&D or some other weird intellectual pursuit. Being a nerd/geek is not something that should be put down or held as a pejorative to those who are socially awkward and who have stilted (or completely broken) communication skills.

Those people should not be put down at all, but raised up. It is right that we praise the "geek" and "nerd" for their accomplishments because those achievements have made life better for many. But even were that not the case, it is an injustice to exclude a class of people because they don't make an easy fit. Unfortunately social dynamics are full of injustices. All we can do is eventually mature past them, learn from them, evolve and teach others to not make the same mistakes/injustices.

In the spirit of being more welcoming and less hostile (as a community member), for my own part, I apologize if my prior responses to your (seemingly aggressive and harsh) words/posts have seemed insensitive and or mean.

[Lasty]

It's not about how bad it is or who is in the wrong. That whole idea that some people are more oppressed than others only nurtures inequality and hatred. Your argument basically amounts to "it's okay to hate white people because they haven't gotten their equal share of hate yet".

I'm surprised that you'd argue that no one is more oppressed than anyone else, since it's manifestly obvious from any basic understanding of society or history or current events -- I mean, the founding of America was informed by ideas of oppression by religion and state. Or maybe you're arguing that while some people are more oppressed than others, we should just pretend they aren't, because ignoring it makes it okay.

It's also weird that you conflate being told that this forum and/or video game communities can be hostile to women with hating white people.

But what used to mean a kindred sensibility no longer does, so now I'm constantly calculating and recalculating the geekiness of everyone I interact with to try to know how safe I am. It makes me at times a bit of a jerk to people simply for being friendly, because friendliness does nothing to make me feel safe or comfortable.

It sounds like you're saying that "real geek" means someone you can talk to without fear. If so, that's a self-serving definition that carries no water beyond you personally.

Whether she claims it is scientific doesn't matter. The videos frequently receive hostility because people frequently present them as scientific. If someone argued a JFK conspiracy theory using the Oliver Stone movie as evidence, you would quite naturally object to the shoddy science. Her videos have already been claimed in this thread as a non-anecdotal example. And you are defending them with a comparison to film reviews, which are anecdotal almost by definition.

Detective work (mostly) isn't science either, and a good case for a JFK conspiracy would be based on something more like detective work than science. You make it sound like there are two types of information: "science", which is obviously true, and "anecdote", which is meaningless. It should be obvious that there is non-scientific information which is nonetheless meaningful.

Perhaps I picked bad examples. Here's a better one: A non-scientific survey of a medium and the culture surrounding the medium is like a news report: it is information about what is happening presented from one or more perspectives. This information doesn't attempt to portray every possible perspective or engage in a controlled scientific study.

I guarantee that you have accepted other information that has this level of rigor without blinking in the past, probably even on most days of your life.

ergo you're not allowed to have racist opinions

Please explain in full detail which of my opinions was racist. Because "sounds a lot like" means fuck all.

"Sounds a lot like" means I'm attempting to infer meaning from your words, also known as "attempting to communicate". I'm going to take it as understood that people's words often have both a face value and also implications, because I'm sure you understand that there's a difference in implication between sentences like, e.g., "Nothing I've said is racist," and "I haven't said anything racist yet".

So, you said you "have to act like it's all a big crazy coincidence that the NBA has more black men than white women" which means that you don't believe it's a coincidence. Choosing to specify white/black in your example makes it clear that you feel that whiteness and blackness have relevance to the example. I draw the obvious inference from that statement that you most likely mean to say that black people are, for some unspecified reason, particularly good at basketball. Almost every possible formulation of that opinion is racist, but in my response I clearly specified that if your formulation is a race-essentialist (racist) one, then I condemn it as such.

So, to restate: I don't know that you have racist opinions, but you clearly have opinions on race, and if those opinions are racist, then I have no problem calling them racist. I wouldn't even consider throwing race or your views on it into this conversation, except that for some reason you brought it up, after specifically identifying yourself as a white male and calling yourself ineligible to participate in the conversation.

Tl;dr: there are probably a lot of white men participating in this conversation, and most of them had no trouble doing so without being perceived to be sexist, let alone racist. I can't tell if you're just fishing for a reason to feel persecuted or if the idea that people would discuss the hostility that women face online is particularly offensive to you, but if you don't want to be called a bigot all you have to do is not say anything that is bigoted.

Edit: From your personal account, it sounds like you have a hard time communicating with people in real life. If you talk to real people the same way you talk to people online, that's probably a bigger reason for it than not liking Star Wars.

[NOPE]

NOPE

[twelwe]

God dAMn It I Jus tWanted More Girls,people....

[damiac]

I would just like to remind all participants in this conversation:

It is easier to get your point across to someone else if you do not do so in a hostile manner. That is, if you're actually trying to convince that person, rather than trying to convince an audience at the expense of that person. That's sort of what I was talking about before, are you trying to make the world a less sexist place, or are you trying to earn "Not a sexist" points? Or are you trying to label other people as sexists? Most people who claim to be doing the first are actually doing the second or third.

I think Nemora did a really good job of staying firmly on the first item, which is why I said this felt like the best version of this conversation I've seen.

Just to touch on the NBA example, saying the racial makeup in a sport isn't a coincidence doesn't mean the person is making a racist statement. Of course it's not a coincidence, while the exact reasoning may not be immediately clear, anyone with half a brain in their head doesn't think it's just a wild coincidence. It was a bit odd to bring up in the first place, but to assume racism is also a bit out there. The implication that there are biological differences between different races and genders is also a weird thing to label as racist/sexist, as it's... well, obviously true. White people don't have white skin as a crazy coincidence. Black people don't have an increased risk sickle cell anemia because doctors are all racists. Eskimos don't have more fat in their eyelids for no reason. Some of the differences between men and women are pretty obvious at a glance. What's racist isn't implying there are biological differences, what's racist is implying those differences make one group better or worse than another.

With that all said, I think TDA would benefit from gathering his thoughts more before posting on an obviously sensitive topic. What you mean when you type something, and what people think when they read what you typed are often quite different, so it's best to reduce the possible disconnect as much as possible.

[dck]

NOPE don't you think we don't need no more hippos

[Hopeless]

God dAMn It I Jus tWanted More Girls,people....

Starting a harem? What's with the fixation? lol. I know we all missed the point of you starting this thread. The only thing I can say is...go get more?

[kroki]

So, you said you "have to act like it's all a big crazy coincidence that the NBA has more black men than white women" which means that you don't believe it's a coincidence. Choosing to specify white/black in your example makes it clear that you feel that whiteness and blackness have relevance to the example. I draw the obvious inference from that statement that you most likely mean to say that black people are, for some unspecified reason, particularly good at basketball. Almost every possible formulation of that opinion is racist, but in my response I clearly specified that if your formulation is a race-essentialist (racist) one, then I condemn it as such.

is this real life


I am sorry for being blunt but I can hardly believe someone would be so brainwashed by politically correct propaganda. Why can't people just acknowledge that black people make better athletes on average and there's nothing offensive about it. I am white as flour and I wouldn't get my panties in twist because some black would shit on me in basketball or marathon, and they shouldn't get mad when whites do better in academia or anything else. Is it racist when a white guy avoids walking through black neighborhood because he knows that he's going to be harassed at best and mugged at knife/gun point at worst? It's funny cause whites on an online crusade against "racism" are usually people who never had to deal with life outside their middle/upper class neighborhoods

[Siegurt]

Is it racist when...

Yes.

Fundamentally, attributing stereotypes (of whatever sort) to a particular individual or group of people based on knowledge of their race and nothing else is racist, that's what the term means.

Now if you'd instead of saying "walking through black neighborhood" you'd said "walking through a poor neighborhood" that would be classist, rather than racist, and if you'd said "walking through a violent neighborhood" that would make you violentist.

[Hopeless]

Is it racist when...

Yes.

Fundamentally, attributing stereotypes (of whatever sort) to a particular individual or group of people based on knowledge of their race and nothing else is racist, that's what the term means.

Now if you'd instead of saying "walking through black neighborhood" you'd said "walking through a poor neighborhood" that would be classist, rather than racist, and if you'd said "walking through a violent neighborhood" that would make you violentist.

Sieg I almost universally love your posts but I object to "violentist" as a term when there is a perfectly good word in the English language already for this: Pacifist.

[Siegurt]

I object to your objection

A pacifist is someone who believes strongly in peace, I was going for someone who "strongly associates certain sterotypes (or is prejudiced) against violence and violent people, regardless of their own commitment to peace"

[Hopeless]

I object to your objection

A pacifist is someone who believes strongly in peace, I was going for someone who "strongly associates certain sterotypes (or is prejudiced) against violence and violent people, regardless of their own commitment to peace"

fair enough.

[WalkerBoh]

What if we just put a bunch of Crawl advertisements in magazines aimed at women?

Edit: the sexism and racism stuff, though amusing and informative, is super offtopic by the way. I do think it's proof that people here like to talk about non-Crawl topics with other Crawl players, so this is IMO a +1 for a general discussions forum.

[all before]

Why can't people just acknowledge that black people make better athletes on average

Because it is a huge and inaccurate generalization that perpetuates racial stereotypes. Here, take a look at this interview with an actual evolutionary biologist that was done for a PBS documentary: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_0 ... -01-06.htm. I'd highlight a few important points: 1) "black" is not a coherent genetic classification of human populations--Africa happens to be a very large place filled with many different groups that have mixed in different ways, and that's even before taking into account how African-Americans and other diasporic African groups have mixed with various Europeans. 2) Humans, whatever "race" we might perceive them as, are incredibly similar genetically, and variation within an individual population is higher than variation between populations. 3) Athletics is never simply a matter of biology, let alone "race"--there's also access socio-economic factors which influence who has access to good training and facilities, and who is encouraged to devote themselves to sports vs. other endeavors. As is pointed out in the article, when basketball leagues first got going, Jewish teams dominated, and people tried to attribute their success to racial causes. I think we can all now pretty clearly dismiss those justifications. 4) While certain populations may carrry some genetic predispositions, there's no such thing as a "good athlete gene"--some groups might be somewhat taller on average, or develop certain muscles a bit more, but there is no group which is just singularly physically better than another.

I'm not going to respond to the claims about whites being intellectually superior or the seeming attribution of violence in black neighborhoods to innate factors because doing so would suggest they're worthy of a response.

[mikee]

I am sorry for being blunt but I can hardly believe someone would be so brainwashed by politically correct propaganda. Why can't people just acknowledge that black people make better athletes on average and there's nothing offensive about it. I am white as flour and I wouldn't get my panties in twist because some black would shit on me in basketball or marathon, and they shouldn't get mad when whites do better in academia or anything else. Is it racist when a white guy avoids walking through black neighborhood because he knows that he's going to be harassed at best and mugged at knife/gun point at worst? It's funny cause whites on an online crusade against "racism" are usually people who never had to deal with life outside their middle/upper class neighborhoods

I know this is going to look like hyperbole, but that was the single worst post I've ever read on this forum.

[Zoopy Joobles]

I would have thought that at least the Crawl forums would be free of Cultural Marxist Social Justice crusaders, but apparently, the infection has spread. I'm just going to make a couple of points.

There is nothing wrong if white men enjoy doing something. The fact that mostly white men enjoy it doesn't mean it's racist or being exclusive.

If you think anywhere in the Western World is racist (sexist homophobic), go and try and live in another country with a homogenous population. As a white man, or any other racial group you will encounter REAL racism.

One example:

While living in Asia, I had to save my girlfriend from rape, because she is a blonde Russian, and it is common knowledge there that blonde Russians are all prostitutes and can be raped at will. That is only one of a million stories I can relate, such things were a daily occurrence, albeit not that extreme.

Keep things in perspective.

[mikee]

WHY ARE PEOPLE TALKING TO IMAGINARY WHITE MEN?

[Aule]

I finally sat down to read this thread to see why everybody was talking about more girls. Imagine my surprise.



Moar grrlz!

[Zoopy Joobles]

Do women sit around in consternation wondering about how to include more men in the things they are interested in?

[tabstorm]

Reminder that this is a troll thread.

[twelwe]

Reminder that this is a troll thread.

no shit all i wanted was more girls. whatg the fuck is wrong with you people. why do you think you know everything about race, justice, racial communities and the condition of race relations. you don`t. no one does. all anyone can do is post convincing arguments to convice like minded people that they ``truly know`` what is really going on in the world. you (anyeone) don`t, i don`t, and despite convincing protests no one does. fuck you all who ruioned my thraed.now how do we get more girls........the real topic

[mikee]

I guess I'll answer my own question. Some people are crying out for social justice of some kind, specifically that females are free of different kinds of verbal abuse in gaming communities that they receive simply for being female. Cries for social justice rub certain people the wrong way - I don't really know or care why, but those people do want to argue against it. To do so, they make a presumption about the people who are making the complaint. And while it's not as socially acceptable in this decade to openly vilify the people who are at the disparity, an easier imaginary enemy is the bleeding heart liberal who isn't in the disempowered group and doesn't understand their problems. He must be blowing the problems out of proportion. And also yeah, lines like those below do go back to the original problem. These people's idea of what is normal in this environment is a white male who lives in the west, whereas in reality... how would you know that that's who you're talking to?

It's funny cause whites on an online crusade against "racism" are usually people who never had to deal with life outside their middle/upper class neighborhoods

If you think anywhere in the Western World is racist (sexist homophobic), go and try and live in another country with a homogenous population. As a white man, or any other racial group you will encounter REAL racism.

[Arrhythmia]

.now how do we get more girls........the real topic

Compulsory gender reassignment surgery.

[Nemora]

Anyway the real point is that the problem isn't all those "actual bigots" it's also the vastly greater number of reasonable normal people who refuse to believe that they could be part of the problem. It's not actually a dire moral failing to say something that reflects one or two of the many, many racist thoughts floating out there in the world that one might pick up, but intentions *don't* count in the grand scheme of things and when getting called out it's so much better to learn something than to get in a snit about it.

I couldn't agree with this more.

Perpetually, whenever these discussions come up- no matter the community- I hear, time and time again, that the problems are caused by the "small but vocal majority." And I have never, in my experience, found that to be true. We have a habit of thinking that sexism or racism or other isms are only really perpetrated by the terrible bigots. And people have a bad habit of jumping from "someone said what I did was sexist" to "they're saying I'm a sexist," which apparently means "they think I'm a terrible bigot" because apparently sexism is only perpetrated by the terrible bigots. It's not.

Yes, there are some that are extremely vocal and virulent about their hate- but it is actually microagressions that typically show me what a community thinks of my belonging there. Frequently, these are people who'd never think that they were doing something sexist/racist/etc. but... their actions, in small ways, tell me otherwise. When people say the problems are perpetrated by a few, they're shoving off the blame and not listening to how they, personally, could do better.

That's a fair point. I think part of this is due to the way these subjects are approached in pop culture, where when someone is 'proven' to be a 'bigot' they're instantly thrown in with the worst people in the world, so we sort of lose touch with the concept of more subtle forms of sexism and/or racism. So whenever someone brings up sexism or racism, my mind instantly jumps to the extremes, which there are plenty of examples of. But I suppose one could say the more subtle forms are actually more harmful, since it's easy to just write off those extreme examples as 'some people are assholes".

One thing that people need to acknowledge is that, thanks to the social power structures we're acculturated with from birth, all of us have, on some level, absorbed some amount of sexism or racism or homophobia, etc. And even when we're doing our best to dismantle that, we're going to make mistakes. So when we do make mistakes, we need to be willing to 1) acknowledge that we fucked up, 2) apologize, 3) listen, 4) work to do better in the future, 5) accept that our mistake might have pissed some people off and admit to ourselves that they have a good reason for that, and 6) not get defensive even in the face of that anger.

This, of course, is true, we are a product of our culture.
But that brings me back to what I said previously, that our culture likes to deal in extremes. If someone says "That was a sexist thing to say!" now I feel that they're saying I'm one of those horrible hateful people, which I do not think I am. So now I'm going to feel offended myself, and probably react defensively. Our culture doesn't like to help people learn to act in a non-offensive way, our culture likes to slap a label on someone and write them off. And we don't want to get labelled "Bigot".

So, I agree with what you're saying, getting defensive isn't productive, and if we do offend someone, we should try to correct the offensive behavior (assuming the offense taken was valid*). But we should also remember that when a person does do something offensive, our first instinct should be to correct them, not to label them.

I appreciate you taking the time to calmly express your thoughts, it's rare that a discussion like this (especially on the internet) is productive, but I feel I've learned something here. Hopefully seeing my viewpoints was useful to you in some way.

*Meaning, some people are offended by stuff like seeing interracial couples, or gay people holding hands. I don't consider those things to be something valid to take offense over.

I appreciate you saying this- see, a lot of times, I find when these topics come up, the people who I'm discussing the matter with don't really listen to what I have to say no matter how nicely I put it. So it's nice to hear that the time I spent typing those out was worthwhile.

RE: the extremes, I think the vast majority of the time, when people are correcting a point, they don't mean it as an extreme. I know there's some people I see in the media who I think are disgusting- but I'm sure they're nice in some areas in their lives. But I'm not going to qualify everything I say on it with "I'm sure they're nice." If they're grossly sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. ... are they really "nice"? I DO really respect it when people apologize for messing up- and it has to be a real apology of the "I am sorry for causing this harm" variety. (Not "I'm sorry you're offended." It has to own the harm.) The people in media who I think are truly gross are not people who do this.

I feel like a lot of times when I try to call something out, though, people will jump to conclusions about what I mean.

Now, if they do mean the extreme you're saying, I think it's important to remember that not all people in feminist communities are at the same level of thinking about it. Like any area of discourse, people will disagree with each other, or perhaps they're not as developed in their approach.

Additionally, on the internet, there's a fair number of trolls who run around spouting really extreme, completely wrong "feminist" things.

The existence of these things should not be taken as a stain on feminism or anything like that- there's tons of people in the feminist communities that would also decry them.

RE: the anger. I know it's really hard when someone is coming at you angry, or when they're talking about this subject very angrily. One of the things I've found, though, is that as a white person, I should not censor the anger of POC about racism or white supremacy. Like in point #6, I need to acknowledge that they have every right to be angry and to express themselves with that anger. Some of the most educational blog posts I've ever read on these subjects were written with a lot of anger in them- and they really opened my eyes.

One time, one of my professors had us read one of these really angry-type articles, and she talked about students that had to throw the book across the room at times. It's a real struggle sometimes when we're trying to face our privilege and we're looking that anger in the eye- but I think it's important and it can teach us a lot.

EDIT: I also want to add, RE: the "are you trying to call people sexists?" thought, sometimes it's just...incredibly exhausting dealing with these things. Have you ever heard of Teaspoon Theory? Sometimes, I simply don't have the teaspoons to deal with these things, or the teaspoons to be eloquent about what I have to say- especially when the people I'm arguing with rarely actually care about anything I'm saying. They want me to rehash the same arguments I have over and over again.. and the subject is my personhood. Whether or not I am equal, worthy, welcome, etc. It's very personal, and sometimes it's really difficult because it can cut home.

So I think sometimes people will say these sort of things because they're fed up with hearing the same old things again, and they just don't have the teaspoons to go through it when 99% of the time, the people will not listen.

[twelwe]

Also, on being a nerd/geek: I am in agreement that the terms have been purloined by the public (or hollywood if you blame a tv show, Im good with that.) The truth of the terms have become known. People are and can be nerdy and geeky in myriad ways. Star Wars geeks are no less so than those who dress up like Klingons. Or those who cosplay. Or those (like myself and many other gamers) who started out playing D&D or some other weird intellectual pursuit. Being a nerd/geek is not something that should be put down or held as a pejorative to those who are socially awkward and who have stilted (or completely broken) communication skills.

if you are socialy awkward it isn;t the fault of d&d or cosplay or star wars. or racial relations. or anything. it is your lack of sociable ability and `neediness` or whatever he hell you`re pinning it on has no connection, and any connection you make between nerdiness and social inability your own fault. you called it weird. so question your own motivations first.

[Zoopy Joobles]

a) Hatred is a poison. Partaking of it only feeds it and makes it worse. So that is why I agree with the sentiment you expressed here.
b) However, there is a reason why white men get dumped on now: Years of dumping on others (and it goes on even still with White Male Privilege a thing still.)
c) Better to end oppression via finding common ground, working on communication and making peace than to be bitter, hostile and angry with the world because you feel put upon. As I said before, hate begets hatred and is not its own cure.

Hatred is a poison? Is this some kind of Oprah inspired New Age garbage? Hatred is a justified emotion. If somebody rapes my wife, I'm going to hate them, and if that's all I do, they will have gotten off very lucky.

White men, for the last 2000 years, repelled invasion after invasion of Europe. Both the Ottomans and the Moors demanded tributes of white slaves and virgins. I will just give a passing mention of the Arab slave trade, and the fact that the very word slave comes from the Slavic people. White people are the only ones who worked to stop slavery for moral reasons. Not that we got it right all the time, but singling out white men as being somehow intrinsically and uniquely evil is a theme that is based on total inexcusable ignorance of history. I lived in Asia for 10 years, and guess what, Asian men have privilege in their own countries. They aren't allowing mass immigration, so they don't have to be constantly burdened my these asinine conversations, which is quite nice, even though I was an outsider and subjected to racism on a daily basis that would make national headlines were it to happen here. I didn't let it bother me, because I'm not a whining little pussy.

People are not equal. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger. Some people are more talented in certain areas. Labeling this as 'oppression' because all outcomes are not equal is frankly, insane. By what metrics are Social Justice causes measured? This will simply go on forever, as more and more victim groups invent themselves and point quivering fingers at groups where they are not represented enough. How many Amazonian Tribesmen at Harvard? RACISM! How many women have gone to the moon? SEXISM! How many LGBTQQIP2SAA are represented in the government of the Congo? HOMOPHOBIA! How long before this LGBTQQIP2SAA breaks its unholy coalition and starts accusing itself of oppression?

This stuff is nonsense. We used to do things like go to the moon. Let's get back to it.

[Leafsnail]

This stuff is nonsense. We used to do things like go to the moon. Let's get back to it.

This is a really impressive non sequitur.

[Nemora]

We're not considered real geeks. Because...why?

I'm sure I'll get all kinds of shit for even daring to make this comparison, but being a geek wasn't cool twenty years ago. Look at the portrayal of geeks in movies, TV, and videogames (oh ha ha Otacon pissed his pants, get it, because nerds are pathetic losers, it is so funny everybody). Have you heard of the concept of cultural appropriation? If you can watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory without feeling insulted and angry, congratulations, I hate you.

Now that I've claimed to be a victim of something, everybody in this thread has completely disregarded everything I have to say, so giving some personal experience can't possibly make it any worse. I clearly remember the moment I became a "geek" in elementary school. I casually mentioned that I didn't like Star Wars at a moment when about half the classroom heard it. That was it. Social life over. For me, "conversation skills" came to mean "treat every verbal exchange as a walk across eggshells". I'm so afraid of sounding boring or weird that most people think I don't like to talk (Ha!). If I start talking about negative edge, or Yu-Gi-Oh!, or Asimov to the wrong person, I've just made a horrible impression and ruined a relationship. And sure that's probably an exaggeration in most cases, but it's happened more than once, so I don't take chances. For most of my young life, another person being a "geek" meant that I could speak freely without worry of driving them away. Even if we had no interests in common, we were sure to be able to appreciate those interests.

What I'm trying to say is this: Being a geek used to indicate a certain kind of enthusiasm. The meaning is ever-broadening, to the point where someone who occasionally remembers to watch Doctor Who is liable to call themselves a geek on that basis. And I should be happy about that. But what used to mean a kindred sensibility no longer does, so now I'm constantly calculating and recalculating the geekiness of everyone I interact with to try to know how safe I am. It makes me at times a bit of a jerk to people simply for being friendly, because friendliness does nothing to make me feel safe or comfortable.

Maybe this is just my issue and nobody else thinks like that. I kind of hope so.

I do have sympathy for what you've been through. And I also cannot watch Big Bang Theory without wanting to scream.

I'm not certain why this was your response to that part of my post.

Think about it this way:

Geeky girls like the same sort of shit you do, but we didn't have a geek community to fall back on. Because it didn't welcome us. In fact, often, it drove us out.

And children are still being taught this.

My nephews have seen me playing video games and they are surprised. "I thought girls didn't like video games!" I watch my niece get told by the boys (and adults of both sexes) around her that girls don't do those things.

They're not even 10 yet.

I'm telling you these things not because I want to devalue what you went through. I'm telling you this in the hope that you might feel some more empathy for women's fight to be accepted in geeky communities.

[Zoopy Joobles]

This stuff is nonsense. We used to do things like go to the moon. Let's get back to it.

This is a really impressive non sequitur.

Visit a university campus and see how much time and energy is devoted to this crap. If you are currently attending one, try getting out and learning how the real world works.

[Arrhythmia]

a) Hatred is a poison. Partaking of it only feeds it and makes it worse. So that is why I agree with the sentiment you expressed here.
b) However, there is a reason why white men get dumped on now: Years of dumping on others (and it goes on even still with White Male Privilege a thing still.)
c) Better to end oppression via finding common ground, working on communication and making peace than to be bitter, hostile and angry with the world because you feel put upon. As I said before, hate begets hatred and is not its own cure.

Hatred is a poison? Is this some kind of Oprah inspired New Age garbage? Hatred is a justified emotion. If somebody rapes my wife, I'm going to hate them, and if that's all I do, they will have gotten off very lucky.

White men, for the last 2000 years, repelled invasion after invasion of Europe. Both the Ottomans and the Moors demanded tributes of white slaves and virgins. I will just give a passing mention of the Arab slave trade, and the fact that the very word slave comes from the Slavic people. White people are the only ones who worked to stop slavery for moral reasons. Not that we got it right all the time, but singling out white men as being somehow intrinsically and uniquely evil is a theme that is based on total inexcusable ignorance of history. I lived in Asia for 10 years, and guess what, Asian men have privilege in their own countries. They aren't allowing mass immigration, so they don't have to be constantly burdened my these asinine conversations, which is quite nice, even though I was an outsider and subjected to racism on a daily basis that would make national headlines were it to happen here. I didn't let it bother me, because I'm not a whining little pussy.

People are not equal. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger. Some people are more talented in certain areas. Labeling this as 'oppression' because all outcomes are not equal is frankly, insane. By what metrics are Social Justice causes measured? This will simply go on forever, as more and more victim groups invent themselves and point quivering fingers at groups where they are not represented enough. How many Amazonian Tribesmen at Harvard? RACISM! How many women have gone to the moon? SEXISM! How many LGBTQQIP2SAA are represented in the government of the Congo? HOMOPHOBIA! How long before this LGBTQQIP2SAA breaks its unholy coalition and starts accusing itself of oppression?

This stuff is nonsense. We used to do things like go to the moon. Let's get back to it.

This is the most baffling post I've ever seen but, for starters, we aren't talking about the Ottomans or the Moors mostly because they don't really exist anymore, as compared to Western white men, who still hold a pretty disproportionate chunk of power.

e:

Visit a university campus and see how much time and energy is devoted to this crap. If you are currently attending one, try getting out and learning how the real world works.

I want more people going to the moon! I also want less people going to university! I don't see how this is contradictory at all!

[Leafsnail]

No don't worry I've seen The Real World. It's disgusting how many rocket scientists have quit NASA in order to take up social justice causes.

[Hopeless]

no one fucks me in my own thread afaik. now i`m going to quote you on stupid nonsense to prove you spout nothing but stupid nonsense. and never try to fuck me again me again. or i will own you like so

Also, on being a nerd/geek: I am in agreement that the terms have been purloined by the public (or hollywood if you blame a tv show, Im good with that.) The truth of the terms have become known. People are and can be nerdy and geeky in myriad ways. Star Wars geeks are no less so than those who dress up like Klingons. Or those who cosplay. Or those (like myself and many other gamers) who started out playing D&D or some other weird intellectual pursuit. Being a nerd/geek is not something that should be put down or held as a pejorative to those who are socially awkward and who have stilted (or completely broken) communication skills.

if you are socialy awkward it isn;t the fault of d&d or cosplay or star wars. or racial relations. or anything. it is your lack of sociable ability and `neediness` or whatever he hell you`re pinning it on has no connection, and any connection you make between nerdiness and social inability your own fault. you called it weird. so question your own motivations first.

Isn't interesting how the troll can read only what the troll wants to see there. I am not the one who talked about being socially awkward. That was TDA. I was talking about his social awkwardness being disconnected from the "geekiness" that he attributes it to. Reading comprehension.

Also this is not YOUR thread. You are merely the inadvertent instigator of it. (It went way beyond the scope you set for it as your own posts allude to.) As for nonsense, well isn't it easy to dismiss what you don't want to hear or or understand? Particularly the part about being a buffoon. If you'd understood the commentary below that maybe you wouldn't have misrepresented what I said so readily.

[Leafsnail]

I don't think twelwe is a troll, his posts are obviously satirical.

The fact that this thread became a serious debate anyway just shows how hot an issue this is, I guess.

[Zoopy Joobles]

"Ottomans or the Moors mostly because they don't really exist anymore."

The Ottomans occupy one of the most important Christian cities that stood for over 1500 years. They destroyed the culture, copied the music, and defaced the most holy place in the Christian world. They even attacked Cyprus just a few decades ago and took half the island. They just aren't called the Ottomans anymore, now they're called Turks.

How exactly is power measured? And who gets to be in the exalted position to arbitrate the distribution of power?

[Hopeless]

a) Hatred is a poison. Partaking of it only feeds it and makes it worse. So that is why I agree with the sentiment you expressed here.
b) However, there is a reason why white men get dumped on now: Years of dumping on others (and it goes on even still with White Male Privilege a thing still.)
c) Better to end oppression via finding common ground, working on communication and making peace than to be bitter, hostile and angry with the world because you feel put upon. As I said before, hate begets hatred and is not its own cure.

Hatred is a poison? Is this some kind of Oprah inspired New Age garbage? Hatred is a justified emotion. If somebody rapes my wife, I'm going to hate them, and if that's all I do, they will have gotten off very lucky.

White men, for the last 2000 years, repelled invasion after invasion of Europe. Both the Ottomans and the Moors demanded tributes of white slaves and virgins. I will just give a passing mention of the Arab slave trade, and the fact that the very word slave comes from the Slavic people. White people are the only ones who worked to stop slavery for moral reasons. Not that we got it right all the time, but singling out white men as being somehow intrinsically and uniquely evil is a theme that is based on total inexcusable ignorance of history. I lived in Asia for 10 years, and guess what, Asian men have privilege in their own countries. They aren't allowing mass immigration, so they don't have to be constantly burdened my these asinine conversations, which is quite nice, even though I was an outsider and subjected to racism on a daily basis that would make national headlines were it to happen here. I didn't let it bother me, because I'm not a whining little pussy.

People are not equal. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger. Some people are more talented in certain areas. Labeling this as 'oppression' because all outcomes are not equal is frankly, insane. By what metrics are Social Justice causes measured? This will simply go on forever, as more and more victim groups invent themselves and point quivering fingers at groups where they are not represented enough. How many Amazonian Tribesmen at Harvard? RACISM! How many women have gone to the moon? SEXISM! How many LGBTQQIP2SAA are represented in the government of the Congo? HOMOPHOBIA! How long before this LGBTQQIP2SAA breaks its unholy coalition and starts accusing itself of oppression?

This stuff is nonsense. We used to do things like go to the moon. Let's get back to it.

Yeah well I agree with some of what you said there while totally being baffled at the rest so there is that.

Moon++. More of this and less war would be great. (Not more of this so we can lob rockets at Earth from our moonbases.)

Oppression = inequality??? I think what you might be mistaking here is the nearly the same term, inequity.

Social Justice means you don't get paid less for the same work and effort and hazard if you are in a minority or lacking power. Social Justice is you don't get arrested, beaten, tortured or what not without due process just because you are in a minority or lacking power. Social Justice is not letting children die needlessly of starvation, murder, disease and neglect. And so on. I know total bleeding-heart Liberal issues that no right-wing jingoist wants to hear about.

I do agree that special interest groups tend to be self-interested and not inclusive thus usually causing problems within and without when they try to address actual issues. I also agree that being mindless in zealotry is no better than being outrageously oppressive. Point fingers is blame. Blame is not taking responsibility. Not taking responsibility is not acting. Failing to act is just failure. I agree, get something done.

As for you not understanding that hatred is poison, perhaps an easy analogy for you to understand is medicine. In moderate doses most medicines cure illnesses. However, in large enough doses (not all that large mind you) many of those medicines become poisonous. And over time even tiny does can incrementally cause deleterious effects. Engaging in hate eventually contaminates everything you do. Sure it can be helpful in a survival situation (particularly if you find yourself at war.) And no one will argue that hate can be an amazing motivator to action. But it has a cost, and ignoring that cost because it is inconvenient and calling it "new age Oprah inspired nonsense" is just being willfully blind.

Also Zoopy I agree that no one group is evil. It is the collective and aggregate actions that we should judge. People are just people.

[Arrhythmia]

How exactly is power measured?

Average wages, suffrage, representation in all three branches of government, amount of land owned by, money owned by, means of production owned by, rates of crime committed against, etc.