Things are going to be VERY different in online communities

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by TrueChartreuse (65 posts) -

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fark-banned-misogyny-to-facilitate-free-speech

In a message posted yesterday, Fark founder Drew Curtis said it's no longer acceptable to make rape jokes on the site, or call women "whores or sluts," or suggest that a female victim of a violent crime was "somehow asking for it"—you know, the kind of stuff that pervades Reddit threads and comment sections all around the internet.

This is the beginning of a beautiful new trend. I applaud the Fark staff, namely the magnanimous Drew Curtis, for implementing such policies. It's about time that those who engage in misogynistic behavior get their punishment. Reddit has also expressed an interest in a zero-tolerance policy towards misogynistic speech. Maybe now this will teach civility to those who have trouble understanding the concept.

#2 Edited by CreasianDevaili (4027 posts) -

Hey I know this is your thing and all, even if not well hidden, but how is any of that actually stopping anything? Reddit is what it is because of the relaxed rules. When it becomes something else people will go and make something else.

Hell I would be rather upset if my strong ideals could only be upheld by regulation and punishment and not by the genuine merit of understanding and acceptance.

Just don't get it even if a troll thing.

#3 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

troll thread.

#4 Edited by TrueChartreuse (65 posts) -

@CreasianDevaili said:

Hey I know this is your thing and all, even if not well hidden, but how is any of that actually stopping anything? Reddit is what it is because of the relaxed rules. When it becomes something else people will go and make something else.

Hell I would be rather upset if my strong ideals could only be upheld by regulation and punishment and not by the genuine merit of understanding and acceptance.

Just don't get it even if a troll thing.

The issue is that nobody is accepting the ideals of feminist gamers, the vitriol is just getting worse and worse. Just like with anti-bullying campaigns, there needs to be an anti-misogyny campaign. You can only shove someone so many times before laws are passed saying you cannot shove them again, and that's what we're starting to see happen. It's about damn time.

#5 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4027 posts) -

@CreasianDevaili said:

Hey I know this is your thing and all, even if not well hidden, but how is any of that actually stopping anything? Reddit is what it is because of the relaxed rules. When it becomes something else people will go and make something else.

Hell I would be rather upset if my strong ideals could only be upheld by regulation and punishment and not by the genuine merit of understanding and acceptance.

Just don't get it even if a troll thing.

The issue is that nobody is accepting the ideals of feminist gamers, the vitriol is just getting worse and worse. Just like with anti-bullying campaigns, there needs to be an anti-misogyny campaign. You can only shove someone so many times before laws are passed saying you cannot shove them again, and that's what we're starting to see happen. It's about damn time.

You can't outlaw hate. You just let them know how else they can legally show it. Or in this particular case, where else. Also once this whole push is over and done with if you think things are going to be better, just like with the anti-bullying campaigns, then heh.

#6 Posted by double_decker (145798 posts) -

Hey I know this is your thing and all, even if not well hidden, but how is any of that actually stopping anything? Reddit is what it is because of the relaxed rules. When it becomes something else people will go and make something else.

Hell I would be rather upset if my strong ideals could only be upheld by regulation and punishment and not by the genuine merit of understanding and acceptance.

Just don't get it even if a troll thing.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but this person is right. Trash always finds a way to be dumped, it's up to the individual user where they go, and what they will tolerate. If you don't want to see such things then don't visit such sites, which is why I've never bothered with either reddit or chan. I come here because they have decent rules against such indecent behavior.

#7 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17155 posts) -

I love how those rules are all only regarding things said to women. Cause you know, men never have fucked up shit said to them...

#8 Edited by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

Misogyny is a banalized word nowadays. We see people throw it at each other way too easily. It's supposed to mean "hate against women"... hate is a strong, negative feeling... thus a strong word as well.

These situations are better handled by punishing those that employ hate-speech. Ban the user and take appropriate legal procedures against him/her, but after the fact, not before it. This is not Minority Report. They didn't make it clear how they will handle the censoring. If it's something like pending comments for approval and taking them out, plus punishing the user for it, we will have to believe the censors when they say that the content was censored for being misogynistic.

Censorship being linked to free speech is the most basic of bad old jokes. It's not welcome, you can't know what really was spoken if it's preemptively taken out of sight, so others can't know what really happened.

But if it's a post factum measure, then I don't see much reason to be against it. If they don't exceed their powers and punish/censor content that is merely inquisitive, questioning veracity of articles, sources and allegations related to sensitive subjects like the ones they exemplified, and do it after the fact, I'd be ok with it.

#9 Posted by TrueChartreuse (65 posts) -

I love how those rules are all only regarding things said to women. Cause you know, men never have fucked up shit said to them...

It affects women on a much larger scale than men though, as a lot of online communities (like Reddit) are comprised mostly of men. Also, men aren't discriminated against due to their gender. There's very little misandry outside of sites like Jezebel or radical feminist tumblrs.

#10 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17155 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL said:

I love how those rules are all only regarding things said to women. Cause you know, men never have fucked up shit said to them...

It affects women on a much larger scale than men though, as a lot of online communities (like Reddit) are comprised mostly of men. Also, men aren't discriminated against due to their gender. There's very little misandry outside of sites like Jezebel or radical feminist tumblrs.

The point I was trying to make is that it is stupid to just throw out rules like this only protecting one gender. It could have very easily been handled by setting up rules against hate speech and flaming in general.

I also get the feeling that you haven't been keeping up with recent gamer news, but misandry has been the latest internet trend thanks to the radical feminist movement trying to overtake gaming. These rules are likely the result of that very movement actually considering how they are strictly worded for protecting females only...

There is literally no reason these rules had to be gender specific other than the site trying to pander to the psycho feminist movement.

#11 Posted by lamprey263 (23212 posts) -

So what does hate speech against women constitute? That if you suggest someone like Anita Sarkeesian faked death threats against herself for attention and crowdsource funding then you get moderated? Because Sarkeesian labels herself a feminist and to say anything against her means you're a misogynist?

#12 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1396 posts) -

Misogyny is a banalized word nowadays. We see people throw it at each other way too easily. It's supposed to mean "hate against women"... hate is a strong, negative feeling... thus a strong word as well.

These situations are better handled by punishing those that employ hate-speech. Ban the user and take appropriate legal procedures against him/her, but after the fact, not before it. This is not Minority Report. They didn't make it clear how they will handle the censoring. If it's something like pending comments for approval and taking them out, plus punishing the user for it, we will have to believe the censors when they say that the content was censored for being misogynistic.

Censorship being linked to free speech is the most basic of bad old jokes. It's not welcome, you can't know what really was spoken if it's preemptively taken out of sight, so others can't know what really happened.

But if it's a post factum measure, then I don't see much reason to be against it. If they don't exceed their powers and punish/censor content that is merely inquisitive, questioning veracity of articles, sources and allegations related to sensitive subjects like the ones they exemplified, and do it after the fact, I'd be ok with it.

The top line says it all. Terms such as misogyny and rape have become severely watered down over the years. Nowadays, people use the terms too lightly, sometimes far from their original meaning.

#13 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13998 posts) -

But misandry is ok.

#14 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5124 posts) -

I love how those rules are all only regarding things said to women. Cause you know, men never have fucked up shit said to them...

Stop acting like you matter.

#15 Posted by uninspiredcup (7875 posts) -

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fark-banned-misogyny-to-facilitate-free-speech

This is the beginning of a beautiful new trend. I applaud the Fark staff, namely the magnanimous Drew Curtis, for implementing such policies. It's about time that those who engage in misogynistic behavior get their punishment. Reddit has also expressed an interest in a zero-tolerance policy towards misogynistic speech. Maybe now this will teach civility to those who have trouble understanding the concept.

You applaud the clamping of freedom of speech? I don't. I don't like a lot of shit people say. Doesn't mean I'm going to demand and cheer at them not being allowed to say it.

The thing to remember as well, looking at Zoe Quinn, it's very easy for people to use the "misogynistic" as a derogatory means to simply dismiss any possible valid arguments. And thats... pretty much what has happened.

The point is, it's easy to just construe valid points or criticism under the guise of something completely different using powers to silence or shut it down that aren't necessarily legitimate.

#16 Posted by lostrib (34704 posts) -

what are they being punished for?

#17 Edited by MrGeezer (56132 posts) -

@truechartreuse said:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fark-banned-misogyny-to-facilitate-free-speech

In a message posted yesterday, Fark founder Drew Curtis said it's no longer acceptable to make rape jokes on the site, or call women "whores or sluts," or suggest that a female victim of a violent crime was "somehow asking for it"—you know, the kind of stuff that pervades Reddit threads and comment sections all around the internet.

This is the beginning of a beautiful new trend. I applaud the Fark staff, namely the magnanimous Drew Curtis, for implementing such policies. It's about time that those who engage in misogynistic behavior get their punishment. Reddit has also expressed an interest in a zero-tolerance policy towards misogynistic speech. Maybe now this will teach civility to those who have trouble understanding the concept.

That's all fine and well, but one of my concerns is that "zero tolerance" policies often tend to fail to take context into account. Whenever I hear "zero tolerance", I can't help but think of things like students getting expelled for owning fingernail clippers because that technically counts as a blade.

Granted, most of those stories are probably bullshit in the same way that many "frivolous lawsuits" stories are bullshit. But still, I can't help but get nervous whenever I hear the words "zero tolerance".

Like, take this story. I'm sure that the INTENT is to cut down on misogyny, which I'm all for. However, the claim that "it's no longer acceptable to make rape jokes on the site" sort of ignores the possibility of someone making a "rape joke" that actually speaks out against misogyny. The definition of a "rape joke" can be pretty loose in the same sense that Dead Man Walking and Saw are both "murder movies", and that's where I sort of get a bit nervous. I'm as much against misogyny as the next guy, but I'm against murder too. And if netflix instituted a "zero tolerance" policy against "murder movies", then I'd probably shit a brick.

Having said that, it's their website and they can do what they want. So okay, I guess.

#19 Posted by always_explicit (2716 posts) -

Cesspools exist for a reason, people need a place to dump their shit.

When one cesspool is full another is opened in its place.

People say stuff that other people dont like. Its life.

#20 Posted by MrGeezer (56132 posts) -

@truechartreuse said:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fark-banned-misogyny-to-facilitate-free-speech

This is the beginning of a beautiful new trend. I applaud the Fark staff, namely the magnanimous Drew Curtis, for implementing such policies. It's about time that those who engage in misogynistic behavior get their punishment. Reddit has also expressed an interest in a zero-tolerance policy towards misogynistic speech. Maybe now this will teach civility to those who have trouble understanding the concept.

You applaud the clamping of freedom of speech? I don't. I don't like a lot of shit people say. Doesn't mean I'm going to demand and cheer at them not being allowed to say it.

The thing to remember as well, looking at Zoe Quinn, it's very easy for people to use the "misogynistic" as a derogatory means to simply dismiss any possible valid arguments. And thats... pretty much what has happened.

The point is, it's easy to just construe valid points or criticism under the guise of something completely different using powers to silence or shut it down that aren't necessarily legitimate.

But let's be clear here...this is not a clamping of free speech. We can all say whatever misogynistic or hateful things we want to, but no private website is obligated to publish it. You have free speech, but so do they, and part of their free speech is the freedom to say that they disagree with the ideas expressed and are not willing to help you distribute them.

#21 Edited by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@uninspiredcup said:

@truechartreuse said:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fark-banned-misogyny-to-facilitate-free-speech

This is the beginning of a beautiful new trend. I applaud the Fark staff, namely the magnanimous Drew Curtis, for implementing such policies. It's about time that those who engage in misogynistic behavior get their punishment. Reddit has also expressed an interest in a zero-tolerance policy towards misogynistic speech. Maybe now this will teach civility to those who have trouble understanding the concept.

You applaud the clamping of freedom of speech? I don't. I don't like a lot of shit people say. Doesn't mean I'm going to demand and cheer at them not being allowed to say it.

The thing to remember as well, looking at Zoe Quinn, it's very easy for people to use the "misogynistic" as a derogatory means to simply dismiss any possible valid arguments. And thats... pretty much what has happened.

The point is, it's easy to just construe valid points or criticism under the guise of something completely different using powers to silence or shut it down that aren't necessarily legitimate.

But let's be clear here...this is not a clamping of free speech. We can all say whatever misogynistic or hateful things we want to, but no private website is obligated to publish it. You have free speech, but so do they, and part of their free speech is the freedom to say that they disagree with the ideas expressed and are not willing to help you distribute them.

They are indeed not obligated to publish it. But the clash of rights there isn't free speech vs. free speech. This leads to a possible misogyny vs. misandry scenario. There are other rights put into play to allow them to restrict freedom of speech in their own website. The question is not if they can, because they can do it of course, like they can put other rules on how it works. The question is about if it's a good move, a fair one.

I've been thinking... why not expand that policy for hate-speech in general, if hate is what they are trying to block there? Zero-tolerance for misogynistic speech... how much tolerance towards other kinds of hate-speech?

#22 Posted by Korvus (3238 posts) -

Never heard of Fark...although I think if they're so concerned they should ban hate speech, not nitpick which form of hate speech is acceptable or not...look at what happened with GS after they started doing that...

#23 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

I am so confused. How is this a free speech issue?

#24 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150376 posts) -

@XaosII said:

I am so confused. How is this a free speech issue?

It's not....

#25 Edited by MBirdy88 (7754 posts) -

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

#26 Posted by TrueChartreuse (65 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

Fark is just the beginning. I can't wait for the day when a single chant rises above the dissenting voices, resounding through the halls of the internet, "WE. ARE. ANITA."

#27 Posted by toast_burner (21456 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

What are you going to bar her from?

Can you really not tell the difference between a lawyer and a critic?

#28 Posted by HailtotheQueen (254 posts) -

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fark-banned-misogyny-to-facilitate-free-speech

In a message posted yesterday, Fark founder Drew Curtis said it's no longer acceptable to make rape jokes on the site, or call women "whores or sluts," or suggest that a female victim of a violent crime was "somehow asking for it"—you know, the kind of stuff that pervades Reddit threads and comment sections all around the internet.

This is the beginning of a beautiful new trend. I applaud the Fark staff, namely the magnanimous Drew Curtis, for implementing such policies. It's about time that those who engage in misogynistic behavior get their punishment. Reddit has also expressed an interest in a zero-tolerance policy towards misogynistic speech. Maybe now this will teach civility to those who have trouble understanding the concept.

Best news I have heard all week. I'm sure there will be cries of CENSORSHIP though. LOL And idiots talking about "free speech" while not actually understanding the laws. This is great but if communities really want to cut down on the hate and trolling, they should do what some sites do now... Require a cell phone number to sign up for accounts. That would pretty much kill most of the problems immediately.

#29 Edited by TrueChartreuse (65 posts) -

@truechartreuse said:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fark-banned-misogyny-to-facilitate-free-speech

In a message posted yesterday, Fark founder Drew Curtis said it's no longer acceptable to make rape jokes on the site, or call women "whores or sluts," or suggest that a female victim of a violent crime was "somehow asking for it"—you know, the kind of stuff that pervades Reddit threads and comment sections all around the internet.

This is the beginning of a beautiful new trend. I applaud the Fark staff, namely the magnanimous Drew Curtis, for implementing such policies. It's about time that those who engage in misogynistic behavior get their punishment. Reddit has also expressed an interest in a zero-tolerance policy towards misogynistic speech. Maybe now this will teach civility to those who have trouble understanding the concept.

Best news I have heard all week. I'm sure there will be cries of CENSORSHIP though. LOL And idiots talking about "free speech" while not actually understanding the laws. This is great but if communities really want to cut down on the hate and trolling, they should do what some sites do now... Require a cell phone number to sign up for accounts. That would pretty much kill most of the problems immediately.

My thoughts exactly. Within the next 10 years or so, the internet isn't going to have the "any goes" mentality is does now. People will have to own up to what they say and do online.

#30 Posted by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

@SambaLele said:

Misogyny is a banalized word nowadays. We see people throw it at each other way too easily. It's supposed to mean "hate against women"... hate is a strong, negative feeling... thus a strong word as well.

These situations are better handled by punishing those that employ hate-speech. Ban the user and take appropriate legal procedures against him/her, but after the fact, not before it. This is not Minority Report. They didn't make it clear how they will handle the censoring. If it's something like pending comments for approval and taking them out, plus punishing the user for it, we will have to believe the censors when they say that the content was censored for being misogynistic.

Censorship being linked to free speech is the most basic of bad old jokes. It's not welcome, you can't know what really was spoken if it's preemptively taken out of sight, so others can't know what really happened.

But if it's a post factum measure, then I don't see much reason to be against it. If they don't exceed their powers and punish/censor content that is merely inquisitive, questioning veracity of articles, sources and allegations related to sensitive subjects like the ones they exemplified, and do it after the fact, I'd be ok with it.

The top line says it all. Terms such as misogyny and rape have become severely watered down over the years. Nowadays, people use the terms too lightly, sometimes far from their original meaning.

Yeah... hope you read the linked article in my previous post. I think you'd like the read. It's an Eleanor Roosevelt article on free speech and censorship, concerning Hollywood and communism.

It's interesting that many that says are progressive are defending measures that were once fought by progressives. Censorship actually is a conservative measure, adopted by those that achieved the condition of status quo in whatever environment it's applied, be it the dominant view on a macroscopic or microscopic scale (the case of a private company, the website in this case).

#31 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1396 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery said:

@SambaLele said:

Misogyny is a banalized word nowadays. We see people throw it at each other way too easily. It's supposed to mean "hate against women"... hate is a strong, negative feeling... thus a strong word as well.

These situations are better handled by punishing those that employ hate-speech. Ban the user and take appropriate legal procedures against him/her, but after the fact, not before it. This is not Minority Report. They didn't make it clear how they will handle the censoring. If it's something like pending comments for approval and taking them out, plus punishing the user for it, we will have to believe the censors when they say that the content was censored for being misogynistic.

Censorship being linked to free speech is the most basic of bad old jokes. It's not welcome, you can't know what really was spoken if it's preemptively taken out of sight, so others can't know what really happened.

But if it's a post factum measure, then I don't see much reason to be against it. If they don't exceed their powers and punish/censor content that is merely inquisitive, questioning veracity of articles, sources and allegations related to sensitive subjects like the ones they exemplified, and do it after the fact, I'd be ok with it.

The top line says it all. Terms such as misogyny and rape have become severely watered down over the years. Nowadays, people use the terms too lightly, sometimes far from their original meaning.

Yeah... hope you read the linked article in my previous post. I think you'd like the read. It's an Eleanor Roosevelt article on free speech and censorship, concerning Hollywood and communism.

It's interesting that many that says are progressive are defending measures that were once fought by progressives. Censorship actually is a conservative measure, adopted by those that achieved the condition of status quo in whatever environment it's applied, be it the dominant view on a macroscopic or microscopic scale (the case of a private company, the website in this case).

It was an interesting read. It's always strange to read speeches and literature from several decades ago, to hear certain phrases again such as fearing the communist within the ranks. However, as you mentioned earlier, it does seem odd that this censorship is so narrowly defined, particularly only against "misogyny" and "rape culture". Also, this censorship deviates from the traditional style of what you would generally see. Again, as you mentioned, censorship was a means of keeping the status quo; yet, this particular stylization of censorship seems geared to starting a new status quo. Perhaps I'm pessimistic in my outlook, but I feel that the time for productive conversation regarding sensitive matters, particularly rape, rape culture, and misogyny, have passed. I just don't believe we are going to make any strides on this social matters anymore.

#32 Edited by TrueChartreuse (65 posts) -

@SambaLele said:

@StrifeDelivery said:

@SambaLele said:

Misogyny is a banalized word nowadays. We see people throw it at each other way too easily. It's supposed to mean "hate against women"... hate is a strong, negative feeling... thus a strong word as well.

These situations are better handled by punishing those that employ hate-speech. Ban the user and take appropriate legal procedures against him/her, but after the fact, not before it. This is not Minority Report. They didn't make it clear how they will handle the censoring. If it's something like pending comments for approval and taking them out, plus punishing the user for it, we will have to believe the censors when they say that the content was censored for being misogynistic.

Censorship being linked to free speech is the most basic of bad old jokes. It's not welcome, you can't know what really was spoken if it's preemptively taken out of sight, so others can't know what really happened.

But if it's a post factum measure, then I don't see much reason to be against it. If they don't exceed their powers and punish/censor content that is merely inquisitive, questioning veracity of articles, sources and allegations related to sensitive subjects like the ones they exemplified, and do it after the fact, I'd be ok with it.

The top line says it all. Terms such as misogyny and rape have become severely watered down over the years. Nowadays, people use the terms too lightly, sometimes far from their original meaning.

Yeah... hope you read the linked article in my previous post. I think you'd like the read. It's an Eleanor Roosevelt article on free speech and censorship, concerning Hollywood and communism.

It's interesting that many that says are progressive are defending measures that were once fought by progressives. Censorship actually is a conservative measure, adopted by those that achieved the condition of status quo in whatever environment it's applied, be it the dominant view on a macroscopic or microscopic scale (the case of a private company, the website in this case).

It was an interesting read. It's always strange to read speeches and literature from several decades ago, to hear certain phrases again such as fearing the communist within the ranks. However, as you mentioned earlier, it does seem odd that this censorship is so narrowly defined, particularly only against "misogyny" and "rape culture". Also, this censorship deviates from the traditional style of what you would generally see. Again, as you mentioned, censorship was a means of keeping the status quo; yet, this particular stylization of censorship seems geared to starting a new status quo. Perhaps I'm pessimistic in my outlook, but I feel that the time for productive conversation regarding sensitive matters, particularly rape, rape culture, and misogyny, have passed. I just don't believe we are going to make any strides on this social matters anymore.

This is because people often refuse to change their views on the matter and continue using misogynistic hate speech just to spite those who are just trying to even the playing field in the gaming community.

#33 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1396 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery said:
@SambaLele said:

Yeah... hope you read the linked article in my previous post. I think you'd like the read. It's an Eleanor Roosevelt article on free speech and censorship, concerning Hollywood and communism.

It's interesting that many that says are progressive are defending measures that were once fought by progressives. Censorship actually is a conservative measure, adopted by those that achieved the condition of status quo in whatever environment it's applied, be it the dominant view on a macroscopic or microscopic scale (the case of a private company, the website in this case).

It was an interesting read. It's always strange to read speeches and literature from several decades ago, to hear certain phrases again such as fearing the communist within the ranks. However, as you mentioned earlier, it does seem odd that this censorship is so narrowly defined, particularly only against "misogyny" and "rape culture". Also, this censorship deviates from the traditional style of what you would generally see. Again, as you mentioned, censorship was a means of keeping the status quo; yet, this particular stylization of censorship seems geared to starting a new status quo. Perhaps I'm pessimistic in my outlook, but I feel that the time for productive conversation regarding sensitive matters, particularly rape, rape culture, and misogyny, have passed. I just don't believe we are going to make any strides on this social matters anymore.

This is because people often refuse to change their views on the matter and continue using misogynistic hate speech just to spite those who are just trying to even the playing field in the gaming community.

You seem to have missed the point that I was trying to make (and to a degree SambaLele as well). It is not that people supposedly refuse to change their views or are even using "misogynistic hate speech". It has come to the point that the terms misogyny, rape, and rape culture are no longer grounded within their original meanings. They have become cheap replicas of their former selves. Misogyny and rape were harsh terms, terms that evoked at times a visceral reaction because of the severity of the word. Nowadays, misogyny, rape, and rape culture have become so broad, so watered down, that people don't react to them anymore. Because of this, actual instances of misogyny can be overlooked, simply because we are at a stage where it seems anything is misogynistic and the real cases get drowned out by any cry of misogyny. People are going to become more and more apathetic because the waters are now muddied.

#34 Posted by wis3boi (31126 posts) -

@CreasianDevaili said:

Hey I know this is your thing and all, even if not well hidden, but how is any of that actually stopping anything? Reddit is what it is because of the relaxed rules. When it becomes something else people will go and make something else.

Hell I would be rather upset if my strong ideals could only be upheld by regulation and punishment and not by the genuine merit of understanding and acceptance.

Just don't get it even if a troll thing.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but this person is right. Trash always finds a way to be dumped, it's up to the individual user where they go, and what they will tolerate. If you don't want to see such things then don't visit such sites, which is why I've never bothered with either reddit or chan. I come here because they have decent rules against such indecent behavior.

thing with reddit though is, it is what you make of it (which subreddits you browse). Sit around in /r/funny or /r/news, guaranteed shithole. Hang out in /r/masseffect or /r/buildapc, much much better communtiy, each with its own rules

#35 Edited by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery said:

@truechartreuse said:

@StrifeDelivery said:
@SambaLele said:

Yeah... hope you read the linked article in my previous post. I think you'd like the read. It's an Eleanor Roosevelt article on free speech and censorship, concerning Hollywood and communism.

It's interesting that many that says are progressive are defending measures that were once fought by progressives. Censorship actually is a conservative measure, adopted by those that achieved the condition of status quo in whatever environment it's applied, be it the dominant view on a macroscopic or microscopic scale (the case of a private company, the website in this case).

It was an interesting read. It's always strange to read speeches and literature from several decades ago, to hear certain phrases again such as fearing the communist within the ranks. However, as you mentioned earlier, it does seem odd that this censorship is so narrowly defined, particularly only against "misogyny" and "rape culture". Also, this censorship deviates from the traditional style of what you would generally see. Again, as you mentioned, censorship was a means of keeping the status quo; yet, this particular stylization of censorship seems geared to starting a new status quo. Perhaps I'm pessimistic in my outlook, but I feel that the time for productive conversation regarding sensitive matters, particularly rape, rape culture, and misogyny, have passed. I just don't believe we are going to make any strides on this social matters anymore.

This is because people often refuse to change their views on the matter and continue using misogynistic hate speech just to spite those who are just trying to even the playing field in the gaming community.

You seem to have missed the point that I was trying to make (and to a degree SambaLele as well). It is not that people supposedly refuse to change their views or are even using "misogynistic hate speech". It has come to the point that the terms misogyny, rape, and rape culture are no longer grounded within their original meanings. They have become cheap replicas of their former selves. Misogyny and rape were harsh terms, terms that evoked at times a visceral reaction because of the severity of the word. Nowadays, misogyny, rape, and rape culture have become so broad, so watered down, that people don't react to them anymore. Because of this, actual instances of misogyny can be overlooked, simply because we are at a stage where it seems anything is misogynistic and the real cases get drowned out by any cry of misogyny. People are going to become more and more apathetic because the waters are now muddied.

Strife, believe me, I didn't miss your point. I agree: those words were "hijacked" ideologically and banalized, directed to serve a purpose, not their inner semantical meanings. It's not that all people that identify themselves with the movements behind it are aware of it. It's not that the whole movement is also like that. But the persons in positions of power within those movements are able to dictate this behavior, as we've seen in many mediums. Sadly, I'd guess, from my personal anecdotal evidence (which is a weak evidence btw), the ones I know that follow such radicalization actually read too little about the movement itself and criticisism made against it, and goes more on hear-say about it all and highly opinionated pieces that try to present themselves as professional analysis, always trusting their peers on what makes their movement be what it is, it's purposes, causes and the legitimacy of the measures employed to arrive to their goals. This is a negative and radicalizing cycle of peer confirmation. Movements that are being transformed through time, and not being anymore what they used to be, what opened the doors to the social advancements they conquered. A movement should never lose the ability to criticise itself and double check it's actions. Actions are what counts - ideas area what prompts us to act and behave in a certain way.

Like you must have noticed by the example of Chartreuse, they see no flaws in their way of action, the problem is with others not accepting their view. This is almost a messianical attitude. The discourse of tolerance was substituted by the discourse of conflict, where winning and swaying opinions became more important than the very purpose behind it all.

#36 Posted by lamprey263 (23212 posts) -

What I find ridiculous in the post-"GamerGate" issue is that because people like Quinn and Sarkeesian are self proclaimed feminists that saying anything against them and even being articulate and critical still falls into the area of misogyny. Granted, online communities should work within a certain standard of decency and respect, however the blanket enforcement on this issue has pretty much caused multiple sites to censor any and all discussion of the matter that don't fall under the ideas that gamers are misogynist and racists and bigots and a bunch of awful losers.

#37 Posted by MBirdy88 (7754 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

What are you going to bar her from?

Can you really not tell the difference between a lawyer and a critic?

I know the difference. bar her from youtube? critics are not meant to cherry pick, twist and make baseless assumptions.

#38 Edited by toast_burner (21456 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@toast_burner said:

@MBirdy88 said:

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

What are you going to bar her from?

Can you really not tell the difference between a lawyer and a critic?

I know the difference. bar her from youtube? critics are not meant to cherry pick, twist and make baseless assumptions.

So because you don't like someone they shouldn't be allowed to share their views? She's self employed, she can say what ever she wants about games.

#39 Posted by JimB (182 posts) -

If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

#40 Posted by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@toast_burner said:

@MBirdy88 said:

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

What are you going to bar her from?

Can you really not tell the difference between a lawyer and a critic?

I know the difference. bar her from youtube? critics are not meant to cherry pick, twist and make baseless assumptions.

So because you don't like someone they shouldn't be allowed to share their views? She's self employed, she can say what ever she wants about games.

True, censorship is not the solution to a perceived problem. When we disagree we may just ignore something... when we strongly disagree, we may initiate discussion, show another point-of-view. I guess this is essential.

#41 Posted by MBirdy88 (7754 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@toast_burner said:

@MBirdy88 said:

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

What are you going to bar her from?

Can you really not tell the difference between a lawyer and a critic?

I know the difference. bar her from youtube? critics are not meant to cherry pick, twist and make baseless assumptions.

So because you don't like someone they shouldn't be allowed to share their views? She's self employed, she can say what ever she wants about games.

She claims its academic material and people are already annoyed with her about that. but then again you defend her everytime. I don't care about the PERSON. You mean a feminist that follows all the stereotypes that she is supposedly against (Having to wear makeup on camera to be taken seriously, "I dont play games because I dont like icky gross violence" and plays the damsel in distress herself to get saviours the fun of it all.) as far as I am concerned the person is a comedian and to be taken as one.

But her material.... is what I have problem with, I wouldn't care if she had better examples for her arguements and all fairly represented... but next to none of it is. but ofcourse, all you see is an anti-feminist for you to white knight correct?

#42 Edited by toast_burner (21456 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@toast_burner said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@toast_burner said:

@MBirdy88 said:

Fantastic. now we need systems in place where the more agressive feminists that twist things and make people angry should also be punished. her material taken down until she admits she doctors and makes up claims with no proof of concept.

Jack Thompson was barred for doing it over and over... theres nothing stopping her.

What are you going to bar her from?

Can you really not tell the difference between a lawyer and a critic?

I know the difference. bar her from youtube? critics are not meant to cherry pick, twist and make baseless assumptions.

So because you don't like someone they shouldn't be allowed to share their views? She's self employed, she can say what ever she wants about games.

She claims its academic material and people are already annoyed with her about that. but then again you defend her everytime. I don't care about the PERSON. You mean a feminist that follows all the stereotypes that she is supposedly against (Having to wear makeup on camera to be taken seriously, "I dont play games because I dont like icky gross violence" and plays the damsel in distress herself to get saviours the fun of it all.) as far as I am concerned the person is a comedian and to be taken as one.

But her material.... is what I have problem with, I wouldn't care if she had better examples for her arguements and all fairly represented... but next to none of it is. but ofcourse, all you see is an anti-feminist for you to white knight correct?

So because I call you out on your nonsense that means I'm a white knight? Personally I dislike her videos and her kickstarter campaign was a massive con (she claims she needed the money for research yet had already came to the conclusion). But none of that is relevant.

Whether you like it or not she has the right to say what ever she wants about video games. She could claim that games were invented by Satan and they give you cancer. It still wouldn't matter. Where in youtubes TOS does it say that you can't lie, exaggerate, be one sided or misrepresent something?

She isn't attacking anyone, or breaking any laws. So why does it matter? Just ignore her videos if you don't like them.

#43 Edited by pariah3 (980 posts) -

So many women are quick to complain that men are misogynistic while not realizing that their own behavior is cruel.

Many women will be quick to ignore a guy if the guy is a bit ugly or unpopular. No wonder that many guys grow to dislike women, seeing how many women treat ugly guys like shit.

What happened with Elliot Rodger who got so angry after so many women ignored him and rejected him is a confirmation to what I'm trying to say.

Misandry exists too, not just misoginy

#44 Posted by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

Person is saying bs or nonsense? Radicalizing and monetising upon an ideology? Call the person out. There's already people doing that in the media. Censorship and premptively shaming others before they are heard prevents that different positions like that surface, and that relevant issues are discussed.

#45 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (17155 posts) -

@pariah3 said:

So many women are quick to complain that men are misogynistic while not realizing that their own behavior is cruel.

Many women will be quick to ignore a guy if the guy is a bit ugly or unpopular. No wonder that many guys don't like women, seeing how many women treat ugly guys like shit.

What happened with Elliot Rodger who got so angry after so many women ignored him and rejected him is a confirmation to what I'm trying to say.

I think it's important to realize that the women behind the recent gaming feminism movement are not at all representative of the average women. The whole reason it has been such an issue is that the movement seems to be full of misandrists who care more about putting men down than actually making things better. Seeing some of the comments that have come out of the gamergate scandal really makes me wonder where these psycho's come from and what happened in their life to make them so damn crazy...

#46 Posted by MedaFaded (93 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL said:

I love how those rules are all only regarding things said to women. Cause you know, men never have fucked up shit said to them...

It affects women on a much larger scale than men though, as a lot of online communities (like Reddit) are comprised mostly of men. Also, men aren't discriminated against due to their gender. There's very little misandry outside of sites like Jezebel or radical feminist tumblrs.

Men aren't discriminated against due to their gender? On a much larger scale? How bout race? Yea cause I have never been called a nigger online before, and male children don't get called girls for having squeaky voices. Everyone gets discriminated on I don't understand, or see why this is something new? I was raised by my mom, and have 3 girls, I am all for the females, and equality, but this whole movement is a joke! Are you standing up for racism, and the poor little boys too? There movement should be to stop the hate in general not just to females alone. I have been called everything online, by the way, and it doesn't seem right that the feminist group thinks that standing up for woman alone is the solution. How about everyone? Have you notice all white males on cover of games, unless its 50 cent, or it is a gang related game? If you don't represent everyone, than any one can say what the feminists are saying? 99.9 Percent of male roles go to white males for video games. Feminist what about a black females, that has never seen daylight? Where is there statistic on that, or you don't care? Your point is a joke!

#47 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70810 posts) -

So it's ok to make that type of remarks for males?

#48 Edited by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

What I find ridiculous in the post-"GamerGate" issue is that because people like Quinn and Sarkeesian are self proclaimed feminists that saying anything against them and even being articulate and critical still falls into the area of misogyny. Granted, online communities should work within a certain standard of decency and respect, however the blanket enforcement on this issue has pretty much caused multiple sites to censor any and all discussion of the matter that don't fall under the ideas that gamers are misogynist and racists and bigots and a bunch of awful losers.

Obviously to keep people discussing gender issues, not journalism corruption. Not saying the first one shouldn't be discussed, but that the focus now is on the second.

#49 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1396 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery said:

@truechartreuse said:

This is because people often refuse to change their views on the matter and continue using misogynistic hate speech just to spite those who are just trying to even the playing field in the gaming community.

You seem to have missed the point that I was trying to make (and to a degree SambaLele as well). It is not that people supposedly refuse to change their views or are even using "misogynistic hate speech". It has come to the point that the terms misogyny, rape, and rape culture are no longer grounded within their original meanings. They have become cheap replicas of their former selves. Misogyny and rape were harsh terms, terms that evoked at times a visceral reaction because of the severity of the word. Nowadays, misogyny, rape, and rape culture have become so broad, so watered down, that people don't react to them anymore. Because of this, actual instances of misogyny can be overlooked, simply because we are at a stage where it seems anything is misogynistic and the real cases get drowned out by any cry of misogyny. People are going to become more and more apathetic because the waters are now muddied.

Strife, believe me, I didn't miss your point. I agree: those words were "hijacked" ideologically and banalized, directed to serve a purpose, not their inner semantical meanings. It's not that all people that identify themselves with the movements behind it are aware of it. It's not that the whole movement is also like that. But the persons in positions of power within those movements are able to dictate this behavior, as we've seen in many mediums. Sadly, I'd guess, from my personal anecdotal evidence (which is a weak evidence btw), the ones I know that follow such radicalization actually read too little about the movement itself and criticisism made against it, and goes more on hear-say about it all and highly opinionated pieces that try to present themselves as professional analysis, always trusting their peers on what makes their movement be what it is, it's purposes, causes and the legitimacy of the measures employed to arrive to their goals. This is a negative and radicalizing cycle of peer confirmation. Movements that are being transformed through time, and not being anymore what they used to be, what opened the doors to the social advancements they conquered. A movement should never lose the ability to criticise itself and double check it's actions. Actions are what counts - ideas area what prompts us to act and behave in a certain way.

Like you must have noticed by the example of Chartreuse, they see no flaws in their way of action, the problem is with others not accepting their view. This is almost a messianical attitude. The discourse of tolerance was substituted by the discourse of conflict, where winning and swaying opinions became more important than the very purpose behind it all.

SambaLele, you seem perfectly capable of dissecting arguments and understanding them. Truechartreuse, on the other hand, avoided the point I made entirely and still hasn't replied. If my writing made it seem like you weren't following what I was saying SambaLele, I apologize for that.

#50 Posted by SambaLele (5215 posts) -

@SambaLele said:

@StrifeDelivery said:

@truechartreuse said:

This is because people often refuse to change their views on the matter and continue using misogynistic hate speech just to spite those who are just trying to even the playing field in the gaming community.

You seem to have missed the point that I was trying to make (and to a degree SambaLele as well). It is not that people supposedly refuse to change their views or are even using "misogynistic hate speech". It has come to the point that the terms misogyny, rape, and rape culture are no longer grounded within their original meanings. They have become cheap replicas of their former selves. Misogyny and rape were harsh terms, terms that evoked at times a visceral reaction because of the severity of the word. Nowadays, misogyny, rape, and rape culture have become so broad, so watered down, that people don't react to them anymore. Because of this, actual instances of misogyny can be overlooked, simply because we are at a stage where it seems anything is misogynistic and the real cases get drowned out by any cry of misogyny. People are going to become more and more apathetic because the waters are now muddied.

Strife, believe me, I didn't miss your point. I agree: those words were "hijacked" ideologically and banalized, directed to serve a purpose, not their inner semantical meanings. It's not that all people that identify themselves with the movements behind it are aware of it. It's not that the whole movement is also like that. But the persons in positions of power within those movements are able to dictate this behavior, as we've seen in many mediums. Sadly, I'd guess, from my personal anecdotal evidence (which is a weak evidence btw), the ones I know that follow such radicalization actually read too little about the movement itself and criticisism made against it, and goes more on hear-say about it all and highly opinionated pieces that try to present themselves as professional analysis, always trusting their peers on what makes their movement be what it is, it's purposes, causes and the legitimacy of the measures employed to arrive to their goals. This is a negative and radicalizing cycle of peer confirmation. Movements that are being transformed through time, and not being anymore what they used to be, what opened the doors to the social advancements they conquered. A movement should never lose the ability to criticise itself and double check it's actions. Actions are what counts - ideas area what prompts us to act and behave in a certain way.

Like you must have noticed by the example of Chartreuse, they see no flaws in their way of action, the problem is with others not accepting their view. This is almost a messianical attitude. The discourse of tolerance was substituted by the discourse of conflict, where winning and swaying opinions became more important than the very purpose behind it all.

SambaLele, you seem perfectly capable of dissecting arguments and understanding them. Truechartreuse, on the other hand, avoided the point I made entirely and still hasn't replied. If my writing made it seem like you weren't following what I was saying SambaLele, I apologize for that.

No, don't apologize at all. I thank you for your insight. I was actually trying to figure if I did understand you. It's the problem of crying wolf too much... plus a strawman problem, and many more together. Now let's see what these policies will mean for that website and for it's audience, since what's done is done...