|
Obdicut posted:McIntosh made a good point that, in contrast to this, the difficulty screen is typical eye-rolling "are you MAN ENOUGH' clicheness. He's grasping at any and all straws at this point, his entire brand has degenerated into clickbait garbage. e: checked out the loading screen, none of that was even in there, what the hell is McIntosh even talking about? Minarchist fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jul 4, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, well, you're wrong. If gamergaters weren't here there'd probably be a pretty dry discussion about stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Yeah, but "man enough" is a commonly accepted English phrase for "you're not a wimp and can handle some serious adversity without crying about it"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Weirdly, this page isn't the entire thread. So why do you keep wanting to talk about her, Obdicut?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Junkfist posted:Gamergate is about twitter fights and laughing at terrible online personalities that 70% of the time are related to videogames, I honestly have no idea how you could've interpreted it as anything else. Oh, it's because many GGers claim it's about ethics in games journalism, and the actual activities of GG seem to be complaining about cultural criticism of games. These points have been made in the thread already a lot, you could read it for more information. Cingulate posted:Now I can hardly respond to this can I? "I disagree". It's a discussion I basically win by trying to win it, which isn't really helpful. Okay, great. Minarchist posted:Yeah, but "man enough" is a commonly accepted English phrase for "you're not a wimp and can handle some serious adversity without crying about it" Yes. Why is it a commonly accepted English phrase? What does it imply about our culture that we say stuff like "Don't be a woman about this" and "Be a man"? What does hearing that do t women and to men? You can say 'nothing, it has no effect' if you want, but then there's no problem in stopping the language, right? poptart_fairy posted:So why do you keep wanting to talk about her, Obdicut? Sorry, I thought that was clear: because she's a frequent target of GGers and others despite the fact that there's no reason for her to be, to the extent people do creepy stuff like bring up the job she had at age 23. I'm fairly sure I already said this, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You can say 'nothing, it has no effect' if you want, but then there's no problem in stopping the language, right? What the gently caress kind of logic is this? If it's a non-issue, it doesn't matter if everyone does what you want... but it also doesn't matter if they don't! How does this even argue anything at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:
When you start a new game, the difficulty settings are cliched masculine stuff. Harder difficulty settings make BJ's face look more and more aggressive, the lowest difficulty setting literally has you sucking a dummy (I seem to remember a bonnet, but I might be misremembering it, the dummy is definitely there) This stuff goes all the way back to the original Wolfenstein/Doom games, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Yeah, but "man enough" is a commonly accepted English phrase for "you're not a wimp and can handle some serious adversity without crying about it" You see a sad byproduct of the liminal games concerning acceptable discourse in people who get angry about Gamergate issues in that their insults are almost entirely limited to the scatological and infantile such as "pissbaby" and "shitlord" and "mama's little shitboy". Ironically, their desire to elevate the culture away from statements that could be perceived as racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist resulted in what looks like Freud Theory regression, while the Gamergate wordspace is able to freely expand the dimensions of their insults into a kaleidoscope of obcenity such as "gay cunty retard" or jew jokes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:When you start a new game, the difficulty settings are cliched masculine stuff. Harder difficulty settings make BJ's face look more and more aggressive, the lowest difficulty setting literally has you sucking a dummy (I seem to remember a bonnet, but I might be misremembering it, the dummy is definitely there) It's Baby > Worried > Confident > Bloodthirsty  Kind of reaching to call it masculinity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes. Why is it a commonly accepted English phrase? What does it imply about our culture that we say stuff like "Don't be a woman about this" and "Be a man"? What does hearing that do t women and to men? Language, phrases and memes exist because enough people agree on the meanings of certain sounds and concepts. "loving rear end in a top hat" means "This person is being antisocial and has behaved in a manner which is unbecoming of a member of a society in a violent, deceitful, or unpleasant manner and I am expressing my extreme dislike for that person" You speak english, you know drat well what "man enough" means, don't make things complicated. Just in case, though: for "man enough", men are expected to fight, hunt, build, protect and provide, tasks that require someone to not be timid, submissive, passive or cowardly. Shirking at the sight of gross things, complaining about physical hardship, and needing protection from the world are not identified as masculine traits. People use phrases like "man up", "gently caress off", "holy poo poo", "what the gently caress" ALL THE TIME even if there's no concrete definition of the term. But the meaning is clear and commonly agreed on regardless. McIntosh and anyone who agrees with him seriously need to  Ddraig posted:When you start a new game, the difficulty settings are cliched masculine stuff. Harder difficulty settings make BJ's face look more and more aggressive, the lowest difficulty setting literally has you sucking a dummy (I seem to remember a bonnet, but I might be misremembering it, the dummy is definitely there) And the meaning is crystal clear, it's not offensive, its just "hey this difficulty level is pretty nuts, if you're not good at this or can't handle some crazy poo poo, don't do it" Apparently this is demeaning to women somehow. Ask 1000 women if they've played Wolfenstein, you might get a handful. Literally no one cares about this poo poo except for people who are professionally offended.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:It's Baby > Worried > Confident > Bloodthirsty Sure if you ignore virtually every indicator of masculine attributes in western culture for the past 2000 or so years. Real men are not babies etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:What the gently caress kind of logic is this? If it's a non-issue, it doesn't matter if everyone does what you want... but it also doesn't matter if they don't! How does this even argue anything at all? Um, that' s my point. If it's just a meaningless phrase that carries no weight, it's fine to stop doing it, right? Nobody loses anything, it gets rid of vestigial language and nobody cares that it's gone? I don't actually think it carries no weight, to me it really obviously says that being 'a man' means being tough and strong and being 'a woman' means being weak and crying, and it's a legacy and continuance of dumb sexism. Minarchist posted:Language, phrases and memes exist because enough people agree on the meanings of certain sounds and concepts. "loving rear end in a top hat" means "This person is being antisocial and has behaved in a manner which is unbecoming of a member of a society in a violent, deceitful, or unpleasant manner and I am expressing my extreme dislike for that person" Sorry, things are complicated. Just as "Don't Jew me on this deal" not only means "Don't cheat me on this deal" but also implies that Jews cheat people, "Be a man" implies that men are strong and capable, and "Don't be a woman about this" implies women are weak and emotionally crippled. Language isn't just a beep-boop set of codes. quote:Just in case, though: for "man enough", men are expected to fight, hunt, build, protect and provide, tasks that require someone to not be timid, submissive, passive or cowardly. Shirking at the sight of gross things, complaining about physical hardship, and needing protection from the world are not identified as masculine traits. Okay, great, so you agree that it's a problem. Awesome. quote:People use phrases like "man up", "gently caress off", "holy poo poo", "what the gently caress" ALL THE TIME even if there's no concrete definition of the term. But the meaning is clear and commonly agreed on regardless. McIntosh and anyone who agrees with him seriously need to But you just agreed that the point is to say that it's related to totally outmoded, ridiculous caveman stereotypes of masculinity, right? quote:And the meaning is crystal clear, it's not offensive, its just "hey this difficulty level is pretty nuts, if you're not good at this or can't handle some crazy poo poo, don't do it" Nobody is arguing that it means something else, though. quote:Apparently this is demeaning to women somehow. Ask 1000 women if they've played Wolfenstein, you might get a handful. Literally no one cares about this poo poo except for people who are professionally offended. I care about it and I'm not someone who is professionally offended. I've never, in any way shape or form, received any compensation for being offended. But sorry, you seem kind of confused about this: on the one hand you agree the phrase is coded that way because of dumb old ideas about what masculinity is and about differences between men and women that we've gotten past and understand are fictitious, but then you say it doesn't matter. This is an incoherent position. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sorry, I thought that was clear: because she's a frequent target of GGers and others despite the fact that there's no reason for her to be, to the extent people do creepy stuff like bring up the job she had at age 23. I'm fairly sure I already said this, though. But why so you keep talking about her if you don't want her to be the subject of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:It's Baby > Worried > Confident > Bloodthirsty Can I play Daddy? Don't Hurt Me! Bring 'Em On! I Am Death Incarnate! You heard it here first, Angry Faces are toxic masculinity. Ddraig posted:Real men are not babies etc. You're right, they aren't. Its basically saying "get gud, scrub"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Apparently this is demeaning to women somehow. Ask 1000 women if they've played Wolfenstein, you might get a handful. Literally no one cares about this poo poo except for people who are professionally offended. No, it's not. You seem to be confused about things. The patriarchy is 'demeaning' to women in the general sense because women are considered inferior or their roles within the system are often marginalized and of no real importance. One of the core features of second/third generation feminism is that it's not just women who suffer under such systems, but also men who are forced to live up to an idealized system of what a 'man' is. This is one of the few areas where MRAs and feminists tend to overlap, but usually only superficial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:But why so you keep talking about her if you don't want her to be the subject of discussion. I'm fine with her being the subject of discussion, though. What I'm pointing out is that, if GG is about ethics in games journalism, then she has nothing to do with that. If it's actually about complaining about criticism and wanting to shut down that criticism, then she's completely appropriate for GGers to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm fine with her being the subject of discussion, though. What I'm pointing out is that, if GG is about ethics in games journalism, then she has nothing to do with that. If it's actually about complaining about criticism and wanting to shut down that criticism, then she's completely appropriate for GGers to talk about. Why do only GGers want to talk about her, Obdicut.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Can we please all stop pretending that the other side supports the main proponents of each movement? I think Anti-GG people in this thread can agree that many parts of the movement are imperfect and problematic, and GG people can agree that some people in support of GG are just extremist assholes. The main discussion that we should be (and sometimes attempt to have) having is whether one side actually has a point in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Um, that' s my point. If it's just a meaningless phrase that carries no weight, it's fine to stop doing it, right? Nobody loses anything, it gets rid of vestigial language and nobody cares that it's gone? If it's a meaningless phrase that carries no weight, it's fine to keep doing it. Nobody loses anything, a common figure of speech remains in use and nobody cares that they hear it all the time. How is one of these invalid and the other a good point? I know you're not really arguing that it is a meaningless phrase, but you're still saying that all things being equal, people should give you your way. Why should anyone change what they're doing just because it's what you would choose to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Oh, it's because many GGers claim it's about ethics in games journalism, and the actual activities of GG seem to be complaining about cultural criticism of games. Games Journalism people are one of the best sources of dumb twitter things, which include selling Feminist Frequency as very important and Gamergate as very scary until the former is held up as the face of cultural criticism of videogames and the manufactured scariness of the latter results in that really really good Law and Order: SVU episode about them. Games are a medium which lends itself very well to click-bait and soapboxing since most people know the industry makes lots of money but honestly don't give a poo poo about the content of it. This has occurred in other pop-culture subcultures like tabletop games or comics or cartoons and what have you but nothing can top the moral panic and lazy indignation you can exploit over videogames. Gamergate itself just got confused and put the cart before the horse when they think this is about ~Journalism Ethics~ in and of itself. It's not. It's about a delicate nightmare ecology where emotional retards harvest each others' brains and nerves after spooking one another. Regardless, it is a really good time and should be experienced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:If it's a meaningless phrase that carries no weight, it's fine to keep doing it. Nobody loses anything, a common figure of speech remains in use and nobody cares that they hear it all the time. People who find a problem with the phrase "man up" are not professionally offended. No one truly is offended by such things. However, what does happen when people use the phrase "man up" is that it continues to standardize the image that women are weaker and less brave than men. While it's not the sole thing that's going to cause a woman to have a negative self-image or reinforce elements of a patriarchal society, it contributes to the problem and thus should be removed. If the phrase "quick as a Black" was popularized and standardized to the same degree as "man up" is, would you have a problem with it? Standardization does not protect speech from being sexist or racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Why do only GGers want to talk about her, Obdicut. I don't think only GGers want to talk about her. I want to talk about her because her videos/writings are banal feminism 101, and yet they cause such a virulent reaction, and, as I said (which you seem to not really grasp) she shows that GG's focus is not ethics in games journalism. Not an Owl posted:Can we please all stop pretending that the other side supports the main proponents of each movement? I don't actually see anyone doing this, though. For one thing, nobody has been able to identify anyone on the GG side they want to hold up as a main proponent. I don't know who is considered the main proponents on the anti-GG side, but i haven't really seen any accusations of "You support x person" aimed at 'anti' people as well. I'm obviously quite anti-GG and nobody has said that I support anyone. quote:The main discussion that we should be (and sometimes attempt to have) having is whether one side actually has a point in the end. The difficulty is that it seems to me that GG has two main points: "Ethics in games journalism" and "stop criticizing games as though they're meant to be more than just fun". The first point fails for a lot of reasons already put down, mostly that they focus on indie games journalists and games rather than the large industry titles, have almost no comprehension of how the games industry or games journalism functions, and don't tend to actually target ethics in games journalism almost at all. The second fails because games are more than just fun, they try to tackle serious issues and even if they don't, they still are a cultural output and criticism is appropriate. Wulfolme posted:If it's a meaningless phrase that carries no weight, it's fine to keep doing it. Nobody loses anything, a common figure of speech remains in use and nobody cares that they hear it all the time. True. But if some people think it does carry weight, and is harmful, but you think it doesn't and is fine, why not just stop using it anyway? What gets lost? It's possible those people are just big whiners, but what goes away if you stop saying "Man up" and instead say "Get game"? What gets lost if you stop saying "Don't Jew me" but instead say "don't cheat me?" Do you think "Don't Jew me" carries no weight as well, by the way? quote:How is one of these invalid and the other a good point? I know you're not really arguing that it is a meaningless phrase, but you're still saying that all things being equal, people should give you your way. Why should anyone change what they're doing just because it's what you would choose to do? Because if you're saying it doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to someone else, why not change? What's gained by saying "Since I don't believe it matters, I won't change"? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't think only GGers want to talk about her. I want to talk about her because her videos/writings are banal feminism 101, and yet they cause such a virulent reaction, and, as I said (which you seem to not really grasp) she shows that GG's focus is not ethics in games journalism. You seem to bring up ethics in gaming journalism a great deal, are you sure you're not sympathetic towards the Gamergate's hivemind cause my friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Junkfist posted:Games Journalism people are one of the best sources of dumb twitter things, which include selling Feminist Frequency as very important and Gamergate as very scary until the former is held up as the face of cultural criticism of videogames and the manufactured scariness of the latter results in that really really good Law and Order: SVU episode about them. By 'games journalism people', do you mean mainstream games journalists or indie types? quote:Games are a medium which lends itself very well to click-bait and soapboxing since most people know the industry makes lots of money but honestly don't give a poo poo about the content of it. Cool. poptart_fairy posted:You seem to bring up ethics in gaming journalism a great deal, are you sure you're not sympathetic towards the Gamergate's hivemind cause my friend. You began by making little sense, but have now dropped into pretty much pure noise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Not an Owl posted:People who find a problem with the phrase "man up" are not professionally offended. No one truly is offended by such things. However, what does happen when people use the phrase "man up" is that it continues to standardize the image that women are weaker and less brave than men. While it's not the sole thing that's going to cause a woman to have a negative self-image or reinforce elements of a patriarchal society, it contributes to the problem and thus should be removed. I wasn't even sure what phrase he was referring to. I was calling him out on his bullshit reasoning. It's not very helpful if you're only right about something by complete accident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Not an Owl posted:The main discussion that we should be (and sometimes attempt to have) having is whether one side actually has a point in the end. My opinons, feel free to call me a shitlord, I guess: Stop cramming social identity politics into media for the sake of cramming social identity politics into media. If its relevant to the story, fine. If not, it's jarring and obvious pandering. Put a black gay guy into a game, fine! It's when their entire character is "I'm black and gay" is when it becomes ridiculous. Stop "tone-policing" people for the sake of creating "safe spaces" which stifle discourse. This tends to infantilize discussion into little more than "color in the lines" circlejerks where everyone agrees and no one is ever (too) wrong. If you want that kind of discussion forum, fine, but don't demand people conform to your inability to handle a bit of banter. Too many places *cough* are governed by this sense of fear of offending the wrong people and being punished for it. "Dudebros" are going to play games with bald and burly marines killing the poo poo out of aliens/terrorists and say naughty and offensive things to each other in multiplayer while doing so. Deal with it. Violence and gore are an excellent way of gaining people's attention ,and a lot of people enjoy watching it. Action and horror movies would not exist, televised martial arts wouldn't exist, FPS games wouldn't exist, fighting games wouldn't exist. Kicking rear end and smashing skulls is a fundamental part of what we are as a species, in the appropriate context of course. Sports, fiction, and unfortunately war are our outlets for this kind of thing. Most people are pretty nice and easygoing and wouldn't hurt a fly but there's that deep seated itch that we just gotta scratch somehow. GTA wouldn't sell if it didn't fulfill that base need. No one cares if girls play games, people care about "im a girl, tee hee, dont hit on me boys" and causing dumbass distractions. Lonely nerds are seriously retarded when it comes to girls and there's nothing but dumb drama involved when girls use "im a girl!" as a pass for whatever. Every game I've played when girls show up and announce being a girl more than a few other players just fawn all over her with free poo poo and extra attention. It's the basic human need to protect and nurture the women, and its really stupid but people can't help it. That's where the "go home gamer girl" idea comes from, in that being a girl on the internet is going to attract too much dumb male attention. There is literally nothing you can do about this other than whine on a blog and demand people educate themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:By 'games journalism people', do you mean mainstream games journalists or indie types? What do you mean by "mainstream games journalist"? The idea that there's any sort of establishment when it comes to "games journalism" when the "enthusiast press", or whatever you call youtubers and podcasters, are considered more informative and have more clout than they do seems silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:
Hahah wow. There was a lot of good stuff here but this was some of the best. The basic human need to protect and nurture the women. Tell me more about this. Also are you actually a minarchist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:It's Baby > Worried > Confident > Bloodthirsty Minarchist posted:Stop cramming social identity politics into media for the sake of cramming social identity politics into media. If its relevant to the story, fine. If not, it's jarring and obvious pandering. Put a black gay guy into a game, fine! It's when their entire character is "I'm black and gay" is when it becomes ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Hahah wow. There was a lot of good stuff here but this was some of the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Junkfist posted:What do you mean by "mainstream games journalist"? I mean the writers who work for IGN, Gamespot, Gamefaqs, as well as the games journalists that work for the standard media outlets rather than the games-specific journals. I'm not sure how you're operationalization 'clout', can you explain? I think that word-of-mouth matters a lot more than either mainstream journalists or the 'enthusiast press', but between the 'enthusiast press' and the big-name sites I think the big-name sites have more clout. I may just be a dinosaur on this so I'd love it if you had any data.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:As Gamergate clearly demonstrates, men universally wish to protect and nurture women. Gamergate is too large and nebulous to attribute a single opinion to. Same with aGG. Obdicut posted:The basic human need to protect and nurture the women. Tell me more about this. Yes, this is a thing. "Women and children first!" isn't some bullshit line from Titanic. Protect the vulnerable. Men are more expendable, its why we get drafted and thrown into battle and women don't. I'd like to think most men agree with "get the women and kids to safety" before they think about themselves or other men. Obdicut posted:Also are you actually a minarchist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Gamergate is too large and nebulous to attribute a single opinion to Minarchist posted:Yes, this is a thing. "Women and children first!" isn't some bullshit line from Titanic. Protect the vulnerable. Men are more expendable, its why we get drafted and thrown into battle and women don't. I'd like to think most men agree with "get the women and kids to safety" before they think about themselves or other men. Also here is a sad fact: Roy Baumeister will probably die right as the last of his theories is proved wrong. (They're taking down ego depletion right now. The rest of his useless stuff will die later.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I mean the writers who work for IGN, Gamespot, Gamefaqs, as well as the games journalists that work for the standard media outlets rather than the games-specific journals. I'm not sure how you're operationalization 'clout', can you explain? It's worth pointing out that the likes of TotalBiscuit/PewDiePie tend to also have a massive, if somewhat understated, influence on the discourse about video games. Word of mouth has always been massively influential in video games as a medium, but it's only really with the rise of Youtube and such things that commercial interests have managed to infiltrate such talk beyond console warrior slapfights (Sega does what Nintendon't)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:My opinons, feel free to call me a shitlord, I guess: There are people in the world who are not like you. You have to share the world with people who are not like you, and if you view their mere existence as an incursion into your world that you feel like you have to repel, you may not be seeing things as they are. The world is changing all the time, and you have no more right to it than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:
It is something that pretty much happened only on the Titanic and the Birkenhead, actually. Historically, you're wrong: http://www.history.com/news/women-and-children-first-on-sinking-ships-its-every-man-for-himself Note in particular, quoting from it: Economists Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixson from the University of Uppsala in Sweden have studied 18 maritime disasters that took place between 1852 and 2011. Writing in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they reveal that women and children only enjoyed a better outcome than men when the Birkenhead and Titanic went down. In every other case, men had the advantage, with an average survival rate of 37 percent compared to 27 percent for women and 15 percent for children. Rather than “women and children first,” Elinder said, passengers and crew on stricken vessels have historically abided by a very different axiom: “Every man for himself.” How, then, did the “women and children first” myth originate? Elinder pointed to the work of Cambridge University historian Lucy Delap, who has argued that the British ruling elite during the Edwardian era spread the notion that men put women’s interests first. Their goal, according to Delap, was to shatter the case for female suffrage. Elinder also noted that the constant retelling of Titanic’s demise in the years since 1915 has irrevocably shaped people’s understanding of behavior during maritime disasters. Though initially surprised by the results, Elinder said they make sense given what we know about human nature. “After all, risking your own life for another person that you may not know is quite an extraordinary act of altruism,” he pointed out. “And as we don’t see that kind of extreme altruism in many other contexts it is not so surprising that it is not common in maritime disaster either.” quote:Protect the vulnerable. Men are more expendable, its why we get drafted and thrown into battle and women don't. First of all 'vulnerable' and 'expendable' aren't opposed. What you could say to have a coherent argument is that women are vulnerable, men are tougher. If you want to use 'expendable', you need to say women are more valuable, and men are expendable. Neither argument actually holds any water. Both men and women are necessary in any social group or society. The reason that men get drafted is because we have an outmoded system where people believed women to be less capable than men, not out of a desire to protect women, and this is now being changed. We do throw women into combat a lot. Why are women 'vulnerable'? I also think maybe you don't know what the word 'nurture' means? quote:I'd like to think most men agree with "get the women and kids to safety" before they think about themselves or other men. It depends what's happening, but these situations don't really come up that often anyway. Liking to think everyone is like you may be convenient, but it's not the case. In any sort of tragic situation where I had to rescue people, I'd just start rescuing people based on who looked like they weren't able to get out of it on their own. I'm not going to pass by an unconscious dude because he's male, or some 60 year old guy with his leg trapped to save a fit 30 year old woman who's fine with getting out on her own. What the gently caress sense does that make? Are you arguing I should rescue the woman because she's breeding stock or something? Do you think the women aren't going to also be helping to save the more vulnerable people? If you're hurt and a woman is dragging you to safety are you going to shout "No, save your precious uterus for the good of the tribe!" at her? quote:It's just a username. Good, because minarchism is one of the dumbest things ever. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There are people in the world who are not like you. You have to share the world with people who are not like you, and if you view their mere existence as an incursion into your world that you feel like you have to repel, you may not be seeing things as they are. The world is changing all the time, and you have no more right to it than anyone else. Agreed! It's when people feel that they aren't allowed to express their opinions out of fear, or are made to feel guilty for something they cannot change, that's the rub. Free discourse is good. Shaming and censorship is bad. The most insane, radical person has every right to say whatever they want. It's when someone starts shouting people down or shame brigading them for an honest opinion or for their intrinsic identity is when I have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Agreed! Only if they're men, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Minarchist posted:Agreed! First, GGers precise complaint about a lot of people is that they're saying things. In addition, You don't think it's okay to shame someone for having the honest opinion that Jews are in control of the world's economic markets and that women are inherently evil whores? I sure do. And I think shouting them down is bad. You seem to be mixing up the right to say what you want with the right to say what you want and not be criticized for it. By the way, you never answered if you see a problem with the phrase "Don't Jew me on this deal". Do you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:03
|
|