RL Anger

[Sunny]

Not ALL men, after all. (I recommend doing some reading as to why that objection for this topic is fucking offensive.)

[Misadventure]

This post is deleted!

[Thenomain]

@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:

@Thenomain
What are you upset about?

I'm upset when what I think of important issues are undermined. This is a general peeve, suitable to this thread, but not at anyone in particular unless named. (Anita.)

Who isn't funny?

Thunderf00t, but he's not trying to be funny. He's trying to be satirical. I think he fails there, as well as failing in effectively pointing out the irony in the responses to his satire video. He comes off to me as a troll, though I believe he's only half-trolling. You've got to be stupid careful when you're trolling for a purpose, since most people will lose the purpose for the troll. Pointing out people losing the purpose for the troll just makes him look stupid, worse since that's pretty clearly not his intention.

Shoe0nHead (got it right that time) is pretty anti-feminism, but her videos are short, comedic, and mostly treat the target material—when people are denied basic human rights—with some respect. You might have to tilt your head to the right and suppress any own knee-jerk emotional responses, but it's there.

Same can be said for Thunderf00t, but damn he is so ... boring.

[Ganymede]

@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:

Now say I find that to be worth talking about, and I declare "Ugh, most workplaces are lousy with sexual harassment!"

So if you think about your own workplace, and your own life, and how tired you are of being lumped in with some faceless throng of male aggressors and you say "NOT MY WORKPLACE! Not ALL workplaces!"

...Well, you aren't wrong, but you are changing the subject in a hell of self-centered way.

And a profoundly stupid way, given that you qualified your statement quite obviously.

[Tyche]

@Sunny said in RL Anger:

Not ALL men, after all. (I recommend doing some reading as to why that objection for this topic is fucking offensive.)

Not all illegal immigrants are rapists.
Not all muslims are terrorists.
If objectively true statements are so offensive to you, then maybe you should check your premises.

[Lithium]

@Tyche said in RL Anger:

@Sunny said in RL Anger:

Not ALL men, after all. (I recommend doing some reading as to why that objection for this topic is fucking offensive.)

Not all illegal immigrants are rapists.
Not all muslims are terrorists.
If objectively true statements are so offensive to you, then maybe you should check your premises.

You just can't help yourself. I will explain since you are apparently unable to see why @Sunny would say such a thing:

Nobody is saying ALL Men are /anything/ just like nobody is saying all of any <insert subset here> is anything.

The reason it is so fucking offensive is because it is statements like that that are used as a shield against awareness. It's a response that serves no purpose because it deflects from the actual problem at hand, and that is that /some/ of these people /are/.

The real answer needs to be:

How do we make this problem go away?

Not:

I'm not one of those things, so it's not /my/ problem. It's not the problem of those of us who /aren't/ those things. It belittles those being abused by jumping on a self-righteous defensive path instead of a path of education and absolutely needed social change.

Not /ALL/ men get Colon Cancer, yet it is still VERY real problem for /both/ genders.

[Tyche]

@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:

@Tyche
Feel free to stop paying attention to the discussion. Everyone understands your position. We've already played "spot the MRA".

Neither I nor the guy in the video is an MRA. In fact looking at all the issues listed here on wikipedia, my response would either be a 'no' or 'don't care'.

[Tyche]

@Lithium said in RL Anger:

You just can't help yourself. I will explain since you are apparently unable to see why @Sunny would say such a thing:

Nobody is saying ALL Men are /anything/ just like nobody is saying all of any <insert subset here> is anything.

The reason it is so fucking offensive is because it is statements like that that are used as a shield against awareness. It's a response that serves no purpose because it deflects from the actual problem at hand, and that is that /some/ of these people /are/.

I am more than aware. In fact I specifically stated it earlier:
*Personally, I've never witnessed sexual harassment in the gaming community. That's not a denial that it does happen, just my own observation. I'm sure it does. I have personally seen it in the office, in night clubs and on the street, and not just from "straight white males".

I'm married, have a sister, four nieces, two daughters, a granddaughter, and many girlfriends in the past. A man doesn't get to be fifty (or even thirty) without knowing quite a few women who have experienced sexual assault and harassment. I don't do it. I don't tolerate it.

I read your earlier posts about your experiences and believe you to be sincere.
And yet I believe Ms. Garland lengthy diatribe is mostly bullshit.
There is no "some woman posts something about sexual assault and harassment on the internet and they must be believed rule" or you're an asshole. I reject that. I reserve the right to choose and form an opinion from what I've read. I gave a few of the reasons.

The real answer needs to be:

How do we make this problem go away?

If you mean rape and sexual assault then quite honestly... never.
I'm all for making rape a capital crime like capital murder.
But do you honestly think we'll ever stop murder or robbery?

If your mean sexual harassment then it really depends on what you mean. On one end of the scale it means putting actual creeps in their place ... on the other end of the scale it means killing all the worlds comedians and suspending free speech.

---

Aside:
None of my tabletop groups have ever played out a rape scene or even a sex scene and I dare say none of the convention events I've attended have ever featured rape or sex scenes. And yet rape/sexual assault scenes seem to be quite common on mushes. Now I'm one of a few odd birds who won't do TS at all and would never log into a place like Shangrila. If a higher percentage of mushers are women then why do they subject themselves to virtual sexual objectification there (and even sexual slavery and humilation like on Shangrila)? Same thing with men? What's up with that?

[Lithium]

@Tyche That's all well and good, but, I was also explaining /why/ the statement of "Not all men do that." is offensive, which you've skipped over.

As for Comedians and entertainment, it was once socially acceptable to have people kill each other, or animals, or get killed by animals in public arenas in front of /thousands/. Times have changed from that point, what will be considered 'funny' and 'socially acceptable' is constantly changing, we /can/ do our best to make changes to where sexual harassment isn't tolerated at all.

Free speech is a thing, but /hate speech/ is another thing entirely.

[Ganymede]

@Tyche said in RL Anger:

And yet rape/sexual assault scenes seem to be quite common on mushes. Now I'm one of a few odd birds who won't do TS at all and would never log into a place like Shangrila. If a higher percentage of mushers are women then why do they subject themselves to virtual sexual objectification there (and even sexual slavery and humilation like on Shangrila)? Same thing with men? What's up with that?

I blame it, simply, on a horrid thing people sometimes refer to as "cultural indoctrination." To that end, pornography is arguably dangerous.

[Thenomain]

@Lithium said in RL Anger:

Nobody is saying ALL Men are /anything/ just like nobody is saying all of any <insert subset here> is anything.

Then people need to stop saying things like, "Why do men...", because it's no less offensive than saying "why can't women drive". That is, it's pretty fucking insulting all around. If we fought this long and hard to strike this kind of question from our cultural vocabulary, then people aren't doing the world any favors by bringing it back in.

No, they are just propagating the underlying issue by turning it around on perceived aggressors. They need to fucking stop.

If they don't mean "everyone", then we need to stop seeing videos like "17 Questions for Men". Why not something more informative like "17 Questions for Bigots". If you can't make your message clear, then you need to change your message.

The reason it is so fucking offensive is because it is statements like that that are used as a shield against awareness. It's a response that serves no purpose because it deflects from the actual problem at hand, and that is that /some/ of these people /are/.

Yes, this is my complaint. Take what you're saying and now view it from all sides, ask yourself how you would act if the issue was pointed at your gender. (This was 100% of the point in the videos Tyche linked to.) Get out of whatever self-described label you're in and think. Otherwise, you are acting just like you're accusing Tyche of acting like.

The real answer needs to be:

How do we make this problem go away?

Yes, but as long as people--MRA, Militant Feminists, whomever--are mis-phrasing the issue, then coming to a consensus like this is going to be impossible.

If the answer to the issue is "not me", there's more evidence that the issue is being phrased poorly. That this has been the statement/response for a decade means that people are having a time approaching it critically. It's kind of creepy to me, and smacks of cultish behavior. Super creepy.

In summary, if even you can't explain why "Not All Men" is offensive (you haven't, really), then I invoke my right to call you out on promoting propaganda. If your objection is that it means that whatever is Not My Problem, then welcome to the real world. Support your thesis. Stop relying on a movement which makes enemies out of reasonable people.

[Arkandel]

My issue - in this forum's context at least - is that either issues being discussed have to allow for rational conversation to take place or I have no particular inclination to participate in that discussion.

The first possibility means replies which are literally or sound very close to "you are just as big a part of the problem as molesters" or "this makes me so mad!" are too ... charged to debate. It leaves very little room for actual reasonable dialogue to develop.

The second possibility simply seems like a lose/lose proposition. Who wins if we can't talk things like adults which might include the possibility of disagreeing - or even not agreeing across the board on every issue? Is that going to be better and, if so, for whom?

[Vorpal]

@Thenomain As someone who is sympathetic to second wave feminism, I have to admit that the tactics, hostile language and argument framing that the third wave school has used has done a lot to damage the cause and alienate potential allies. There is a distinctly barbed and hostile attitude in the core movement (not to mention a lot of high-grade insanity coming from the likes of Luce Irigaray), and a lot of the arguments are focused on (if you're familiar with the Three Languages Of Politics) the Oppressor---Oppressed axis, and very focused on not how to resolve the oppression (which would require a shift in axis and a re-framing of a lot of theory) but rather how to shift who is being oppressed.

The addition of identity politics also seems to have created further division and self-cannibalism in the movement (as a brief example- at a conference on feminism and identity, infighting broke out between white women, women of color, gay women, bi women, and it got to the point that there was also a sub-set of women with allergies who complained they were not being represented nor being taken into account by the larger group.) There is a very strongly marked "us vs. them" mentality in the academic core of the third wave movement- in fact, a good amount of subtext in the academic literature itself seems to encourage that outlook, and that unfortunately means it is not going to solve any problems... precisely because of some of the things Thenomian pointed out. You can't break a boulder merely by shifting who has to carry it.

And the mirror image of the harcore Third Wave movement is, of course, the MRA groups. These devolve into sheer caricature because they are already a reactionary creation to a reactionary creation (hardcore Third Wave.) They're one iteration away from a Saturday Night Live skit. Yes, there are legitimate issues about the Third Wave movement that need to be criticized in an open and balanced discussion... and what the MRAs are doing is precisely not doing that. At the same time, there are legitimate issues that the Third Wave movement has identified, even if (to my judgement) the methods and arguments they have employed thus far are very problematic and flawed. That their methods may be severely flawed doesn't erase the validity of the complaints - but pointing out the flaws should also not be taken as an attempt to dismiss the complaints.

Except, of course, when you have the raging cocks who go "Women don't face sexual harassment! It's all lies."

At which point, yeah, kick them in the nuts hard, because they're being total assholes.

[Misadventure]

This post is deleted!

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal said in RL Anger:

There is a distinctly barbed and hostile attitude in the core movement (not to mention a lot of high-grade insanity coming from the likes of Luce Irigaray), and a lot of the arguments are focused on (if you're familiar with the Three Languages Of Politics) the Oppressor---Oppressed axis, and very focused on not how to resolve the oppression (which would require a shift in axis and a re-framing of a lot of theory) but rather how to shift who is being oppressed.

Seeing as how you've invoked Irigaray, I must invoke Foucault in response and state that, no matter what you do, you will forever be caught in a binary system of oppression, if one buys into power theory. That is, you have no choice but to shift the target of the oppression.

I don't necessarily buy into that, but power theory does provide an interesting, explanatory model of history's struggles.

[Vorpal]

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

@Vorpal said in RL Anger:

There is a distinctly barbed and hostile attitude in the core movement (not to mention a lot of high-grade insanity coming from the likes of Luce Irigaray), and a lot of the arguments are focused on (if you're familiar with the Three Languages Of Politics) the Oppressor---Oppressed axis, and very focused on not how to resolve the oppression (which would require a shift in axis and a re-framing of a lot of theory) but rather how to shift who is being oppressed.

Seeing as how you've invoked Irigaray, I must invoke Foucault in response and state that, no matter what you do, you will forever be caught in a binary system of oppression, if one buys into power theory. That is, you have no choice but to shift the target of the oppression.

I don't necessarily buy into that, but power theory does provide an interesting, explanatory model of history's struggles.

I don't buy into it either as a practicable philosophy, but I was making the observation that these schools of thought do buy into it, and often spend more time pushing the pendulum one way or the other instead of getting a ladder and trying to find a way to cut it off completely

[Arkandel]

@Misadventure said in RL Anger:

Is there anything we can do to change either of those things in the online RP hobby?

Online has the theoretical advantage of things being easier to track and verify at least. Hearsay and faked logs are still a factor but not to the extent of the verbal word's he-said she-said.

On the other hand there are fewer venues for discourse. HM and whatsisface in the Mage sphere being condoned by staff forever is a prime example, and if staff won't do something... it's not like you can go to the authorities about it.

On the other other hand physical abuse is a non-entity. If things get bad the option to walk might not be attractive but it is an option.

[Misadventure]

This post is deleted!

[silentsophia]

@Arkandel It's sort of a lose-lose scenario. Why is the victim at an onus to have to leave? It really isn't fair, but if someone is popular and has a lot of power, there's not much else you can really do.

Also, I hate it when I have a bad day and I can't complain because then I'm just a whiny bitch but someone else's bad day is sympathy inducing. It makes me feel like a complete ass.

[Arkandel]

@silentsophia said in RL Anger:

@Arkandel It's sort of a lose-lose scenario. Why is the victim at an onus to have to leave? It really isn't fair, but if someone is popular and has a lot of power, there's not much else you can really do.

I absolutely agree. It does suck and you (the generic you) shouldn't have to.

What I was saying is that at least the option exists. Online no one can force you to stay somewhere you don't want to be and do something you don't want to do, unlike in real life.