Liana Kerzner on the rift in gaming.

Leads to the next question of whether something like Twitter is more important to the conversation than the actual reviews. I can only recall, like, two reviews worth remembering (besides ActionButton.Net, but that's a special case). Of course, that question leads to the next question that has come up of how important the 'conversation' even is.

OG_slinger wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

Second, you're right about the polls. My info is out of date at best. But I looked over the polls over several decades and there are always many more reporters self identifying as Democrat as opposed to Republican. It's just that more and more from both sides have now shifted to independent.

It would be bending reality to the breaking point to say that your information was merely out of date. It was flat out wrong. Additionally, it never came close to reflecting reality over the past 40+ years.

I don't say that to be mean or attack you. It's just that you confidently asserted something that was not remotely true and then used that as a jumping off point to make a series of additional assertions about journalists, assertions that can't possibly be hold up when the actual political affiliation of reporters is factored in.

I have to ask if knowing this real information changes your thoughts about journalists, their motivations, how they view their profession, etc.?

I don't know if you'll find this credible or not but I'd knew I'd heard some version of these statistics somewhere and wanted to post this link http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...

Just posting it for the sake of saying, no I didn't just invent the report. I read it somewhere and maybe mistated the findings a bit but the basic idea and rough percentages are supported in this article (minus the "self identify" part). Particularly telling are the voting records which skew heavily in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate in all cases.

But these were old numbers I was quoting.

And yes, as others have already posted, stating that you're independent is very useful for journalists to try to deflect accusations of bias and to have access to politicians.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I don't know if you'll find this credible or not but I'd knew I'd heard some version of these statistics somewhere and wanted to post this link http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...

Just posting it for the sake of saying, no I didn't just invent the report. I read it somewhere and maybe mistated the findings a bit but the basic idea and rough percentages are supported in this article (minus the "self identify" part). Particularly telling are the voting records which skew heavily in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate in all cases.

First, what you've posted isn't a report at all. It's an article selectively summarizing polls to support the assertion that the media is horribly biased to the left.

It's also an article published in a conservative magazine run by an editor, David Horowitz, who has made a career claiming that the left's agenda is to destroy America, that colleges and universities are nothing more than indoctrination camps for the left, that blacks themselves were responsible for slavery, and whose views on Muslims are so dark and twisted that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers him one of the top ten anti-Muslim inner circle hardliners in the country.

In case you have to guess, I'm initially disinclined to view the article as credible.

But I am willing to look at it in more depth, especially the areas you highlighted: the voting records of reporters.

The first four examples of which seem to show that journalists overwhelmingly vote for Democratic candidates (at least in the 60s and 70s). The problem with those numbers is that they are all based on a single survey from 1981 that polled a mere 238 journalists from what were considered the most influential media outlets of the time. Unsurprisingly, the results of the poll were first published by the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

The next example, about votes for Carter or Reagan, was based on just 50 reporters from "America's largest newspapers."

The 1984 example did come from a larger LA Times survey, but it was still just questioning the top editor at less than 600 newspapers. It's a bit hard to claim that an entire paper (or media, in general) is biased based on the survey response of a single person working there.

The 1988 and 1992 examples were based on talking to 28 White House correspondents (that's out of the approximately 250 journalists in the White House press corps).

The Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents example was based on the responses of just 139 people.

The next example about voting preferences of White House correspondents in the 80s and 90s was based on the 28 people mentioned previously.

The next example, about campaign journalists favoring Kerry over Bush, seems interesting until you bother to Google it. Then you find out that the author himself calls it an "unscientific survey" based on "anonymous answers" from just 153 journalists.

Additionally, the author, a reporter himself, asked the pertinent question of whether those results actually showed political bias:

But political ideology isn't the only possible bias. Journalists also have a professional bias: they need good stories to make the front page and get on the air.

So we asked our respondents which administration they'd prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint. We expected the Washington journalists to strongly prefer Mr. Kerry, partly because they complain so much about the difficulty of getting leaks from the Bush White House, but mainly because any change in administration means lots of news.

Sure enough, the Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40. (A few others had no opinion.) The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.

Why stick with the Bush administration? "You can't ask for a richer cast of characters to cover," one Washington correspondent said. "Kerry will be a bore after these guys."

The 2004 survey of 300 newspaper of TV journalists, in addition to being a woefully small sample size, was conducted primarily to compare and contrast media versus the general public and tracking the general decline of the public trusting the media. That and finding wonderful tidbits like 95% of journalists favoring being able ”to publish freely without governmental approval of a story” versus barely half of the general public.

The 2008 example of 144 journalists and their campaign contributions strangely left out the following caveat from MSNBC:

The final list represents a tiny percentage of the working journalists in the nation. Daily newspapers alone employ about 60,000 full-time journalists. Approximately 30,000 work in television news jobs and 10,000 in radio news.

The above, of course, would also apply to William Tate's 2008 breathless account (*not* a "study") of donations in Investors Business Daily. But, worse, Tate doesn't actually show his work so there's no way to tell if the key words he searched for--such as "editor," "publisher," or "reporter"--are actually in the 100,000 or so people who work in the news media or if they're part of the much larger media environment which includes everything from Tiger Beat, Woodworking Magazine, or a random blog or online "news site."

So beyond the fact that all of the above examples attempt to take extremely small sample sizes and apply them to "the media" as a whole, they still don't show any actual media bias towards the left. They allude to it, but there's absolutely nothing that *shows* media bias.

For that you'd have to go into academic research and the results there are rather unclear.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

And yes, as others have already posted, stating that you're independent is very useful for journalists to try to deflect accusations of bias and to have access to politicians.

You understand that to get back to anywhere near your original claim that *every* journalist who said they were Independent would have to secretly be a Democrat? And not just a plain Democrat, but a "liberal" Democrat.

How likely do you think that is?

And I'm still waiting to hear your answer on whether this information changes your thoughts about journalists, their motivations, how they view their profession, etc. or if you're still going to stick with the idea they're all liberals who are out to change the world and indoctrinate everyone in with their progressive ideas.

I'm still not sure how you get from doubts about bias in mainstream newspaper journalists to game journalists, because if you think that game reviews are being written by the New York Times editorial board you are gravely mistaken. Even if mainstream journalists were substantially biased--which, as OG_slinger's post demonstrates, there's not a lot of evidence to support--it doesn't have any bearing on the original discussion about game journalists.

Double post for double confusion.

CptDomano wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Luckily we have 3 threads to have this conversation!

WideAndNerdy, From This Thread wrote:

We're done thanks.

WideAndNerdy, From Another Thread wrote:

I'm tired of this.

WideAndNerdy, From Thread The Third wrote:

I don't see a way to delete my account.

WideAndNerdy's Signature wrote:

Please delete my account.

Now, I'm not calling for anyone to be banned or to GTFO, but if this conversation is affecting you this much, maybe take some time away from P&C and interact with the people around here in areas where you don't feel like you're under attack. Like in any of the numerous video game specific threads.

I see you've popped into the Mario Maker thread and created a level, for instance. It might do some good to take a step back for a little bit and just play some video games you enjoy.

After that, if you still feel that strongly that everyone here is out to get you, feel free to PM Certis.

I'd go with what CptDomano said, the whole reason anyone should (really) sign up for GWJ is to play games! That's what we all love. The P&C forum is a good place for many, but if it's causing you personal bother then maybe just stick to the other parts of the forum. I don't like to venture here too often, I'm here to talk about games and to try and find people to play with. I've noticed you've mentioned you have low self esteem, but this is a great place to feel more at home with players you share a common interest in. The purpose of this place is to create a community, and because of your experience in this thread, don't take it personally. This isn't a political forum, but a place that you can make some friends to play some games with! We're all here for that, and don't think that people hate you because of what has happened in this thread, I'm fairly sure all of the people here would happily play games or discuss them with you.

We've all got different beliefs and I think that this forum is very tolerant of that, which is one of the things I love about it. When I first started here, I started a thread which had already been posted. I'd done this on other forums and been shot down. Here, I was told it was an easy mistake to make and even when I've said stupid stuff here, people have spoke to me reasonably about it. All I'm saying is, people here aren't out to get you, they want to be friendly with you be default!

So come and enjoy some games

EDIT: Forget it. Not worth it.

Gremlin wrote:

I'm still not sure how you get from doubts about bias in mainstream newspaper journalists to game journalists, because if you think that game reviews are being written by the New York Times editorial board you are gravely mistaken. Even if mainstream journalists were substantially biased--which, as OG_slinger's post demonstrates, there's not a lot of evidence to support--it doesn't have any bearing on the original discussion about game journalists.

This all got confused because I mentioned old numbers I saw about conventional journalism but I have no reason to believe that games journalists are that much different politically. I think many journalists want to believe that what they're writing about is important. And if you come from any kind of school of journalism "Important" means "deals with important social issues" so I think critics and reviewers tend to be motivated when a game deals with such topics so they can show others that the stuff they write about is "important".

Of course games are important for a lot of reasons, and I'm sure games journalists get that, but the "important social issues" motivation is easier to sell outside of gaming circles than starting from scratch with lessons about game design and the participatory nature of an artistic experience crafted partly by designer and player. Yes they make their money from their gaming audience but at some point I believe they want prestige as well. I'll bet a lot of people at 20 think "oh cool, I'm writing about video games" but by thirty they're thinking "Am I really spending my life writing about video games? I have to justify this." Maybe its different ages for different people but its only natural for this to happen.

So you're going with complete confirmation bias then?

WideAndNerdy wrote:

And I don't have it in me to fight it. I'm staying in my house and living my life alone until we're no longer free at which point I will end my life. (Cue a bunch of posts calling me paranoid even as armed drones fly over our enemies and camera mounted drones fly over our homes to say nothing of what Snowden revealed ). We should be working together to dismantle power. Instead we fight each other to decide which groups we're going to dick over with our power in which ways.

I'm a pessimist by nature. Like really pessimistic. I've changed in the last few years, though. I realized that once you've gotten so pessimistic as to be resigned to dark thoughts like the idea that we're all doomed or that we're not free then you have a few choices. You can fight that. You can leave your house and volunteer and fight it until you inevitably die anyway. Better to go down fighting, right?

You can also just enjoy your life. For me pessimism wrapped around and I reached the conclusion that optimism was the only choice in the face of such unrelenting pessimism. If I think life is that bleak, that we're that doomed, then why not take my 60 - 90 years on this earth and enjoy it as much as I can. Travel, see the world, play games I enjoy, watch movies I enjoy, do work I enjoy, whatever. Lay in the grass in the sun, ride a bike. Life is short. You can be a prisoner to this pessimism or you can enjoy the world as it actually is moment to moment for what it is.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I only posted that to show that there were some numbers floating around out there and that I didn't just make them up myself. I specifically said as much. But you had to do the analysis anyway which really says more about you than me.

But you did make up the numbers yourself.

Nowhere in that article was a poll that showed that 90% of journalists were liberal Democrats who wanted to change the world by being progressive advocates as you originally asserted. The closest thing would be poll that found 94% percent of a handful of journalists in the late 60s voted for the Democratic candidate.

All you've done is start at your conclusion--journalists are unrepentant liberals who are trying to change the world (in a bad way, otherwise you wouldn't care)--and provide exceptionally weak evidence that falls apart once you in its general direction to support it. That actually says more about you than it does about me.

And I really didn't have to do much analysis because all you had to do was scroll down to the article's footnotes to see how pathetically small the survey sizes were.

That alone should have clued you in that you were reading a partisan piece that massaged the data to fit their agenda. Which is odd considering that one of the links you provided the other day accused Sarkeesian of that particular kind of academic dishonesty.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I still think most journalists lean left. Certainly most journalists lean towards one of the big two both of whom get off on the thought of dominating people because they both think they know the best way to run the lives of hundred of millions of people they've never met and don't give a sh*t about. It matters little to me which pack of assholes they support. They pretty much all support assholes and thumb their noses at people who would truly have us be free.

And yet you have no proof of that outside your gut feeling.

You certainly have every right to have that opinion, but you honestly can't expect others to take it seriously as an informed opinion based that's based on facts.

Doubly so when you try use that gut feeling as the logical foundation to make other, much broader assertions and accusations. Such as your confident assertion above that most journalists get off on dominating hundreds of millions of people and telling them what to do.

That's exactly what I and others have found frustrating in our interaction with you. It's OK and reasonable to doubt whether journalists are doing a good enough job. Hell, there's polls and academic studies chronicling the public's declining confidence in journalists.

But there's absolutely nothing that supports your follow-up accusation that most journalists want to run the lives of everyone in the country. That is pure hyperbole (except that you seem to want us to take it very seriously).

OG_slinger wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

I don't know if you'll find this credible or not but I'd knew I'd heard some version of these statistics somewhere and wanted to post this link http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...

Just posting it for the sake of saying, no I didn't just invent the report. I read it somewhere and maybe mistated the findings a bit but the basic idea and rough percentages are supported in this article (minus the "self identify" part). Particularly telling are the voting records which skew heavily in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate in all cases.

First, what you've posted isn't a report at all. It's an article selectively summarizing polls to support the assertion that the media is horribly biased to the left.

It's also an article published in a conservative magazine run by an editor, David Horowitz, who has made a career claiming that the left's agenda is to destroy America, that colleges and universities are nothing more than indoctrination camps for the left, that blacks themselves were responsible for slavery, and whose views on Muslims are so dark and twisted that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers him one of the top ten anti-Muslim inner circle hardliners in the country.

In case you have to guess, I'm initially disinclined to view the article as credible.

But I am willing to look at it in more depth, especially the areas you highlighted: the voting records of reporters.

The first four examples of which seem to show that journalists overwhelmingly vote for Democratic candidates (at least in the 60s and 70s). The problem with those numbers is that they are all based on a single survey from 1981 that polled a mere 238 journalists from what were considered the most influential media outlets of the time. Unsurprisingly, the results of the poll were first published by the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

The next example, about votes for Carter or Reagan, was based on just 50 reporters from "America's largest newspapers."

The 1984 example did come from a larger LA Times survey, but it was still just questioning the top editor at less than 600 newspapers. It's a bit hard to claim that an entire paper (or media, in general) is biased based on the survey response of a single person working there.

The 1988 and 1992 examples were based on talking to 28 White House correspondents (that's out of the approximately 250 journalists in the White House press corps).

The Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents example was based on the responses of just 139 people.

The next example about voting preferences of White House correspondents in the 80s and 90s was based on the 28 people mentioned previously.

The next example, about campaign journalists favoring Kerry over Bush, seems interesting until you bother to Google it. Then you find out that the author himself calls it an "unscientific survey" based on "anonymous answers" from just 153 journalists.

Additionally, the author, a reporter himself, asked the pertinent question of whether those results actually showed political bias:

But political ideology isn't the only possible bias. Journalists also have a professional bias: they need good stories to make the front page and get on the air.

So we asked our respondents which administration they'd prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint. We expected the Washington journalists to strongly prefer Mr. Kerry, partly because they complain so much about the difficulty of getting leaks from the Bush White House, but mainly because any change in administration means lots of news.

Sure enough, the Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40. (A few others had no opinion.) The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.

Why stick with the Bush administration? "You can't ask for a richer cast of characters to cover," one Washington correspondent said. "Kerry will be a bore after these guys."

The 2004 survey of 300 newspaper of TV journalists, in addition to being a woefully small sample size, was conducted primarily to compare and contrast media versus the general public and tracking the general decline of the public trusting the media. That and finding wonderful tidbits like 95% of journalists favoring being able ”to publish freely without governmental approval of a story” versus barely half of the general public.

The 2008 example of 144 journalists and their campaign contributions strangely left out the following caveat from MSNBC:

The final list represents a tiny percentage of the working journalists in the nation. Daily newspapers alone employ about 60,000 full-time journalists. Approximately 30,000 work in television news jobs and 10,000 in radio news.

The above, of course, would also apply to William Tate's 2008 breathless account (*not* a "study") of donations in Investors Business Daily. But, worse, Tate doesn't actually show his work so there's no way to tell if the key words he searched for--such as "editor," "publisher," or "reporter"--are actually in the 100,000 or so people who work in the news media or if they're part of the much larger media environment which includes everything from Tiger Beat, Woodworking Magazine, or a random blog or online "news site."

So beyond the fact that all of the above examples attempt to take extremely small sample sizes and apply them to "the media" as a whole, they still don't show any actual media bias towards the left. They allude to it, but there's absolutely nothing that *shows* media bias.

For that you'd have to go into academic research and the results there are rather unclear.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

And yes, as others have already posted, stating that you're independent is very useful for journalists to try to deflect accusations of bias and to have access to politicians.

You understand that to get back to anywhere near your original claim that *every* journalist who said they were Independent would have to secretly be a Democrat? And not just a plain Democrat, but a "liberal" Democrat.

How likely do you think that is?

And I'm still waiting to hear your answer on whether this information changes your thoughts about journalists, their motivations, how they view their profession, etc. or if you're still going to stick with the idea they're all liberals who are out to change the world and indoctrinate everyone in with their progressive ideas.

It doesn't matter if the numbers are right. i only posted that to show you that I heard the number somewhere and didn't just make it up myself. I said so in my last post but you're in full rant mode so you went on to deconstruct the source anyway when I wasn't holding it up as authority. Good job. Why do you need it so bad?

But regardless of who the journalists support, I don't care for them. They believe in dicking around with people's lives, stirring sh*t up. They prop up the big two parties, neither of whom really believe in freedom. They bait us for clicks and views and polarization works in their favor. They're not here to tell us the truth, they're just here to talk and to write. Gawker, who runs Kotaku is the symbol of all thats wrong with them. But they're worse than the issues that GG cares about.

Just take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-av... See how proud and smug Emily is about what Gawker Stalker does. This facet of what journalists are matters a hell of a lot more to be than their political affiliations. You may say "this is 8 years old" and you'd be right. And nine years before that they hounded Princess Di until she and her friend got in a fatal accident. The press doesn't change its character.

OG_slinger wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

I only posted that to show that there were some numbers floating around out there and that I didn't just make them up myself. I specifically said as much. But you had to do the analysis anyway which really says more about you than me.

But you did make up the numbers yourself.

Nowhere in that article was a poll that showed that 90% of journalists were liberal Democrats who wanted to change the world by being progressive advocates as you originally asserted. The closest thing would be poll that found 94% percent of a handful of journalists in the late 60s voted for the Democratic candidate.

All you've done is start at your conclusion--journalists are unrepentant liberals who are trying to change the world (in a bad way, otherwise you wouldn't care)--and provide exceptionally weak evidence that falls apart once you in its general direction to support it. That actually says more about you than it does about me.

And I really didn't have to do much analysis because all you had to do was scroll down to the article's footnotes to see how pathetically small the survey sizes were.

That alone should have clued you in that you were reading a partisan piece that massaged the data to fit their agenda. Which is odd considering that one of the links you provided the other day accused Sarkeesian of that particular kind of academic dishonesty.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I still think most journalists lean left. Certainly most journalists lean towards one of the big two both of whom get off on the thought of dominating people because they both think they know the best way to run the lives of hundred of millions of people they've never met and don't give a sh*t about. It matters little to me which pack of assholes they support. They pretty much all support assholes and thumb their noses at people who would truly have us be free.

And yet you have no proof of that outside your gut feeling.

You certainly have every right to have that opinion, but you honestly can't expect others to take it seriously as an informed opinion based that's based on facts.

Doubly so when you try use that gut feeling as the logical foundation to make other, much broader assertions and accusations. Such as your confident assertion above that most journalists get off on dominating hundreds of millions of people and telling them what to do.

That's exactly what I and others have found frustrating in our interaction with you. It's OK and reasonable to doubt whether journalists are doing a good enough job. Hell, there's polls and academic studies chronicling the public's declining confidence in journalists.

But there's absolutely nothing that supports your follow-up accusation that most journalists want to run the lives of everyone in the country. That is pure hyperbole (except that you seem to want us to take it very seriously).

I pulled this post down you vindictive bastard. And the other part of that the "change the world" part was in another study.

I made a mistake. I'd heard similar numbers for journalists and African Americans http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/bla... and got them mixed up. I only posted that other link to show you where I might have gotten the numbers from. Thats not the actual source because I head this over a decade ago. I made a mistake, I wasn't lying or imagining things.

But frankly, f*ck off OG. I'm sorry that in a f*cking game forum I don't have everything meticulously fact checked and cited. I'm sure thats what you come to forums for right?

It's clear that "media" are boogeymen for you in much the same way as "progressives", "liberals", and "feminists" are.

And with roughly the same amount of factual evidence - which is to say, next to none.

There are certainly reasonable criticisms to be made of those groups, but taking fundamentally-flawed statistics about mainstream journalists, embellishing them to suit your prejudices, and then pretending they have relevance to gaming journalists is not just slipshod argumentation- it's laughable.

This pattern does underscore the importance of critical thinking skills though - and shows it's even more important to read information which supports your existing views with an even more skeptical eye than normal.

[edit: shows not shoes, silly phone]

Dimmerswitch wrote:

It's clear that "media" are boogeymen for you in much the same way as "progressives", "liberals", and "feminists" are.

And with roughly the same amount of factual evidence - which is to say, next to none.

There are certainly reasonable criticisms to be made of those groups, but taking fundamentally-flawed statistics about mainstream journalists, embellishing them to suit your prejudices, and then pretending they have relevance to gaming journalists is not just slipshod argumentation- it's laughable.

This pattern does underscore the importance of critical thinking skills though - and shoes it's even more important to read information which supports your existing views with an even more skeptical eye than normal.

Did you not look at the YouTube post? At that woman proudly defending Gawker Stalker? Thats what the press is.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

It's clear that "media" are boogeymen for you in much the same way as "progressives", "liberals", and "feminists" are.

And with roughly the same amount of factual evidence - which is to say, next to none.

There are certainly reasonable criticisms to be made of those groups, but taking fundamentally-flawed statistics about mainstream journalists, embellishing them to suit your prejudices, and then pretending they have relevance to gaming journalists is not just slipshod argumentation- it's laughable.

This pattern does underscore the importance of critical thinking skills though - and shoes it's even more important to read information which supports your existing views with an even more skeptical eye than normal.

Again, I didn't post that link as proof. I made one mistake quoting numbers I'd heard a long time ago, the only reason I went and grabbed that link was to prove to you all that I'd actually heard something like that somewhere. Not that it was true.

I'VE MADE THIS CLARIFICATION NOW THREE TIMES! HOW MANY MORE TIMES WILL IT TAKE!

I'm sorry I got the 90% wrong. It was an error of memory, not just me making sh*t up.

So tell me, what do feminists want actually done? Are you telling me that they seek to accomplish everything they want done without more laws and spending programs?

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I'm sorry that in a f*cking game forum I don't have everything meticulously fact checked and cited. I'm sure thats what you come to forums for right?

To be honest, if we're talking about P&C? Yeah. When I first got here I made a comment about the religious differences between Europe and America, and OG and I wound up in a conversation that involved a survey of the tax laws of about a dozen different countries. That's...pretty much how it is around here and why the rest of this place looks at us like a bunch of weirdos. P&C is like the multiplayer of the forums--it's great for getting your tag unlocked quickly. Or twice.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

So tell me, what do feminists want actually done? Are you telling me that they seek to accomplish everything they want done without more laws and spending programs?

Some of the biggest backlash I've seen to using imprisonment as a solution is in feminism: I keep seeing references to "non-carceral solutions." I can't vouch for any of this because I haven't read any of it, but doing a quick search for "libertarian feminism" I found a bunch of stuff including a list called The Top 20 Libertarian Feminist Resources.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Some of the biggest backlash I've seen to using imprisonment as a solution is in feminism: I keep seeing references to "non-carceral solutions." I can't vouch for any of this because I haven't read any of it, but doing a quick search for "libertarian feminism" I found a bunch of stuff including a list called The Top 20 Libertarian Feminist Resources.

Really curious about what feminists would do about rape if they're against imprisonment. Flogging? Castration? Execution? Counseling? I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths but they can't possibly be talking about relying entirely on prevention.

WideAndNerdy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Some of the biggest backlash I've seen to using imprisonment as a solution is in feminism: I keep seeing references to "non-carceral solutions." I can't vouch for any of this because I haven't read any of it, but doing a quick search for "libertarian feminism" I found a bunch of stuff including a list called The Top 20 Libertarian Feminist Resources.

Really curious about what feminists would do about rape if they're against imprisonment. Flogging? Castration? Execution? Counseling? I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths but they can't possibly be talking about relying entirely on prevention.

And again, you assume barbarism on those who are trying to stop something barbaric because you've framed them as the enemy. Only your last is non-violent (and the only that's constitutional).

And a monolith.

Cheeze posted a link to some resources on feminist libertarians- it'd be cool if you wanted to do some reading and learn about how those folks might approach situations you're curious about, rather than just idly speculating.

In any event, we're pretty far afield from the original topic again.

Demosthenes wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Some of the biggest backlash I've seen to using imprisonment as a solution is in feminism: I keep seeing references to "non-carceral solutions." I can't vouch for any of this because I haven't read any of it, but doing a quick search for "libertarian feminism" I found a bunch of stuff including a list called The Top 20 Libertarian Feminist Resources.

Really curious about what feminists would do about rape if they're against imprisonment. Flogging? Castration? Execution? Counseling? I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths but they can't possibly be talking about relying entirely on prevention.

And again, you assume barbarism on those who are trying to stop something barbaric because you've framed them as the enemy. Only your last is non-violent (and the only that's constitutional).

Execution is still constitutional last I checked. Its still practiced in some states. Objections have been made to specific methods but not the practice as a whole.

Sigh. Did you miss the part where I said "I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth"

But no, YOU assume the worst about ME.

I was just trying to imagine alternatives to imprisonment. I've got a few more. Drugs? Fines? Scolding? Essay? Forced Labor? Writing "I will not rape anybody" a thousand times on a chalkboard? Exile? Branding?

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Really curious about what feminists would do about rape if they're against imprisonment. Flogging? Castration? Execution? Counseling? I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths but they can't possibly be talking about relying entirely on prevention.

Well, if your problem is with imprisonment itself, then you don't just have a specific problem with feminists, you have a problem with all non-anarchists in general. Even in a Night Watchman state involves aggression against those who have violated the principle of non-aggression.

As for prevention, from what I've read, there's a lot of feminists who think there's so much rape just because of how socially acceptable it is. Not in theory--everyone always says rape is so horrible. But in practice--stuff like the links you'll find here about how people don't live up to the theory.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

And a monolith.

Cheeze posted a link to some resources on feminist libertarians- it'd be cool if you wanted to do some reading and learn about how those folks might approach situations you're curious about, rather than just idly speculating.

In any event, we're pretty far afield from the original topic again.

I'm just biding time till Certis deletes my account at this point. I'm sticking around to make sure that happens. I PMed him about it and I see he's seen the request.

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

And a monolith.

Cheeze posted a link to some resources on feminist libertarians- it'd be cool if you wanted to do some reading and learn about how those folks might approach situations you're curious about, rather than just idly speculating.

In any event, we're pretty far afield from the original topic again.

I'm just biding time till Certis deletes my account at this point. I'm sticking around to make sure that happens. I PMed him about it and I see he's seen the request.

This is all a bit weird, you're not exempt from posting until someone like Certis deletes your account. You're free to walk away whenever you want!

But like I said, I'd use the forum as more of a way to talk and engage in your interest in games, which I presume you have since you're on here. No one here wants to be your enemy, trust me. In fact, people you may think are against you here will happily talk to you further on the issue to let you know their point of view on a more personal level.

I think I can speak on behalf of everyone here when I say we want people here like you if you have an interest in games. And, like you said, you have low self-esteem, then a forum with a strong community is a good way to make that better. I'm fairly sure Certis doesn't want to see you with a deleted account, no one here does. It might seem like people here are attacking you, but it's a lot of just them putting across their argument. Can it seem aggressive? Sure, if you take it that way, reading stuff in a text format can lose a lot of context.

Just don't let it spiral into a "me vs. everyone" situation, because it's really not how it is here!

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Some of the biggest backlash I've seen to using imprisonment as a solution is in feminism: I keep seeing references to "non-carceral solutions." I can't vouch for any of this because I haven't read any of it, but doing a quick search for "libertarian feminism" I found a bunch of stuff including a list called The Top 20 Libertarian Feminist Resources.

Really curious about what feminists would do about rape if they're against imprisonment. Flogging? Castration? Execution? Counseling? I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths but they can't possibly be talking about relying entirely on prevention.

And again, you assume barbarism on those who are trying to stop something barbaric because you've framed them as the enemy. Only your last is non-violent (and the only that's constitutional).

Execution is still constitutional last I checked. Its still practiced in some states. Objections have been made to specific methods but not the practice as a whole.

Sigh. Did you miss the part where I said "I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth"

But no, YOU assume the worst about ME.

I was just trying to imagine alternatives to imprisonment. I've got a few more. Drugs? Fines? Scolding? Essay? Forced Labor? Writing "I will not rape anybody" a thousand times on a chalkboard? Exile? Branding?

Saying I'm not trying to put words in someone's mouth is not a free pass for assuming mostly the worst from a group who never made any such suggestion. It's a tactic to get people to associate those things with the group you're talking about. More trying to frame feminists as willing to go to corporal ends when they've never suggested any such thing just so they can look even more evil inside your head.

But, if you're leaving... well, good luck in your life's journey. Hope you find something that makes you happy out there in the world.

Demosthenes wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Some of the biggest backlash I've seen to using imprisonment as a solution is in feminism: I keep seeing references to "non-carceral solutions." I can't vouch for any of this because I haven't read any of it, but doing a quick search for "libertarian feminism" I found a bunch of stuff including a list called The Top 20 Libertarian Feminist Resources.

Really curious about what feminists would do about rape if they're against imprisonment. Flogging? Castration? Execution? Counseling? I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths but they can't possibly be talking about relying entirely on prevention.

And again, you assume barbarism on those who are trying to stop something barbaric because you've framed them as the enemy. Only your last is non-violent (and the only that's constitutional).

Execution is still constitutional last I checked. Its still practiced in some states. Objections have been made to specific methods but not the practice as a whole.

Sigh. Did you miss the part where I said "I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth"

But no, YOU assume the worst about ME.

I was just trying to imagine alternatives to imprisonment. I've got a few more. Drugs? Fines? Scolding? Essay? Forced Labor? Writing "I will not rape anybody" a thousand times on a chalkboard? Exile? Branding?

Saying I'm not trying to put words in someone's mouth is not a free pass for assuming mostly the worst from a group who never made any such suggestion.

You can't just say "Feminists are against imprisonment" and leave it at that. They surely are in support of there being some consequence of rape. The suggestions I listed in the first of the two posts are ones that I've heard others make before (not necessarily feminists). I was genuinely curious.

And, when faced with that curiousity, and a link that would likely at a minimum be a good starting point to answer those questions, you chose baseless speculation instead.

I get that it's easier, but it's not really a great way to have any kind of meaningful conversation.

Your earlier suggestion to write a list of points you think Liana is making (and links so people can evaluate those arguments in context) would be, though.

And it'd be on-topic, which would be kind of novel at this point.

I think it would be good for you to stick around, WideAndNerdy. You can always vacate a thread, or an entire sub-forum. You could spend less time as a whole on the forums, or better distribute that time to the video games section, or off-topic for television, films, books.

This wouldn't be conceding defeat. This would be better taking care of your happiness.

Some folks have been less than awesome in addressing you with their responses. That's a shame. You've carried yourself well through an unenviable situation. Being wrong isn't horrible. We're all wrong sometimes. Needing to broaden one's knowledge and understanding is not a crime. I think that's true for you, as it is I, as it is those who have been opposing your viewpoint. Sometimes it's on a subject and its finer details. Other times it may be on how to better communicate and be more inclusive of everyone.

How best to proceed when it's all got a little too toxic to your happiness? Step back from the controversial issues and focus more on the more enjoyable aspects of life. Do you play Rocket League, or Destiny? How about Helldivers? I'm on PS4 if you do. I also have a Wii U! Mario Kart 8 and Splatoon are great. Maybe a good single player experience to get lost in. I'm looking forward to Fallout 4! Until then Murdered: Soul Suspect and MGS: Ground Zeroes have my attention. The backlog casts an ominous shadow!

Anyway. Back to lurking for me! Take a break. Play some video games.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

And, when faced with that curiousity, and a link that would likely at a minimum be a good starting point to answer those questions, you chose baseless speculation instead.

I get that it's easier, but it's not really a great way to have any kind of meaningful conversation.

Your earlier suggestion to write a list of points you think Liana is making (and links so people can evaluate those arguments in context) would be, though.

And it'd be on-topic, which would be kind of novel at this point.

Well, that link goes to a very specialized form of feminism. I'm not sure its the best resource for answering my question. Cheez had said that feminism is where he/she had encountered objections to imprisonment and then has said that they hadn't read the site they were linking me too. I have no reason to believe that link would have answers to my questions about feminist alternatives to imprisonment. I'd be better off doing a google search. Which turned up this a few links down ("Professor thinks women should never be jailed") and another link about the imbalance in who is incarcerated. Neither of these are against incarceration in general. So I was hoping someone here might clarify.