TvW Close Look Meta Dialogue Catch-All

Pages

Demosthenes wrote:

That seems unnecessary, Chumpy. Don't get wrong, I'd assume (with the addendum of "who disagrees with us") that would be true for GamerGate, but I'd still like to know Wide's answer.

Because it's Google. Even if she was a world class genius programmer, she'd be no match for the massive collaboration of world class genius programmers that is google, especially with all the data they have access too.

I don't mean to disparage her talent (just her personality) but with everything Google is capable of, they don't need her technical prowess. She's there for the same reason the others are there.

Moved from Ep 2 thread:

Not really in the scope of this thread, but the UN panel and the Google group are working to combat harassment on the internet. Neither has any influence on games, game design, or game developers, except as relates to internet harassment.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

As a moved tangent from the Episode 2 Close Look thread:

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:
Seth wrote:

I should clarify. When given the opportunity to be treated like a puppy, I can always turn it down.

And women can't?

Correct. Not to say that no woman can ever turn down offered help, but there are certainly men who assume that women need help "whether they'll admit it or not", and will continue to "help" even after being asked not to.

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Seth wrote:

There are times when I'd rather be treated like a puppy than a man, and have someone just put a blanket around me and handle all the sh*t in my life.

The difference is that I get to pick when I get treated like a puppy. These tropes aren't giving women the choice.

You do? I don't. I'm always expected to be a man even when I could desperately use the puppy treatment. People in my life have little patience for me not being able to take care of something.

I envy the reverse situation.

This is a fascinating statement. If there are two ways in which a person can be treated, you seem to be upset that you don't have the choice, yet you suggest that not having that choice is something enviable.

Then she should let other feminists know that they need to stop asking for Male Allies.

Choice is preferable but I'd rather be offered help than have it assumed that I should be man tough at all times. How horrible it must be for these women to be offered help.

1) You apparently don't understand what "male allies" are. Here's a hint; it's not someone who always insists on "helping".

2) You'd rather have it assumed that you need help at all times? How horrible is must be for you to have people assume you're capable.

I know. Male Allies are there to say " sexism is wrong and rape is bad"

The contribution they want from us could easily be solved if we simply didn't exist. The message is "we need you to help us clean up the filth you spew as degenerate men"

So I'm not going to apologize for wanting to play games where women could actually use my help.

Tanglebones wrote:

Moved from Ep 2 thread:

Not really in the scope of this thread, but the UN panel and the Google group are working to combat harassment on the internet. Neither has any influence on games, game design, or game developers, except as relates to internet harassment.

But what constitutes harrassment? What actions are warranted. The UN has a bad record with free speech. A number of more oppressive countries have been pushing for controls on the internet. Once controls are in place, it's easy to control other things on the internet and we lose our ability to protedt. This is in scope for the meta. It shows what she's willing to do and what kind of influence she has.

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Moved from Ep 2 thread:

Not really in the scope of this thread, but the UN panel and the Google group are working to combat harassment on the internet. Neither has any influence on games, game design, or game developers, except as relates to internet harassment.

But what constitutes harrassment? What actions are warranted. The UN has a bad record with free speech. A number of more oppressive countries have been pushing for controls on the internet. Once controls are in place, it's easy to control other things on the internet and we lose our ability to protedt. This is in scope for the meta. It shows what she's willing to do and what kind of influence she has.

Could you show an actual chain of logic that leads you to think that Anita speaking at the UN on the topic of twitter harassment will lead to the censorship of video game developers trying to use the Damsel trope? Because that's what I *think* you're saying, and that seems like utter and complete insanity to me. If I'm misinterpreting, please let me know.

Tanglebones wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Moved from Ep 2 thread:

Not really in the scope of this thread, but the UN panel and the Google group are working to combat harassment on the internet. Neither has any influence on games, game design, or game developers, except as relates to internet harassment.

But what constitutes harrassment? What actions are warranted. The UN has a bad record with free speech. A number of more oppressive countries have been pushing for controls on the internet. Once controls are in place, it's easy to control other things on the internet and we lose our ability to protedt. This is in scope for the meta. It shows what she's willing to do and what kind of influence she has.

Could you show an actual chain of logic that leads you to think that Anita speaking at the UN on the topic of twitter harassment will lead to the censorship of video game developers trying to use the Damsel trope? Because that's what I *think* you're saying, and that seems like utter and complete insanity to me. If I'm misinterpreting, please let me know.

It's not proof no. It's cause for concern.

And I'd like to point out that the internet includes games so whatever action they propose here will affect games if implemented.

She want just talking about twitter harassment.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

She wantwasn't just talking about twitter harassment.

I'm assuming that was the typo, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's the case, do you really think that Anita went to the UN with some ulterior motive to "Take Away The Games"™? Nevermind that the whole point of her involvement was about the last three years she has had to endure harassment from nameless strangers on the Internet with no support on how to handle it.

Yeah, I can see how that's indirectly related to making sure video games are completely changed. And that the UN should consider banning video games as a priority in defeating online harassment.

I'm at a loss for how that even computes.

How is it "cause for concern"? I don't get the logic there at all. In what way is Sarkeesian speaking at the UN on the topic of twitter harassment going to negatively effect video games? What does twitter harassment have to do with games, and why would a policy about social media harassment impact games at all?

This all also illustrates why it is important to filter out the meta-dialogue. So much gets projected onto Sarkeesian, that's it is easy for those outside opinions to inform what she is actually saying. Even though she doesn't advocate for banning or censorship, so many of her detractors have claimed she does that people who are inclined to believe that will actually point to a single word, like "pernicious" as proof of hidden ulterior motives.

Why is it so hard to accept that her stated positions might be her actual positions?

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Moved from Ep 2 thread:

Not really in the scope of this thread, but the UN panel and the Google group are working to combat harassment on the internet. Neither has any influence on games, game design, or game developers, except as relates to internet harassment.

But what constitutes harrassment? What actions are warranted. The UN has a bad record with free speech. A number of more oppressive countries have been pushing for controls on the internet. Once controls are in place, it's easy to control other things on the internet and we lose our ability to protedt. This is in scope for the meta. It shows what she's willing to do and what kind of influence she has.

Counter-point.

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Yup, think I'm done here.

IMAGE(http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/06/Disgusted-gif.gif?gs=a)

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I don't mean to disparage her talent (just her personality) but with everything Google is capable of, they don't need her technical prowess. She's there for the same reason the others are there.

I'm going to assume you mean that she's there because of her subject matter expertise, her prior involvement with addressing harassment through technical approaches, the comparative advantage of hiring her to do it rather than trying to bring in some theoretical better-than-her genius engineer who is already tied up on other projects, and so on. I'm going to charitably assume that you didn't mean that she was hired because she's a public victim or something.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I know. Male Allies are there to say " sexism is wrong and rape is bad"

The contribution they want from us could easily be solved if we simply didn't exist. The message is "we need you to help us clean up the filth you spew as degenerate men"

So I'm not going to apologize for wanting to play games where women could actually use my help.

You have some objection to saying that rape is bad?

You are, I think, projecting a lot of your fears about the situation onto the motivations of the feminists. Have you tried asking what they want from you instead of just assuming that you know? I mean, it's admittedly a sometimes emotional and fraught subject, but I think that's all the more reason to specifically ask the people you want to help what they actually want you to do.

Which is, I guess, a meta-comment on the question. You say you want to help, but the only way you seem willing to help is to selfishly focus on what you want to do for them. You haven't said anything about asking anyone what kind of help they actually need. You talk about how they don't want you to exist, which reads like a petty way to grab the attention and make it all about your needs instead of theirs. Have you asked them if they care if you exist?

You're acting like those people who ship used t-shirts to underfed kids working in t-shirt assembly sweatshops: it makes you feel good but it makes the situation worse for the people you're pretending to help.

I mean, that might not be what you meant to say, but that's the impression I get reading it.

In the interest of making W&N's arguments for him, a UN commission released a report on Thursday that could be viewed as potentially concerning for free-speech activists.

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”

Of course, there's still quite a bit of daylight between a proposal to combat abusive behavior online and any restrictions on game content, but that's at least a reality-based concern someone might have about the United Nations' recent actions.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I know. Male Allies are there to say " sexism is wrong and rape is bad"

The contribution they want from us could easily be solved if we simply didn't exist. The message is "we need you to help us clean up the filth you spew as degenerate men"

So I'm not going to apologize for wanting to play games where women could actually use my help.

Do you have five examples, anecdotal or otherwise, where the bolded part happened, ever, in the history of the world, not counting satire like the SCUM manifesto?

Heck I'd take three.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

In the interest of making W&N's arguments for him, a UN commission released a report on Thursday that could be viewed as potentially concerning for free-speech activists.

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”

Of course, there's still quite a bit of daylight between a proposal to combat abusive behavior online and any restrictions on game content, but that's at least a reality-based concern someone might have about the United Nations' recent actions.

Thank you. I had the report downloaded and was preparing to share this bit. Privacy on the internet would be done forever. You either abstain from the internet or hand your info out for hackers to harvest because internet security is terrible. This also selects in favor of large sites over small ones since they have the budget for proper security and tracking.

The point is, this is an extreme overreaction to the problem and she endorses it. I know it's proof of nothing regarding video games but it says something about her influence and what kinds of draconian actions she'll support.

I'm going to make a concession. I don't know that she actually endorses the report.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I'm going to make a concession. I don't know that she actually endorses the report.

I don't know what Anita's stance on it is, and I haven't had time to watch the video (there are no transcripts yet) but Zoe Quinn made a point on Twitter of saying that despite the sh*tstorm of abuse they've gotten, she argued against overreacting and throwing the baby out with the bathwater:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/PuL5QtX.png)
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/y48eFU7.png)

And even if she did, this begs a pretty big so what?

I'm not sure any of this could be classified as "draconian." Social media sites already "police" tons of content that is far less damaging than harassment. Facebook won't let you post nudity, for example. I'd much rather they put that effort into making these public spaces safer.

Harassment in the meatspace is illegal, and we have plenty of laws about it. Having the similar laws in cyberspace isn't going to suddenly transform the world into a dystopia and bring about censorship and rampant banning of content. There's still a great deal of swinging at boogeyman here.

EDIT TO ADD - Thanks for the link Ranger Rick! Will check that out when I get a chance.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

And even if she did, this begs a pretty big so what?

I'm not sure any of this could be classified as "draconian." Social media sites already "police" tons of content that is far less damaging than harassment. Facebook won't let you post nudity, for example. I'd much rather they put that effort into making these public spaces safer.

Harassment in the meatspace is illegal, and we have plenty of laws about it. Having the similar laws in cyberspace isn't going to suddenly transform the world into a dystopia and bring about censorship and rampant banning of content. There's still a great deal of swinging at boogeyman here.

It's one thing if a website does it. I may or may not like it but I can decide whether or not it's worth it to me. Acts like the cited UK defamation law would make the entire internet like this. And if they want to police other things in the future, the control mechanisms would already be in place.

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

1) You apparently don't understand what "male allies" are.

I know. Male Allies are there to say " sexism is wrong and rape is bad"

Yeah, you don't. Not even the vaguest of vague clues. That's ok; so is arguing vehemently from a place of willful ignorance. You'd probably be happier if you stopped to think - honestly think - and learn about what you're arguing against, though. You're obviously not happy now, and swinging at strawmen is unlikely to help that.

What's the cited UK defamation law? I'm not seeing that anywhere (I could have missed it.)

WideAndNerdy wrote:

And if they want to police other things in the future, the control mechanisms would already be in place.

So... If I'm understanding this correctly, you're worried that putting the onus on social media sites to police themselves in regards to harassment would lead to those sites creating mechanisms that would eventually allow them to censor content that wasn't harassment related, and that that censoring would then lead to certain video games being banned / censored?

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

So... If I'm understanding this correctly, you're worried that putting the onus on social media sites to police themselves in regards to harassment would lead to those sites creating mechanisms that would eventually allow them to censor content that wasn't harassment related, and that that censoring would then lead to certain video games being banned / censored?

YouTube sort of does this with it's copyright enforcement. They have a more draconian content ID system with a hair trigger so they can skirt the false takedown penalties in the DMCA. But that was mostly because the MPAA/RIAA leaned on them. Which I don't see happening for video games, and I especially don't see happening because of feminists.

Twitch is another place where content might get banned on a hair trigger...except that the people who object to the bans include LGBT game artists, and there are no feminists calling for the Twitch bans that I'm aware of. (I could be wrong on that point: I didn't look very hard.)

So, while social media might ban some things, maybe, via overreactions, I don't think that feminists will have anything to do with it.

Hey folks, WaN asked me to ban his account for the second time and I've decided for his own sanity to go ahead and do so. You won't be seeing any further replies from that quarter.

As a general plea to the folks still engaging in this and other heavy topics, if you're finding its affecting your general state of well being or worsening your experience of your day to day life it's probably a good time to take a step back and take care of yourself. You're no help to anyone if you're all wrung out.

Pages