Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:15 pm UTC

Vash wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Considering that there are *always* rape threats against women who pubicly criticize sexism, I'm not at all sure it should be described as a misunderstanding at all.


I think the majority of people who make rape threats on the internet are probably not serious. It's a realm of fantasy toughness. However, without actual evidence, anything could be true, really. The number of known cases where a rape threat on the internet has escalated to actual rape is really what one should look at.
No, it really isn't; I mean, in a sense, we should look at things like that -- it would be interesting to know! -- but when someone tells me 'A person just threatened to rape me on the internet', my first response isn't 'Well, let's analyze how likely it is for them to actually rape you'; it's 'Holy shit what is wrong with the internet'.

In some sense, I get what you're saying, but in another sense, this is a fundamental property of the very problem we're talking about -- a more contentious way to write what you're saying (and I realize this is likely not something you would ever say) would be: "They don't actually mean it; I mean, boys will be boys!"

And that right there is the problem; somewhere, at some point, it became acceptable for 'boys' (I'm sure there are women online who engage in the same behavior!) to threaten people with violence and rape -- and when we point out how horrible this is, it's somehow become okay for people to reply with 'Well, they don't actually mean it, so we shouldn't take it that seriously'.

I absolutely don't mean to pick on you here, but -- how fucked up is that? That the response to a rape-threat isn't that it's unacceptable, but that it's not credible? In a lot of ways, I suspect this is part of what feminists are talking about when they describe rape culture; a culture wherein rape threats are deemed tolerable merely because they aren't likely to be consummated.

And that's seriously messed up.

CannedCourage
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby CannedCourage » Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:00 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Considering that there are *always* rape threats against women who pubicly criticize sexism,


Sure, whenever we point out rape culture online people make rape jokes.


Man, I can't believe I never used to see stuff like this.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:03 pm UTC

CannedCourage wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Considering that there are *always* rape threats against women who pubicly criticize sexism,


Sure, whenever we point out rape culture online people make rape jokes.


Man, I can't believe I never used to see stuff like this.
You mean conflating 'rape threats' with 'rape jokes'? If so, yeah; it's actually kind of bizarre when you first start to notice just how ingrained we are to not notice this sort of thing.

I think it takes a lot of effort to actually listen to what people are saying; and I mean 'actually listen to what people are saying' in the most trivial way possible. When you start taking people at their word, the effects can often be quite surprising -- and very chilling.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:26 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Sure, whenever we point out rape culture online people make rape jokes. Whenever we point out the horrors of the holocaust people make death camp jokes. When we bring up the difficulties in foreign relations with extreme nations, people sing 'bomb Iran' to the tune of 'The Beach Boys - Barbara Ann'. When you talk about the issues of the environment, people say that climate scientists are evil charlatan fraudsters. When you talk about parenthood, peoplle make jokes about killing babies. When you get the same behavior on basically every single topic, sure, it might be because some people are sexist, some people are xenophobic, some people are homophobic, some people are infancidal, some people are genocidal, some people are anti-semetic, etc.
Yes, people joke about inappropriate things when anonymous, and that means people are assholes.

But I wasn't talking about jokes, I was talking about threats. this would be akin to, instead of telling dead baby jokes when someone talks about parenthood, the response was, "Someone ought to grind up *your* baby in a blender. That would teach you!"

The problem everyone else in this discussion is talking about isn't jokes, but threats. And in particular it's the notion that (threatening) rape as retribution is an appropriate thing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
rieschen
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby rieschen » Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:32 am UTC

I think a lot of people aren't aware just how unlikely it is that the women they are speaking to are not a survivor of sexual assault themselves or close to survivors or even victims.

Don't get me wrong, it's a douche thing to do even without this context - but with it, it becomes truly horrifying to me.

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby Vash » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

I started out having difficulty thinking about this, so if it's sloppy at the start, please excuse me.

gmalivuk wrote:
Vash wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Vash wrote:(Worse, people even made rape threats, etc. How much misunderstanding could you possibly seek?)

Considering that there are *always* rape threats against women who pubicly criticize sexism, I'm not at all sure it should be described as a misunderstanding at all.

I think the majority of people who make rape threats on the internet are probably not serious. It's a realm of fantasy toughness. However, without actual evidence, anything could be true, really. The number of known cases where a rape threat on the internet has escalated to actual rape is really what one should look at.

Rape threats don't need to come with a high probability of real world rape to be a perfect example of rape culture.


I restored the original sequence of replies because I almost just completely lost track of things.

I think that a lot of people don't know how to reply to the arguments presented, which in some cases overextend and are not actually very fair themselves. So, when people don't know what to do, sometimes they jump to acting extremely. Alternatively, they could be acting out of a fear at a potential threat and just be wrong. Indeed, if you honestly think that people with either of those motivations supports rape, that would a misunderstanding. If you think that trolls support rape, that is also a misunderstanding. You could argue that they support rape culture, but that is unintentional. That is also an important distinction for people to recognize, because it changes how you address these people. It seems to me that by making this argument on rape culture that people aim to address people with very different motivations in the exact same way. People who don't mean ill will get offended if you address them as if they do. It's the worst possible way to get those people to listen to you. Further, if you say that they are part of rape culture, it implies that they believe in supporting rape. You could argue that they support rape culture, and I'm going to lazily agree with that.

I'm not sure that the idea of rape culture is not somewhat wrong, though. I mean, there have to be some people out there who support rape, but rapists (barring redefinitions of rape, I think?) are largely high-functioning sociopaths (according to at least one study), who are rare. I suppose despite this that there could be a support culture for those sociopaths, but as far as I can see the term "rape culture" is about something else entirely. It's about replying to skepticism, which is not necessarily actually about supporting rape rather than being afraid of unjust reprisal.

I would prefer a more neutral compromise, personally. There is a lot more uncertainty that needs to be acknowledged on both sides. The argument about rape tends to be polarized toward overbearing skepticism and unjustified belief.

Magnanimous wrote:Whether or not threats lead to actual rape isn't the primary issue; rape threats are bad because they're bullying and they reinforce the problematic culture of the former. The best way to internalize a concept is to rehearse it as often as possible with your peers. I suspect rape threats rarely result in the target being raped, but contribute to the overall crime rate.


I agree that rape threats are bullying. As for rape culture, I have provided some arguments on that topic earlier in this post. I would agree that rehearsing an idea allows you to remember it, but what idea is being rehearsed, specifically? Let's say for example that you think that an idea is completely laughably bad. If you rehearse it, then aren't you just learning how bad it is? I kind of think that joking about rape threats is too dark to be acceptable, but I do not really like the idea of normalization either.

Rape threats probably increase the overall crime rate. I think that there have been plenty of studies to show that general lawlessness is a thing.

Magnanimous wrote:I think this idea (is it a Law? I think somebody's name was attached) is somewhat satirical, for the reasons you stated. But harassment is still serious and I highly suspect it contributes to the culture that leads to discrimination around the world.


Poe's Law. (I looked it up. I had forgotten myself.) I don't think the law itself is satirical, and I did not provide reasons for why in my mind. Did you miswrite, or what were you thinking specifically? I am slightly confused. The last thing you said is kind of a repetition of what you said before, so I don't think I have to address it again.

The Great Hippo wrote:In some sense, I get what you're saying, but in another sense, this is a fundamental property of the very problem we're talking about -- a more contentious way to write what you're saying (and I realize this is likely not something you would ever say) would be: "They don't actually mean it; I mean, boys will be boys!"


You are mistaken. I would say that because I think it is hilarious, but only in a realm where I think it would not be misinterpreted. I mean, what a ridiculous thing to say. It's so wrong in so many ways.

The Great Hippo wrote:And that right there is the problem; somewhere, at some point, it became acceptable for 'boys' (I'm sure there are women online who engage in the same behavior!) to threaten people with violence and rape -- and when we point out how horrible this is, it's somehow become okay for people to reply with 'Well, they don't actually mean it, so we shouldn't take it that seriously'.


I don't think that quite addresses my argument. I'm not saying that it is not a bad thing. In fact, I think I pretty clearly said that the behavior toward Sarkeesian was very bad. What I am saying is that some people who are saying it are not serious (maybe most, given that most people are not sociopaths), and that if you assume they are serious you will respond incorrectly to this improper behavior.

I don't see what being wrong about what people mean gains you. However, it is a common argument that being wrong about people mean is an important part of opposing rape culture, and that if you argue against this behavior, that you are part of rape culture or that you support rape culture. I think I have basically already addressed this, but if you think I have not addressed it clearly enough (especially specifically for your argument), I could elaborate.

The Great Hippo wrote:I absolutely don't mean to pick on you here, but -- how fucked up is that? That the response to a rape-threat isn't that it's unacceptable, but that it's not credible? In a lot of ways, I suspect this is part of what feminists are talking about when they describe rape culture; a culture wherein rape threats are deemed tolerable merely because they aren't likely to be consummated.

And that's seriously messed up.


Look, I don't care what you condemnations come up with. They are based on an argument I don't agree with and in my mind have no support. (Not to mention that they misunderstand what I said pretty clearly in the first place.) I only care about your argument and its supports. I'm not going to change my mind based on your condemnations.

Also, of course you mean to at least take the risk of picking on me. Picking on me is not your main goal, but what you want to some extent is power and control. (Not necessarily to an unhealthy or wholly unjustified degree, btw. Everyone needs SOME power and control.) If I was vulnerable enough and this was not apparent, you would be picking on me. Luckily, I can handle this. However, what I would say is that this discussion would be more pleasant if you kept it a bit more civil and stuck to the arguments. It does require of me a bit of stress and sometimes temporary upset to sort through statements that I could find hurtful if I were not to handle them correctly. I know it can be frustrating if you really have a legitimate concern to press and you feel you can't fully do it as you need to, but it might be an argument-weakening distraction to stray from civility. You may also sometimes find that your concern is addressed in the opposing argument. It's also a bit unfair to me. I would appreciate it particularly so because I am not doing that well as of late.

CannedCourage wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Considering that there are *always* rape threats against women who pubicly criticize sexism,


Sure, whenever we point out rape culture online people make rape jokes.


Man, I can't believe I never used to see stuff like this.


Yeah, it's important to point that out. It's playing down the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, everyone here is going on to just ignore the main thrust of the argument nitePhyyre made, which was not invalid just because the example nitePhyyre used was confused.

The Great Hippo wrote:]You mean conflating 'rape threats' with 'rape jokes'? If so, yeah; it's actually kind of bizarre when you first start to notice just how ingrained we are to not notice this sort of thing.

I think it takes a lot of effort to actually listen to what people are saying; and I mean 'actually listen to what people are saying' in the most trivial way possible. When you start taking people at their word, the effects can often be quite surprising -- and very chilling.


Or a number of other things, such as calming. I would also say that what someone means is as important as what someone says. You have to look at both. You can't ignore either.

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, people joke about inappropriate things when anonymous, and that means people are assholes.

But I wasn't talking about jokes, I was talking about threats. this would be akin to, instead of telling dead baby jokes when someone talks about parenthood, the response was, "Someone ought to grind up *your* baby in a blender. That would teach you!"

The problem everyone else in this discussion is talking about isn't jokes, but threats. And in particular it's the notion that (threatening) rape as retribution is an appropriate thing.


I think I have already addressed this, essentially.

rieschen wrote:I think a lot of people aren't aware just how unlikely it is that the women they are speaking to are not a survivor of sexual assault themselves or close to survivors or even victims.

Don't get me wrong, it's a douche thing to do even without this context - but with it, it becomes truly horrifying to me.


It's more unlikely than likely. (Depending on the statistics you use, I think.) Not that it really diminishes the point, though.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:29 pm UTC

Vash wrote:Indeed, if you honestly think that people with either of those motivations supports rape, that would a misunderstanding. If you think that trolls support rape, that is also a misunderstanding. You could argue that they support rape culture, but that is unintentional.
And intent is magic, right? If something is unintentional, then we shouldn't call it out for the bullshit that it is, is that it?

I mean, there have to be some people out there who support rape, but rapists (barring redefinitions of rape, I think?) are largely high-functioning sociopaths (according to at least one study), who are rare. I suppose despite this that there could be a support culture for those sociopaths, but as far as I can see the term "rape culture" is about something else entirely.
You don't need a lot of actual rapists (though you're woefully ignorant if you think they're especially rare or especially sociopathic) for rape culture to be a very real, very insidious thing.

rieschen wrote:I think a lot of people aren't aware just how unlikely it is that the women they are speaking to are not a survivor of sexual assault themselves or close to survivors or even victims.

Don't get me wrong, it's a douche thing to do even without this context - but with it, it becomes truly horrifying to me.
It's more unlikely than likely. (Depending on the statistics you use, I think.) Not that it really diminishes the point, though.
Which is more unlikely than likely? Note the bolded negative in rieschen's post, along with the "close to" bit.

As I understand your meaning, you are unintentionally exactly correct: It is indeed *far* more unlikely that the target of rape threats is neither a survivor nor personally close to survivors of sexual assault, than it is that she has some close personal connection to rape.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:45 pm UTC

Vash wrote:I don't think that quite addresses my argument. I'm not saying that it is not a bad thing. In fact, I think I pretty clearly said that the behavior toward Sarkeesian was very bad. What I am saying is that some people who are saying it are not serious (maybe most, given that most people are not sociopaths), and that if you assume they are serious you will respond incorrectly to this improper behavior.

I don't see what being wrong about what people mean gains you. However, it is a common argument that being wrong about people mean is an important part of opposing rape culture, and that if you argue against this behavior, that you are part of rape culture or that you support rape culture. I think I have basically already addressed this, but if you think I have not addressed it clearly enough (especially specifically for your argument), I could elaborate.
I'm saying we should tell people all rape threats are not acceptable regardless of their credibility. I'm not saying we should treat all rape threats as if they are credible. To put it another way, I'm saying that in this context, the credibility of a rape threat is less important to me as the existence of a rape threat. Its existence alone is enough to horrify me; making it credible is just extra-horror icing on the horror-cake.

I also am wary re: your characterization of common arguments in regards to rape culture. Maybe it's true that it's a common argument, but it's not one I've encountered -- but then again, I try to hang around the more civil quadrants of the internet!
Vash wrote:Look, I don't care what you condemnations come up with. They are based on an argument I don't agree with and in my mind have no support. (Not to mention that they misunderstand what I said pretty clearly in the first place.) I only care about your argument and its supports. I'm not going to change my mind based on your condemnations.

Also, of course you mean to at least take the risk of picking on me. Picking on me is not your main goal, but what you want to some extent is power and control. (Not necessarily to an unhealthy or wholly unjustified degree, btw. Everyone needs SOME power and control.) If I was vulnerable enough and this was not apparent, you would be picking on me. Luckily, I can handle this. However, what I would say is that this discussion would be more pleasant if you kept it a bit more civil and stuck to the arguments. It does require of me a bit of stress and sometimes temporary upset to sort through statements that I could find hurtful if I were not to handle them correctly. I know it can be frustrating if you really have a legitimate concern to press and you feel you can't fully do it as you need to, but it might be an argument-weakening distraction to stray from civility. You may also sometimes find that your concern is addressed in the opposing argument. It's also a bit unfair to me. I would appreciate it particularly so because I am not doing that well as of late.
Whoa, okay. Listen: I'm genuinely sorry that people have treated you like shit in the past. I'm also genuinely sorry that you are not doing well as of late. Please believe me when I tell you that I am definitely not here to pick on you.

Seriously: If we were having this discussion in meatspace, this would be the part where I would stop talking and just offer to give you a hug.

This is a contentious issue; there's a lot of powerful emotions tied up here. A portion of our world's population has been sexually abused -- and people are using language that refers, often obliviously, back to that abuse. Obviously, passions will get heated, insults tossed, and confidence assaulted! But I don't want to be part of that.

My goal is not to make you feel like shit. I don't want you to think you're a bad person; I just think you're approaching this from a wrongheaded perspective. I don't even think that reflects poorly on you as a person; I just think you're arguing from a limited point of view, and I want to offer you a different way to look at things!

Maybe I'm wrong; maybe you have something to show me. Okay! But at no point in this dialogue should either of us feel as if we're under attack. I'm not angry with you; I'm not even annoyed with you. I just think you're wrong on the internet. But hey: Everybody's wrong on the internet.

If this is genuinely upsetting you -- and seriously, I mean this in the least contentious way possible! -- feel free to just say 'Hippo, please stop' and I'll just drop out. But I cannot over-emphasize this point enough: Nothing I'm saying here is meant to make you feel like shit. Everything I'm saying here I'm saying because I think you've made a mistake, and I want to talk about it.
Vash wrote:Yeah, it's important to point that out. It's playing down the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, everyone here is going on to just ignore the main thrust of the argument nitePhyyre made, which was not invalid just because the example nitePhyyre used was confused.
Maybe, but keep in mind: nitePhyyre's point was that the internet is full of assholes who make terrible jokes. And our point is that these aren't jokes; these are threats! Rewrite nitePhyyre's point with that in mind: "The internet is full of assholes who threaten to rape people".

Suddenly, 'asshole' doesn't seem to quite cover it.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:25 am UTC

PS: If the above seems like I'm going overboard, it's only because your phrasing in that last post makes me worried I have given you a very wrong impression of what I'm here to do. You're talking about me condemning you; you're talking about me treating you uncivilly; you're talking about me avoiding the arguments. These are all things I thought (and still think?) I wasn't doing.

But if you genuinely think I'm condemning you / treating you uncivilly / avoiding the argument, then either 1) I'm doing a shitty job of talking, 2) You're doing a shitty job of listening, or 3) We're both doing shitty jobs (me talking, you listening). Regardless of which of those options are true, I want to fix this; I like having positive discussions; I dislike needless contention. So I want to do everything I can to convince you that I'm not trying not to condemn, be uncivil, or avoid the argument.

Here's my argument: When people make threats on the internet, that is completely unacceptable -- regardless of their credibility. There is only one context I know of where a threat is acceptable -- when the people you're threatening know it isn't actually a threat (everyone is aware it's a joke). In other words, a threat is only acceptable when it's not actually a threat.

I imagine the argument from the other side is that a non-credible threat is therefore, by default, understood to be a joke (because, they would argue, non-credible threats are understood to not actually be threats). The thing is this: Even when a threat is non-credible, I don't know if you're actually joking! Maybe you genuinely wish to assault me! Unless I know you -- or unless you say 'This is a joke, btw' -- nothing distinguishes a non-credible threat from a credible threat beyond that one is probably less likely to lead to an actual assault!

And, honestly, even if every one of these threats came with a 'THIS IS JUST A JOKE' preamble, I would still (at the very least!) find them in incredibly poor taste; the fact that they don't come with that preamble just makes them all the more daunting (and horrifying).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:12 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, people joke about inappropriate things when anonymous, and that means people are assholes.

But I wasn't talking about jokes, I was talking about threats. this would be akin to, instead of telling dead baby jokes when someone talks about parenthood, the response was, "Someone ought to grind up *your* baby in a blender. That would teach you!"

The problem everyone else in this discussion is talking about isn't jokes, but threats. And in particular it's the notion that (threatening) rape as retribution is an appropriate thing.


The anonymous factor is a big thing, yeah...and culture varies from place to place. Sadly, youtube comments are sort of the cesspool of the internet. I don't read them myself, as they are basically never worth the time, but sadly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if her video attracted such commentary.

I don't think youtube comments are a good reflector of culture overall, though. I mean, we're not all a bunch of racist, homophobic, pro-hitler types, but I guarantee all that garbage shows up there. Are the threats solely coming in by youtube comment, or are they appearing elsewhere as well? The latter would seem to be much more serious. Obviously, it's a bad thing either way, but a bad thing in a place that only produces bad things isn't really a strong indication of what our culture tolerates.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby leady » Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:52 pm UTC

If anything internet comments actually show exactly what society doesn't tolerate openly and is known to be grossly offensive - hence why they are used in certain corners.

Theres probably a good argument to be made that if threats like that disappear online, then you have a far worse problem in real society (or maybe not - hell that should be testable)

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby Vash » Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:56 pm UTC

Meh, I'm tired of this, not even going to read. Not really y'alls fault, but I've been having a tough time recently and was having a particularly tough few days. I'd like to take a break and come back to this when I feel better, if I feel like doing it.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:09 pm UTC

Vash wrote:Meh, I'm tired of this, not even going to read. Not really y'alls fault, but I've been having a tough time recently and was having a particularly tough few days. I'd like to take a break and come back to this when I feel better, if I feel like doing it.
That's perfectly fine! You are (obviously!) under no obligation to engage in discussions you do not desire to engage in, particularly if you find them detrimental to your emotional health.

(In fact, I would go so far as to say that walking away from such discussions is an expression of emotional health! Understanding your limits -- and when you're reaching them -- is key to staying emotionally stable and happy. I hope you feel better!)

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:31 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:No, it really isn't; I mean, in a sense, we should look at things like that -- it would be interesting to know! -- but when someone tells me 'A person just threatened to rape me on the internet', my first response isn't 'Well, let's analyze how likely it is for them to actually rape you'; it's 'Holy shit what is wrong with the internet'.

In some sense, I get what you're saying, but in another sense, this is a fundamental property of the very problem we're talking about -- a more contentious way to write what you're saying (and I realize this is likely not something you would ever say) would be: "They don't actually mean it; I mean, boys will be boys!"

And that right there is the problem; somewhere, at some point, it became acceptable for 'boys' (I'm sure there are women online who engage in the same behavior!) to threaten people with violence and rape -- and when we point out how horrible this is, it's somehow become okay for people to reply with 'Well, they don't actually mean it, so we shouldn't take it that seriously'.

I absolutely don't mean to pick on you here, but -- how fucked up is that? That the response to a rape-threat isn't that it's unacceptable, but that it's not credible? In a lot of ways, I suspect this is part of what feminists are talking about when they describe rape culture; a culture wherein rape threats are deemed tolerable merely because they aren't likely to be consummated.

And that's seriously messed up.
Its not messed up at all. Of course, you are going to question the credibility. Let's say I went up to you said that I was using my connections with the chinese mafia to take a hit out against you with the local assassin's guild, if you went to the police I could get into big trouble. On the other hand, if I go up to you say that I was using my connections with the leprechaun mafia to take a hit out against you with the local unicorn assassin's guild, I wouldn't get into trouble at all*. This is at it should be!

A threat is stating your intention to cause harm. If you have no intention to cause harm, then using threatening language is not stating your intentions. It could be nonsense, it could be intimidation, it could be a joke, it could be a lie, it could be bluster, it could be trolling, it could be lots of things, but its not a threat.

The Great Hippo wrote:Here's my argument: When people make threats on the internet, that is completely unacceptable -- regardless of their credibility.
Here's my argument: If you care about stopping the behaviour you dislike, you should look for the root cause, rather than an easy to point to symptom. My argument is that if you look at trolling, and say: This is why feminism need to exist, you are way off base.

The Great Hippo wrote:nitePhyyre's point was that the internet is full of assholes who make terrible jokes. And our point is that these aren't jokes; these are threats! Rewrite nitePhyyre's point with that in mind: "The internet is full of assholes who threaten to rape people".

Suddenly, 'asshole' doesn't seem to quite cover it.
Sorry, you missed my point. And This post has yet to clear it up. So let me be explicit. It doesn't matter whether you call what is said threats, jokes, trolling or ghesivsplah. Why it is happening, and how to get it to stop matters. You see rape threats and assume misandry, you could be very well mistaken. And if you get the cause of a problem wrong, you are very unlikely to fix it. There's even good chances you will make things worse.

Vash wrote:I don't think that quite addresses my argument. I'm not saying that it is not a bad thing. In fact, I think I pretty clearly said that the behavior toward Sarkeesian was very bad. What I am saying is that some people who are saying it are not serious (maybe most, given that most people are not sociopaths), and that if you assume they are serious you will respond incorrectly to this improper behavior.
Not sure you are still reading the thread, but be careful with that line of reasoning. While I agree with the point, it could be that we are looking at a sample that self selects for sociopaths!

The Great Hippo wrote:I think it takes a lot of effort to actually listen to what people are saying; and I mean 'actually listen to what people are saying' in the most trivial way possible. When you start taking people at their word, the effects can often be quite surprising -- and very chilling.
In that case, Irregardless.

Have fun. ;)

*assuming I don't get thrown into a sanitarium. We still have sanitariums and assassin's guilds, right?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:27 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Its not messed up at all. Of course, you are going to question the credibility. Let's say I went up to you said that I was using my connections with the chinese mafia to take a hit out against you with the local assassin's guild, if you went to the police I could get into big trouble. On the other hand, if I go up to you say that I was using my connections with the leprechaun mafia to take a hit out against you with the local unicorn assassin's guild, I wouldn't get into trouble at all*. This is at it should be!

A threat is stating your intention to cause harm. If you have no intention to cause harm, then using threatening language is not stating your intentions. It could be nonsense, it could be intimidation, it could be a joke, it could be a lie, it could be bluster, it could be trolling, it could be lots of things, but its not a threat.
Do you mean to say 'a threat needs to be both an expression to cause harm and credible'? Because that's not what you're saying; you're saying 'a threat needs to carry the intention to cause harm'.

To put this another way: Your definition means that if I pull a knife, put it up against your throat, and tell you I'm going to slit your fucking neck open unless you do exactly what I tell you to do -- I haven't actually threatened you so long as I don't actually mean to go through with it.

Which is, of course, nonsense; by every reasonable measure, I've threatened you. Even in the eyes of the law. If I point a gun at your head and tell you to get on the fucking floor, I am threatening you -- even if I know the gun isn't loaded.
nitePhyyre wrote:Here's my argument: If you care about stopping the behaviour you dislike, you should look for the root cause, rather than an easy to point to symptom. My argument is that if you look at trolling, and say: This is why feminism need to exist, you are way off base.
Right, but the argument isn't that it's trolling; it's that it's a threat.

Though I would argue it is possible to both troll someone and threaten them (you could describe my unloaded gun example as an elaborate troll as well as a threat! But notice which definition -- 'troll' or 'threat' -- is more relevant).
nitePhyyre wrote:Sorry, you missed my point. And This post has yet to clear it up. So let me be explicit. It doesn't matter whether you call what is said threats, jokes, trolling or ghesivsplah. Why it is happening, and how to get it to stop matters. You see rape threats and assume misandry, you could be very well mistaken. And if you get the cause of a problem wrong, you are very unlikely to fix it. There's even good chances you will make things worse.
I don't see rape threats and assume misogyny; I see rape threats and assume rape threats.

I realize you don't think it matters what we call rape threats, but understand: I merely wish to call things what they are. By calling rape threats things other than rape threats, we disguise them as something they're not; something other than rape threats.

Let me put this in another way: If someone threatened to murder you, would you say you've received a 'death threat'? Even if it came from the internet? When people say they've received 'numerous death threats', how many of those death threats do you think are credible? How many of the people who made them actually intend to carry them out? Do you think that we should tell these people to stop calling them death threats unless they actually know they are 1) credible, and 2) genuine expressions of an intention to do harm?

You know, I'm not a feminist -- I'm wary of terms like misogyny -- but conversations like these1 really make me start to wonder if people really do just hate women. It's a seductive explanation as to why 'rape threats targeting women' aren't rape threats, they're just jokes -- but 'death threats targeting anyone else' are... well, death threats.

There are times when I can really sympathize with the feminist point of view -- this topic is one of them.

1 I don't mean to implicate you specifically as doing this, nitePhyyre, and I apologize if that's how it comes off; I've just had this conversation before, and notice that a lot of people who are perfectly comfortable calling death threats 'death threats' are very resistant to call rape threats 'rape threats'. I find that galling, and -- anecdotally -- evidence that there is something deeply dysfunctional regarding the way we as a society parse rape and threats of rape.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby leady » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:26 pm UTC

this has gone way off topic

but I think you need to understand the motivations of the trolls in question - they are just picking the most offensive thing they can for the topic at hand they aren't credible threats anymore than the death threats I suspect people like the amazing athesist must get daily. "Death threat" is a phase thats made into internet age having subtly lost the "credible" part of its meaning.

User avatar
3fj
Posts: 1715
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:13 pm UTC
Location: Land of Whisky and Bagpipes (LOWAB)
Contact:

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby 3fj » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:43 pm UTC

leady wrote:"Death threat" is a phase thats made into internet age having subtly lost the "credible" part of its meaning.

How do you know?

And more importantly does it matter? No one knows your motives but you. From the victim's side, an empty threat and a real one look the same.
Everything's dead until it's alive. Man will exist, and then he will die. Just take the ride!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:55 pm UTC

leady wrote:this has gone way off topic

but I think you need to understand the motivations of the trolls in question - they are just picking the most offensive thing they can for the topic at hand they aren't credible threats anymore than the death threats I suspect people like the amazing athesist must get daily. "Death threat" is a phase thats made into internet age having subtly lost the "credible" part of its meaning.
Except that "credibility" has never been part of its meaning. UK's Criminal Law Act of 1977:
16. Threats to kill.

A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Note: Credibility is not mentioned; there is not even a mention that the party must intend to carry this threat out. The only thing required is that you intend that the other person believes that you intend to act on it.

This is 1977; I think it predates 'Amazing Atheist' by quite a bit. Now, maybe this law is a terrible way to handle death threats / rape threats -- but that isn't my point. My point is only this: Neither the credibility of a threat nor the intention to carry that threat out is what qualifies it as a threat.

Not legally, not socially, not culturally. It's never been that way -- and no amount of after-the-fact rationalization is going to suddenly make it so.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:11 pm UTC

In fact, if you really want to date this -- the section I just quoted is actually an amendment to the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, which states (under 'letters threatening to murder'):
A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
That's 150 years ago. I'm definitely sure this one outdates 'The Amazing Atheist'. And there's still no mention of credibility or an intention to carry it out -- only that you must intend that the target 'fear it would be carried out'.

Of course, that's the UK; in the US, most death threat legislation is handled under laws regarding coercion. But notice that little fact right there: Coercion doesn't require that the criminal party intends to act; only that they believe their target believes they intend to act.

Spoilered, for possibly-triggering rape-threat description:
Spoiler:
(And, just to be clear: If anyone's going to respond with -- 'Well, when someone says "Shut the fuck up or I'll rape you, bitch" on the internet, they obviously don't think you'll take that very seriously, so it's not a threat' -- then you're well beyond convincing.)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby leady » Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 pm UTC

I agree that all these examples are illegal, but theres a reason they aren't policed without some other factor (well mostly)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:22 pm UTC

Right. I'm not arguing that the law should be applied against death threats / rape threats; I'm arguing that we as a culture accept that threats do not need to be credible or intended to be carried out to qualify as threats. I cited a law to demonstrate this.

My broader point being that when someone responds to a woman talking about sexism by threatening to rape that woman, we should parse that as what it is: A rape threat. Not a 'joke'; not 'trolling'; not someone being a 'silly billy' -- but someone threatening to rape a woman because she's talking about sexism.

It's likely not credible; it's likely the person making it has no intention of carrying it out. But it still is precisely what it is: Someone threatening to rape a woman because she's talking about sexism.

If you don't think that's indicative of a serious problem, I don't know what to tell you.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby leady » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:52 am UTC

You can explain to me why its is serious problem or at least why its more of serious problem than the rest of the horror show that is unmoderated internet comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:50 pm UTC

leady wrote:You can explain to me why its is serious problem or at least why its more of serious problem than the rest of the horror show that is unmoderated internet comments.
I don't know if it's more of a problem than the rest of the horror show that is unmoderated internet comments; I make it a habit not to read unmoderated internet comments. I think, though, if unmoderated internet comments include things like a surplus of rape threats toward women talking about sexism, we can safely say there's a serious dysfunction going on. Similarly, if unmoderated internet comments include things like a surplus of death-threats, I would also say there's a serious dysfunction going on.

As I understand it, the argument being made is that when a woman on the internet talking about sexism receives rape threats, we can safely say that misogyny -- or, at least, sexism -- is still a thing. The counter-argument seems to be that the internet is universally terrible and you can't take the things said on it as evidence of anything beyond its universal terribleness.

But that's just silly. We're being asked to dismiss evidence of sexism -- rape threats made toward women discussing sexism -- on account of it coming from a terrible place. But it's the terrible places where sexism is most apparent -- where people feel the most comfortable expressing that sexism.

People don't make threats where they know there will be consequences for their threats; they make them in places where they know they can get away with it. Unmoderated comments are an excellent place for people to make these sort of threats with impunity -- dismissing them as evidence that people are willing to make these sort of threats when they feel it's 'safe' for them to do so is nonsensical.

If you're willing to threaten to rape someone on the internet, you're probably willing to threaten to rape someone under other similarly 'safe' circumstances.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby leady » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:15 pm UTC

I see what your saying but I take the opposite perspective i.e. that the internet allows a tiny minority to vent their spleans in a manner that are truly (and deliberately) offensive and if anything is evidence of how unacceptable what they say actually is. Its not evidence of a systemic cultural problem any more than those horribe FB pages people set up after terrible news stories are

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:25 pm UTC

I wouldn't take it as evidence of a widespread systematic cultural problem if the response was commonly along the lines of 'Wow, people are threatening to rape a woman for talking about sexism, that's fucking horrible!'. I'd just take it as evidence of a serious dysfunction among a certain segment of the population; there's a serious problem, but the problem is thankfully isolated.

But that isn't the response I commonly see; the response tends to be: 'It's just a joke', or 'Why are you taking this so seriously, lighten up' -- or even 'It's not credible / the person making it doesn't intend to carry it out, so it isn't actually a rape threat'. Basically, the people I listen to bend over backwards to find a way to trivialize rape threats. Particularly when they target women talking about sexism!

Now, I'm just one person; my experiences in this regard are very limited. It's possible that I'm just moving in the wrong circles and everyone else is really good about this sort of thing. But in my experience -- they really aren't. In my experience, this is a Thing Almost Everyone Does. So, in my -- again, very limited -- experience, yes: There is a widespread systematic problem.

But, to put this in perspective: I think that our (US; I can't speak for anyone else's) culture is widely dysfunctional in an extraordinary number of different ways. If the United States was just one dude, it would be a dude with more issues than a comic book store.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:01 pm UTC

As an addendum above, I see the same thing in regard to rape threats targeting men (even when they aren't talking about sexism!). IE, we as a culture (US again) refuse to take rape threats seriously when they're targeting dudes.

Actually, thinking on it, I suspect we as a culture might just refuse to take rape threats seriously -- period.

rienzi0711
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby rienzi0711 » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:18 pm UTC

It it a problem because women are being harassed not only to the point of silence, but to the point that they don't even want to participate in these communities and industries.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:50 pm UTC

rienzi0711 wrote:It it a problem because women are being harassed not only to the point of silence, but to the point that they don't even want to participate in these communities and industries.
Anecdotally: I know several women who contribute to online communities, but don't tell anyone that they're a woman -- because they don't want to deal with the bullshit. 'Bullshit' including things like, yes, rape threats.

I'm not a woman; I don't know that many women. I also make a note to try and stick to communities that are both polite and prone to socially liberal perspectives. And yet I see this happen all the time.

If someone doesn't think this is a 'Thing', then -- yeah, I don't know what to tell them. Beyond that they should just start listening to the sort of shit people say to women and about women -- online and offline. It's deeply repulsive -- and I certainly don't blame women for not wanting to deal with it.

I find our dedication to defending the mechanisms by which we exclude women from these sort of spaces to be both baffling and perverse.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby nitePhyyre » Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:38 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
16. Threats to kill.

A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Note: Credibility is not mentioned; there is not even a mention that the party must intend to carry this threat out. The only thing required is that you intend that the other person believes that you intend to act on it.
I'm not sure if I intend to keep following/participating in this conversation, but I'm very curious.

What do you think the word 'credible' means?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:02 am UTC

As it's been used by everyone else so far in this discussion? It means reasonably believable by an objective third party.

The original post by Vash that led to the whole credibility discussion in the first place didn't even go that far, since it didn't mention credibility or believability at all. It merely posited that the people making the threats weren't serious and that there probably wasn't a high probability of such threats being carried out in real life.

Nice try, though.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:48 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:As it's been used by everyone else so far in this discussion? It means reasonably believable by an objective third party.
Right; so, say, if I threatened you by saying "I'm going to tell the aliens to come and kill you unless you give me your money" -- and I knew you suffered from schizophrenia, and I knew one of your delusions was the belief that aliens are going to come to kill you -- I have legally threatened you.

It doesn't matter that the threat isn't credible by this definition; what matters is that I believe there's some chance you'll take it seriously.

EDIT: Not to imply that women on the internet who take rape threats seriously are suffering from schizophrenia. I've received death threats on the internet; I certainly took them seriously. And I don't think I suffer from schizophrenia!

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby leady » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:26 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I wouldn't take it as evidence of a widespread systematic cultural problem if the response was commonly along the lines of 'Wow, people are threatening to rape a woman for talking about sexism, that's fucking horrible!'. I'd just take it as evidence of a serious dysfunction among a certain segment of the population; there's a serious problem, but the problem is thankfully isolated.

But that isn't the response I commonly see; the response tends to be: 'It's just a joke', or 'Why are you taking this so seriously, lighten up' -- or even 'It's not credible / the person making it doesn't intend to carry it out, so it isn't actually a rape threat'. Basically, the people I listen to bend over backwards to find a way to trivialize rape threats. Particularly when they target women talking about sexism!

Now, I'm just one person; my experiences in this regard are very limited. It's possible that I'm just moving in the wrong circles and everyone else is really good about this sort of thing. But in my experience -- they really aren't. In my experience, this is a Thing Almost Everyone Does. So, in my -- again, very limited -- experience, yes: There is a widespread systematic problem.

But, to put this in perspective: I think that our (US; I can't speak for anyone else's) culture is widely dysfunctional in an extraordinary number of different ways. If the United States was just one dude, it would be a dude with more issues than a comic book store.


Its probably that most people prioritise a lot of things well above this in the society problem list, like threats that have "threat" to use its other context. Worrying about the idiotic actions of a tiny percentage of probably bored teenage men really should generate a "meh" response - it harms next to no-one and if anything is actively solicited in some cases (dare I say the person in the title of thread) - its one hell of a publicity generator. Hell I'd do it :) This is one of main reasons for enjoying the tropes series, its almost genius in its ability to set fire to half the internet :)

There are very few way to get on the bbc news and get huge publicity off the back of a handful of text comments on the internet, this is definitely one. So I'm not particuarly sold on the silienced concept either

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

leady wrote:Its probably that most people prioritise a lot of things well above this in the society problem list, like threats that have "threat" to use its other context. Worrying about the idiotic actions of a tiny percentage of probably bored teenage men really should generate a "meh" response - it harms next to no-one and if anything is actively solicited in some cases (dare I say the person in the title of thread) - its one hell of a publicity generator. Hell I'd do it :) This is one of main reasons for enjoying the tropes series, its almost genius in its ability to set fire to half the internet :)
If you think that a woman talking about sexism on the internet is a solicitation for rape threats, then it's official: You are part of the problem.
leady wrote:There are very few way to get on the bbc news and get huge publicity off the back of a handful of text comments on the internet, this is definitely one. So I'm not particuarly sold on the silienced concept either
I don't give a fuck what you're 'sold' on. Women have told me they don't like to speak up in communities where speaking up gets them rape threats.

I believe them, not you.

EDIT: Understand the sheer perversity of what you're saying. You're saying Anita Sarkeesian may have solicited rape threats for the sake of publicity; you're saying that the rape threats help her cause. You're implying she should be thankful that people are threatening to rape her.

That is the level of bullshit we're dealing with, here: People who think women should be thankful for those who threaten to rape them.

Queue
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:32 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby Queue » Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:06 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I don't think youtube comments are a good reflector of culture overall, though. I mean, we're not all a bunch of racist, homophobic, pro-hitler types, but I guarantee all that garbage shows up there. Are the threats solely coming in by youtube comment, or are they appearing elsewhere as well? The latter would seem to be much more serious. Obviously, it's a bad thing either way, but a bad thing in a place that only produces bad things isn't really a strong indication of what our culture tolerates.

I could stop any random person on the street and ask them their opinion and they'll probably honestly say they don't think people should beat people over the head (or I would do this, but I am afraid people will beat me over the head). I've long been of the opinion that just about nobody advocates in favour of violent crimes...

...But almost everyone knows someone that they're willing to tolerate it in.

Which is where you may get a few trolls pretending to be evil, the odd person who is actually evil, a minority of loud people who take serious offense to evil, and a swollen crowd who are either just uncomfortable or lazy enough to ignore it, or else have an excuse at hand for why they don't need to do anything.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:07 pm UTC

Pro-tip: Adding some smileys doesn't make you any less of an abominable shitbag, leady. It just makes you look patronizing on top of that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:36 pm UTC

Queue wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I don't think youtube comments are a good reflector of culture overall, though. I mean, we're not all a bunch of racist, homophobic, pro-hitler types, but I guarantee all that garbage shows up there. Are the threats solely coming in by youtube comment, or are they appearing elsewhere as well? The latter would seem to be much more serious. Obviously, it's a bad thing either way, but a bad thing in a place that only produces bad things isn't really a strong indication of what our culture tolerates.

I could stop any random person on the street and ask them their opinion and they'll probably honestly say they don't think people should beat people over the head (or I would do this, but I am afraid people will beat me over the head). I've long been of the opinion that just about nobody advocates in favour of violent crimes...

...But almost everyone knows someone that they're willing to tolerate it in.

Which is where you may get a few trolls pretending to be evil, the odd person who is actually evil, a minority of loud people who take serious offense to evil, and a swollen crowd who are either just uncomfortable or lazy enough to ignore it, or else have an excuse at hand for why they don't need to do anything.


I don't know that almost everyone knows someone they're willing to tolerate violent crimes in...I think it's simply that we don't know WHO commits violent crimes, not that we want to actually tolerate them. So, maybe among the giant piles of youtube hate, offensiveness, and outright stupidity, there's one or two genuine threats. Not unlikely...but how do you know which it is? The whole thing is such a mess of trash that one cannot reasonably be distinguished from the other.

And of course, I note that anonymity, or at least, effective anonymity and a lack of a filtering or rating system tends to routinely produce such outright trash. Conversation in forums that is of any worth tends to be moderated, places like slashdot have ways to filter out the trash....and people are at least somewhat less stupid when their real name, etc is attached to their statements...but take away both of those safeguards, and you tend to get utterly horrible stuff.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby leady » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:14 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:If you think that a woman talking about sexism on the internet is a solicitation for rape threats, then it's official: You are part of the problem.


EDIT: Understand the sheer perversity of what you're saying. You're saying Anita Sarkeesian may have solicited rape threats for the sake of publicity; you're saying that the rape threats help her cause. You're implying she should be thankful that people are threatening to rape her.

That is the level of bullshit we're dealing with, here: People who think women should be thankful for those who threaten to rape them.

[/quote]

yup I probably am part of that problem you perceive, i'm also happy to admit it.

yes I also credit smart women in media roles as being cynical enough to both expect and dig out of 1000s of general rants the handful of evil comments that will grant them far greater coverage of their message and probably make them money. I'm confused as to whether that makes me more or less a problem in your eyes :) :) :) :)

Queue
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:32 pm UTC

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby Queue » Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I don't know that almost everyone knows someone they're willing to tolerate violent crimes in...I think it's simply that we don't know WHO commits violent crimes, not that we want to actually tolerate them. So, maybe among the giant piles of youtube hate, offensiveness, and outright stupidity, there's one or two genuine threats. Not unlikely...but how do you know which it is? The whole thing is such a mess of trash that one cannot reasonably be distinguished from the other.

And of course, I note that anonymity, or at least, effective anonymity and a lack of a filtering or rating system tends to routinely produce such outright trash. Conversation in forums that is of any worth tends to be moderated, places like slashdot have ways to filter out the trash....and people are at least somewhat less stupid when their real name, etc is attached to their statements...but take away both of those safeguards, and you tend to get utterly horrible stuff.

That's possible - if I follow you - especially if the people making the comments are already "playing a character" online or feel hidden behind an avatar. It may be at that point much easier to just assume that everyone else is doing the same, so your behaviour doesn't "count", whether pro- or anti-social.

I was originally thinking anecdotally about how a group of individually morally reasonable people can suffer deindividuation and become monsters, under the right circumstances. I've heard tell that people can feel the "anonymity of the net" even if they're in public, so long as they're part of a large enough group.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7363
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:31 pm UTC

leady wrote:yup I probably am part of that problem you perceive, i'm also happy to admit it.

yes I also credit smart women in media roles as being cynical enough to both expect and dig out of 1000s of general rants the handful of evil comments that will grant them far greater coverage of their message and probably make them money. I'm confused as to whether that makes me more or less a problem in your eyes :) :) :) :)
Switching your words around to turn Anita Sarkeesian from a woman who solicited rape threats merely by posting about sexism on the internet -- to 'crediting' a 'smart woman' who's merely 'seizing the opportunity' -- doesn't make what you're saying any less repulsive. If anything, it only makes it worse; you're trying to make this out to be a compliment.

But it's good, at least, that you admit that you're part of the problem regarding rape threats on the internet; it gives me context to parse your statement in. I presume that if you're admitting you're part of the problem, you're also admitting you're among the 'tiny percentage of probably bored teenage men' you mentioned earlier as being largely culpable.

So, if that's true, maybe you'll grow out of this whole 'LOL I'M MAKING PEOPLE MAD ON THE INTERNET' phase you're going through. That, and the whole 'LOL RAPE THREATS /HELP/ THIS WOMAN, GUYS' phase.

Because if you're interested at all in becoming a better person, those are both things you're going to need to grow out of.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Anita Sarkeesian used footage from "Let's Play" videos

Postby K-R » Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:33 pm UTC

Queue wrote:I was originally thinking anecdotally about how a group of individually morally reasonable people can suffer deindividuation and become monsters, under the right circumstances. I've heard tell that people can feel the "anonymity of the net" even if they're in public, so long as they're part of a large enough group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-GeIQKMtw


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 11 guests