|
I think the headset thing really is why it shows up in Console FPS more. I'm sure other games have equally racist players but making the barrier to communicate just that little harder keeps them from at least saying it. PC FPS isn't immune for sure, when I played Planetside Sony actually sponsored a legit White Nationalist as the face of their game before realizing that they might have hosed up a bit by doing that.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Fans posted:I think the headset thing really is why it shows up in Console FPS more. I'm sure other games have equally racist players but making the barrier to communicate just that little harder keeps them from at least saying it. sounds about normal for how sony handled planetside
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Yeah. Don’t kid yourself that this stuff hasn’t poisoned the whole tree and missed your branches. With the popularity means there’s diversity in every playerbase, but you can guarantee there’s an undercurrent of racism and sexism in nearly every gaming community. The explosion of popularity in the last two decades has been tilted towards 10-40 year old boys/men via marketing and self selecting culture, and grognards can get just as upset about ‘getting politics in ma vidya games’ as the jocks. It's more that I find it hard to believe that people who spend a lot of time screaming over VOIP have any friends whereas crusty older gamers tend to be a bit more well adjusted. And it may be age demographics skewing it but I find the game people I talk to to be less racist than the general population. Dunno how they compare to their age bracket in general though. But then I don't really associate with anyone who self identifies as a gamer, just people who play games in addition to having other aspects to their lives. Self identifying as a gamer would be indicator number 1 of the aforementioned lack of adjustment. Lots of people play games and you can do that a bunch without getting involved with "gamer culture" or whatever, so you can interact with games without them really having a coherent effect on your worldview. People can organize their own groups around games without being involved in a monolithic ideology that may or may not exist within gaming (I don't have enough experience with it to really comment) so I would question the idea that any trends can affect everyone who plays games. It makes about as much sense as saying that an ideology affects all book readers or film watchers. It's a thing you can do nowadays without engaging in a coherent subculture. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Glazier posted:The best part is when people call him out for it by showing how the only retweets are transphobes, he uses Stefan Molyneux's catchphrase. Oh my god
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Meh, people get played sometimes. I'm not gonna throw Contra under the bus just because she decided to give someone the benefit of the doubt and got burned on it. I don't know squat about this guy. Does he say making GBS threads things about adult trans people, or is he in trouble for stuff regarding trans children?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:I don't know squat about this guy. Does he say making GBS threads things about adult trans people, or is he in trouble for stuff regarding trans children? It's mostly about "just asking questions" about getting treatment for trans kids. Puberty blockers and the like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:It's mostly about "just asking questions" about getting treatment for trans kids. Puberty blockers and the like. Are these things nobody should write about? Is science never something that scientists debate? I have read that article twice in two days and I'm not seeing the transphobia, so if somebody could explain beyond "just asking questions" arguments, which feels like a bad faith way of saying "doing longform journalism that covers multiple perspectives" then I'd appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Are these things nobody should write about? Is science never something that scientists debate? Journalists aren't scientists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Journalists aren't scientists. So how should journalism about science that is being debated between scientists cover that science? Or should it not? What are the specific critiques of the article, the things it got wrong, or the things it didn't cover that it should have?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Are these things nobody should write about? Is science never something that scientists debate? To my understanding it's less about the article itself (which probably has tons of problems that someone more knowledgeable than my could list) and more the fact that it's most often posted by assholes to point at and say, "See?! Those perverts are corrupting our youth and those that speak out against it are silenced by (((ACADEMIA)))!!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:To my understanding it's less about the article itself (which probably has tons of problems that someone more knowledgeable than my could list) and more the fact that it's most often posted by assholes to point at and say, "See?! Those perverts are corrupting our youth and those that speak out against it are silenced by (((ACADEMIA)))!!!" Assholes use a lot of science poorly, I don't see why this makes the scientists or the people who write about it responsible for that. Nazis love Taylor Swift too, doesn't mean she gets punched.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:So how should journalism about science that is being debated between scientists cover that science? Or should it not? As far as I'm aware there is not substantial controversy among medical professionals about how to help transgender people other than ones motivated by things other than scientific thinking. Transitioning is the best available treatment for the damaging effects of gender dysphoria, and I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary that isn't propagated by quacks shilling for pray the gay away camps. Some positions do not merit any consideration or credence. They are not valid. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:So how should journalism about science that is being debated between scientists cover that science? Or should it not? For one thing, he didn't include any statements from patients or, you know, actual trans people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:For one thing, he didn't include any statements from patients or, you know, actual trans people. Even though many came out after the article was published and said he interviewed them. ClancyEverafter posted:Nazis love Taylor Swift too, doesn't mean she gets punched. She's actually one of them, so go nuts. Gynocentric Regime fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As far as I'm aware there is not substantial controversy among medical professionals about how to help transgender people other than ones motivated by things other than scientific thinking. I don't see where the article contradicts this. What I read from that is that dysphoria isn't always persistent, and that there is debate over when you can say it is and start working on transitioning; specifically this seems to be the key pull: "GIC’s view gender is quite malleable at a young age and gender dysphoria will likely resolve itself with time." and that other people disagreed with that assessment and the course of action they advised based on that assessment of the science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Assholes use a lot of science poorly, I don't see why this makes the scientists or the people who write about it responsible for that. Fun Fact: If you play Taylor Swift at 10% speed it turns into Fashwave
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
In which case you can stop taking the delayers. They buy time for clinicians and the patient to figure out whether they want to transition more easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In which case you can stop taking the delayers. They buy time for clinicians and the patient to figure out whether they want to transition more easily. What do the scientists who think you should delay...the delayers, I guess, argue in response to this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Why do people on the left keep consistently getting tricked by these people? (like Samantha Bee)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Even though many came out after the article was published and said he interviewed them. Exactly. It was pretty clearly a biased piece.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:What do the scientists who think you should delay...the delayers, I guess, argue in response to this? I don't loving know, I expect the people who object to that are just doing it because they hate the idea of transpeople because they're bigoted twats, not because they're being scientific.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As far as I'm aware there is not substantial controversy among medical professionals about how to help transgender people other than ones motivated by things other than scientific thinking. I think the article is questioning, if it does so (I've only read half of it so far), gender dysphoria, etc, in children, not so much treatment for adults. I feel for any parent who has to deal with a young child who is questioning their gender... I'd be terrified of doing the wrong thing and screwing them up for life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:I don't see where the article contradicts this. What I read from that is that dysphoria isn't always persistent, and that there is debate over when you can say it is and start working on transitioning; specifically this seems to be the key pull: "GIC’s view gender is quite malleable at a young age and gender dysphoria will likely resolve itself with time." and that other people disagreed with that assessment and the course of action they advised based on that assessment of the science. It was only people who displayed few signs of dysphoria that resolved themselves later in life. Those that displayed most or all signs, those who are most likely to receive some sort of treatment for it, did not have their dysphoria resolve itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't loving know, I expect the people who object to that are just doing it because they hate the idea of transpeople because they're bigoted twats, not because they're being scientific. That's an incredibly bad faith assumption to make. I don't see how people who spend their day-to-day careers, choosing to work with the trans community, are instantly outed as transphobes because their view of the science is different than yours, and I think it's pretty lovely of you to do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:What do the scientists who think you should delay...the delayers, I guess, argue in response to this? It doesn't matter because there is no argument for it. Puberty blockers do not have adverse effects but undergoing the wrong puberty demonstrably does, therefore treating any kid that might be trans as trans is the only sensible procedure. Anyone who argues otherwise is almost certainly transphobic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:That's an incredibly bad faith assumption to make. Don't pretend this is literally the only evidence we have of that dude being a shithead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:It doesn't matter because there is no argument for it. Puberty blockers do not have adverse effects but undergoing the wrong puberty demonstrably does, therefore treating any kid that might be trans as trans is the only sensible procedure. Anyone who argues otherwise is almost certainly transphobic. But the people in the article we're discussing don't advocate for denying puberty blockers to trans-identifying kids who are approaching puberty, does it? That's not what I'm reading here at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Don't pretend this is literally the only evidence we have of that dude being a shithead. Then bring them out. Because what I'm seeing is a guy who writes about the stuff a lot, which why would you do that and make so many attempts to declare your support for people who are trans, who expends tons of effort and time and takes a lot of abuse for it, when there's such an easier route to be yet another transphobe. I think the worst you could say is this guy doesn't care about it the way you think he should, not that he doesn't care. I think declaring the borders of TERFness to include people who write sympathetic articles filled with detail, research and humanity is basically reducing your worldview to something George W Bush might propose. It's cartoonish and doesn't do anybody any favors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Ultimately being trans is a psychological condition, or it has a strong psychological component, it's dangerous for people because it can cause serious psychological harm if ignored. And when you're looking to help someone undergoing psychological trauma you fundamentally have to put trust in them to be able to articulate and understand their condition. It necessarily has to fall down to the patient. And it's not ideal that it can happen to children who have an even bigger disadvantage building a picture of their feelings and how they fit into the world they live in, but that's the situation people find themselves in and the same reasoning applies. You have to trust the person whose issue it is. You can't take their head apart and find the bit that's causing them distress and hold it up to a chart to figure out what's wrong with them, all you can do is arm them with as much knowledge and support as possible and puberty delaying drugs can be an important part of that. They buy more time for the patient and their doctors to come to a decision they are more comfortable with. I see nothing whatsoever helpful or compassionate in people complaining about this, they are complaining about placing trust in unwell children to express agency in their own treatment. I have absolutely no patience for someone who does that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:That's an incredibly bad faith assumption to make. Would you say the same thing about people who perform gay conversion "therapies"? They're just trying to help them not be gay anymore, just cause they believe in difference science than you doesn't make them homophobes, how dare you make such an assertion! Have you even bothered to seek out how trans people feel about Singal/Zucker before getting into a fight on SA about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ultimately being trans is a psychological condition, or it has a strong psychological component, it's dangerous for people because it can cause serious psychological harm if ignored. And when you're looking to help someone undergoing psychological trauma you fundamentally have to put trust in them to be able to articulate and understand their condition. It necessarily has to fall down to the patient. And it's not ideal that it can happen to children who have an even bigger disadvantage building a picture of their feelings and how they fit into the world they live in, but that's the situation people find themselves in and the same reasoning applies. I think that while the child has to have input, they can't be the only input. Children do not 100% understand themselves or the world, and it's OK to allow adults to temper the discernment of children. In fact, it's pretty much required for the healthy upbringing of children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
super tedious arguing with the guy who's all "what do the rational scientists have to say?!" about something which is entirely a social and moral issue
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Would you say the same thing about people who perform gay conversion "therapies"? They're just trying to help them not be gay anymore, just cause they believe in difference science than you doesn't make them homophobes, how dare you make such an assertion! No, the difference is that what was happening at the clinic in question wasn't trying to steer a child, as much as reflecting what the professionals at the clinic believed about dysphoria and desistance. If the clinic in question was similar to a "gay conversion" therapy center, it'd be easy to identify by an embrace of quack medicine, a lot of jesus talk, and the need to market itself outside of traditional medical circles. That doesn't seem to be at all what was going on there. I have talked about this with trans people I know, and none of them knew anything about the controversy. I also have a person close to me who is dealing with gender issues, but as they age, have seemed to be experiencing desistance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:dont get me wrong, FPS are riddled with assholes and cretins, but MOBAs and fighting games are way worse This is not an excuse for being an rear end in a top hat in a video game. But I see hostility in an FPS game as unprovoked rear end in a top hat syndrome. While with a MOBA it takes countless hours of play before you become that player, out of a sense of hopelessness that you will still only have 50 percent winrate because you got 4 other fucktards on your team (not saying this is true, but it can sure feel that way) and you will go into every game expecting some form of disappointment. MOBA guys want to win more games, FPS guys want to make loud noises and piss off as many people as they can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:super tedious arguing with the guy who's all "what do the rational scientists have to say?!" about something which is entirely a social and moral issue LMAO if you don't think social and moral considerations are baked into the way scientists research and discuss their work. Do you know any scientists? Because the ones I know personally seem to be thoughtful people who by and large give a lot of time to considering the ethical outcomes of their work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Do you know any scientists? no, i dont know any scientists. they are super rare creatures that only exist at the top of an ivory tower. nobody's seen one around here since the days of the ancients 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:I think that while the child has to have input, they can't be the only input. Children do not 100% understand themselves or the world, and it's OK to allow adults to temper the discernment of children. In fact, it's pretty much required for the healthy upbringing of children. That sounds like a very wishy washy way of saying "No you're wrong you are [x] gender now shut up."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Think of it like climate change. There are not two sides. There's one side, the correct side, and the idiots who believe the opposite even though it's demonstrably false. In this case the correct side is treating potentially trans kids with gender affirming methods. Giving them puberty blockers, letting them act/dress as their identified gender. If they're not trans it does no harm and they can go back to identifying as their assigned gender, if they are trans then you just made their lives a billion times better than if they were forced to go through the wrong puberty and identify as a gender that they are not. Kenneth Zucker's treatment is the wrong treatment and goes against this understanding, much like climate change deniers go against the mountain of evidence that is for climate change. So an article that purports him and those like him as sympathetic and his opposition as political correctness or whatever bullshit the article spewed is absolutely anti-trans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That sounds like a very wishy washy way of saying "No you're wrong you are [x] gender now shut up." yeah it's almost like this dude isn't arguing in good faith and is using "logic! reason!" as a bludgeon
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Genocyber posted:Think of it like climate change. There are not two sides. There's one side, the correct side, and the idiots who believe the opposite even though it's demonstrably false. In this case the correct side is treating potentially trans kids with gender affirming methods. Giving them puberty blockers, letting them act/dress as their identified gender. If they're not trans it does no harm and they can go back to identifying as their assigned gender, if they are trans then you just made their lives a billion times better than if they were forced to go through the wrong puberty and identify as a gender that they are not. Yes but have you considered that he has an opinion on the science and thus it is also valid??
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:23
|
|