Riot Games Gaffe Results in Sexism Allegations at Pax West 2018

[R-T-B]

OG feminist doesn't care a bit about safe spaces.

Yeah. She is neither a monarch in her views, nor are safe spaces just for feminists.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

orry, but that "argument" was thoroughly debunked by developers at the time of that silly "can't add female characters because of the cost" controversy. The key: it's entirely possible to re-use animations across male and female coded characters - in fact, there's no basis whatsoever to say that men and women in the same role, with the same training (say, soldiers, doctors, scientists, police) move more differently than the variance within men with different physiological traits. As such, reusing animations between genders is no problem whatsoever. Also, for some reason you're arguing from a basis where you're assuming the default is an already all-male game, seemingly not even considering that it's possible to include non-male characters from the very beginning of development. That says quite a lot of your outlook on these things.

as i said you are clueless to game development. you are here just to argue with anyone.

although it wouldnt surprise me if he changed his argument to suit the conditions here).

yep he did.

 

[lexluthermiester]

yep he did.

They do that a lot. I generally ignore them.

 

[Valantar]

There's no "male dominance", never was, it's an invention.
There's no "subjugated female", never was, it's an invention.
There's no "gender", never was, it's an invention.
Feminists are a mix of sociopathy/psychopathy/sexual perversion/Marxism disguised in the good intentioned "equality for all" propaganda (hence the original Fabian Society's coat of arms attached bellow: present yourself as a sheep until it's too late for your victim). It's evil, and it'll eventually be rooted violently, along with all other mischievous under the lefty/progressive umbrella.

View attachment 106309

a) Wow, that is some high-level conspiracy theory rhetoric. What does some random socialist organisation have to do with feminism? Feminism != socialism, even if a noticeable number of feminists also are socialists. People can be multiple things, after all.
b) Saying something is a social construct is not the same as saying it's "an invention". That's a gross oversimplification at the very least. It simply means that the thing in question is largely formed and maintained by the social structures of society and the behaviours and values we are taught and reiterate as members of said society. It's not something that a person or a group of people came up with, nor something that a specific group is necessarily working consciously to maintain.
c) Saying feminism is "sociopathy" just shows you have zero empathy for people subject to centuries of subjugation. Now who's the sociopath?

I acknowledge the discrimination shown to me as a middle aged white man.
We seem to be last on the priority list for any type of Government assistance, whether housing crisis, food etc. It has been stated that women are seen as more vulnerable, by a Government that has anti-discrimination laws in place, go figure.

Care to detail some of that discrimination? And have you ever tried comparing it to the well-documented struggles of other groups? Nobody here is saying these things are simple and straightforward, and of course there are exceptions to every discriminatory social dynamic there is. None of this is cut-and-dried, black-and-white stuff. For example, there's no doubt that older white men are often discriminated against in hiring situations - ageism in the workplace is very real. And so on and so forth - there are many, many kinds of discrimination that happen. Still, there is no doubt that some are both more prevalent and more serious than others. As a middle-aged white man, have you ever ... been constantly peppered with derogatory comments by the people around you for weeks, months or years? Had your efforts or work valued as less because of factors entirely outside of your control? Had people suspect you of being a criminal simply for being outside, living your life? When you were growing up, did people blame your failures on your race or gender, or if you succeeded tell you things like "you're one of the good ones", implying that other people who look like you are somehow bad by default? Some of these things might seem small, but when they're repeated ad infinitum and become a constant presence in your life, they can turn into a very, very miserable life.

For what reason? It used to be that restrooms sufficed for that purpose or the great outdoors. How about a hotel room or a car? It's not really hard to find a place to escape to. Pretty much everyone is carrying smartphones anymore so people can reach out to someone familiar from virtually anywhere.

Some people need to escape from feeling utterly alone in the world. Isolating yourself tends not to work against that, you know. And, of course, the funny thing is that spaces excluding dominant groups wouldn't be necessary at all if members of these dominant groups could be counted on to be empathetic, understanding, open to listening, and respectful of the needs and wants of other groups. That's part of the insidious nature of privilege, though - most people are blissfully unaware of it, and thus equally unaware that their behaviour is seen by others as domineering, disrespectful, dismissive, derogatory, or just plain hurtful. The concept of mansplaining is an excellent example of this.

"Safe spaces" are created by the feminists, for the feminists, because they're afraid of ideas that counter their own.

"The feminists". Of course. Just like "the blacks" and all the other entirely homogeneous groups in the world. Not all feminists agree with the need for "safe spaces" in any organized form. But, on the other hand, most people who have lived through any kind of systemic oppression will recognize that creating a space fundamentally free of this would take an enormous weight off people's shoulders. Dismissing this idea simply shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the experiences of people different than you.

You're forgetting all of the cases where daddy got sent to prison for drug dealing or murder where the mom is left home to fend for herself and her kids. Here's a lengthy article about this topic. A lot of good quotes on there but this one counters your statement best:

I don't see how that statement applies to what I said whatsoever. I didn't say that these same people in the same situation would be reliable fathers and partners if not imprisoned, nor did I at all touch on the effect of single-parent households. I was talking about how people end up becoming criminals in the first place. The quote from that article only adds a bit of nuance, and doesn't contradict what I said in any way.

Another one in regards to poverty:

While interesting, one can question whether the recession lasted long enough for this to affect crime rates - social changes don't happen overnight, and it's not unreasonable to expect that people who have grown up in and are used to living in stable, most/all-needs-covered living conditions don't suddenly start robbing liquor stores if they're forced into poverty. In fact, a key point behind the data showing that poverty leads to bad decision-making (including, but not limited to crime - bad spending habits and get-rich-quick schemes are some other examples) is that lack of money over time builds up to an almost insurmountable level of ever-present day-to-day stress, making long-term planning impossible due to the sheer level of pressure of putting food on the table or paying bills due in the immediate future. That is of course without pointing out the broader societal factors limiting the opportunities of poor people, such as lack of access to education, (which leads to, but is not the only reason for) lack of access to well-paying jobs, the need for multiple jobs (increases stress levels dramatically, while reducing available time to, for example, bring up children). And so on, and so forth.

So: please argue against things I've actually said.

So you're telling me autism doesn't effect personality, behavior, or culture? You're quick to underestimate the importance of the building blocks of life.

Uhm... we don't currently even know if autism is a purely genetic condition - if it was, it would be possible to diagnose far earlier than it is today, likely before birth. While it's almost certain that certain genetic combinations increase the risk for autism or predispose children to it, we ultimately still don't know anything about its exact causes (other than that it's not caused by vaccines). Secondly, that is frankly an absurd attempt at an argument. Autism, as with Asperger's syndrome and other diagnoses on "the spectrum", impact the parts of our brains that allow us to interact, empathise and communicate with other people and the world in general in more advanced cases. Very, very few other conditions impair human social function in comparable ways. In other words, you're cherry-picking the one thing that affects the fundamental requirements for social function and saying "of course genetics affects personality and culture." Also, this is yet another straw man - I've never said it doesn't affect our behaviour - I've said that it doesn't cause it. That's a very, very significant difference, which you seem to be ignoring. I even brought up epigenetics and how the understanding of this in recent years has massively changed how biologists view the effects of genes on our physiology, a point which you've conveniently ignored. Also, the Wikipedia page you linked just underscores what I'm saying here: that autism has high heritability and is thus very likely caused by some sort of genetic issue (though that may not be the only cause), but beyond that, we don't really have a clue.

I'm not saying experiences in life don't impact behavior because they do but to imply genders are equal is a blatant disregard a lot of peer reviewed psychological and sociological research out there that demonstrates otherwise. It's not an accident that most studies include gender as a reference point.

Can you show me a single such study that can actually fully account for upbringing and social background? Obviously not, as that would essentially mean kidnapping babies and rearing them without human contact, at least as a control group. Which I believe would go against some parts of generally accepted research ethics, not to mention the law.

But back to the point: we are all socialized into our genders. This starts pretty much from birth - at least long before we're able to walk or talk. There are plenty of studies showing how girl and boy babies are treated significantly differently across myriad factors - from what they're encouraged or discouraged to do (which shapes our likes and dislikes), to how we're taught to relate to others (girls are taught to care for everybody, boys are taught to care for themselves first), to how bad behaviour is treated or what is considered bad behaviour to begin with (for example, boys are admonished and punished far less for violent and aggressive behaviour than girls are, often through silly adages like "boys will be boys"). On the other hand, behavioural studies of very young children show that there's no statistically significant difference between the behaviours of babies not old enough to understand the gender identity they've been given by their parents and surroundings. Also, prepubescent girls and boys have negligible hormonal differences, so explaining their different behaviour at this point through this makes no sense.

So, in other words, for your biological determinist stance to be correct, people would essentially have to go through a complete personality wipe in puberty, entirely discarding their previous socialization. While this is also the phase in which most children start to rebel, the changes are nowhere near this dramatic - not to mention that socialization has long before this formed strong neural pathways and structures in the brain to make desired behaviours and modes of thinking easier. Of course, the brain develops throughout life (though this process slows dramatically after the late 20s or so), but early socialization still has massive effects on how our personalities develop, and thus, who we are. I'm not saying current, extant people are all fundamentally identical and could choose to change their personalities at a whim - again, that would be a gross oversimplification. I'm simply saying that we all start out with very, very similar potential, and that this potential is then largely developed along socially determined lines in accordance with how we are raised.

No. Not immediately trusting strangers is a survival instinct. We see it all over the place in animal kingdoms (well documented in wolves). Strangers have to prove their worth before they'll be seen as a member by their peers.

You know that "instinct" in science essentially means "we don't know why this happens", right? While it is likely that genetics impact very basic behaviours, especially in animals with small, simple brains, taking this and saying "early/less developed cultures were/are ruled by instinct" is ... well, both baseless, borderline racist, and definitely a classic type of orientalist thinking. While there's no doubt that humans have something that we can call survival instinct - a very basic drive to not die - we have no real evidence for this being the basis of cultural xenophobia or aggression towards outsiders. Again: our social context is far too complex to account for this sufficiently to somehow prove or disprove that behaviour is caused by genetics. On the other hand, there is very, very strong evidence that upbringing, culture and socioeconomic background has a very significant effect on our behaviour. Also, wolves are increasingly understood to be able to pass on cultural knowledge within and across packs - a trend we're seeing across pretty much all species of animal studied closely. Birds (crows/corvoids among others), whales/dolphins, and a whole host of various mammals have in recent decades been shown to pass on knowledge (and thus behaviour, as that's the only way we can study knowledge in animals who can't talk) culturally. In other words: more and more of what was previously explained by "instinct" in animals is now being explained as cultural. Part of this is of course the growing acceptance that culture and social context is not in any way unique to humans, a notion that most biologists 50 years ago would have laughed at.

These societies don't exist in the real world. Countries may have open borders as a matter of policy but the tribes within that these people need to deal with generally aren't accepting unless they're already perceived to be members. For example, a Hispanic coming to the USA is likely to be invited to join a Hispanic tribe because it improves the survival odds of that tribe (they're surrounded by a sea of people more strange than the recent immigrant). Chinatown, Little Italy, etc. form because of tribalism.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tribe

Just because something is a dictionary definition of a word doesn't mean that that definition can't be a metaphorical usage of the word. I've never denied that the term can be useful in terms of understanding social groupings of various kinds, but you're linking it to genetics while at the same time arguing for the metaphorical understanding of the word in terms of "tribes" of fans of various brands and so on. This is a fundamental contradiction. And, again, I challenge you to find a single scientific source that shows that this is somehow an expression of genetics and not an expression of being raised/socialized to feel belonging within a certain group.

as i said you are clueless to game development. you are here just to argue with anyone.

Great argument, very well put. A valuable addition to this debate.

yep he did.

Have I changed my argument? Really? If you mean adding nuance to clear up your (seemingly willful) misunderstanding of it (which was still accompanied by statements that are outright wrong), then yes, I have done so. Nothing I've said since contradicts my initial argument in any way, however. If that to you is "changing your argument to suit the conditions" in a bad, dishonest or misleading way, then you don't seem to understand how informed debate works (or really the concept of clearing up misunderstandings). I don't have the patience to teach you that, I'm afraid. Also, it's very convenient that you entirely fail to address my arguments questioning the basis of your thinking, instead attempting to change the subject in a rather blatant attempt at derailing the discusison. Sorry, but I won't bite.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Have I changed my argument? Really?

Where do we begin? There are so many places you have altered, changed or contradicted yourself.

Sorry, but I won't bite.

What do you call that novel-length response? You didn't just bite, you swallowed it whole.

There's no "male dominance", never was, it's an invention.

Much of the world is still "male dominant".

There's no "subjugated female", never was, it's an invention.

Never been to the middle east or Africa, eh?

There's no "gender", never was, it's an invention.

Studied biology much?

 

[Valantar]

Where do we begin? There are so many places you have altered, changed or contradicted yourself.

What do you call that novel-length response? You didn't just bite, you swallowed it whole.

Hm. My response to the post in question was a sum total of 145 words. That's a rather short novel. Please stop taking things out of context.

As for me contradicting myself, you're welcome to point out any cases you can find, and I'll gladly try to clear up whatever misunderstanding there has been - whether on my own part or others'. And, as I said in the post you quoted, changing an argument to add nuance and clear up misunderstandings of the initial statement is, at least in how I've learnt to discuss things, a rather fundamental requirement of any type of productive discourse, and neither dishonest or misleading in any way. Contradictions are another matter entirely, as are any fundamental changes to the core argument. Again: I would appreciate if you would point out any cases of this that you can find, so that we can address them. That's how we can understand each other, after all, and ultimately try to learn something.

Much of the world is still "male dominant".
Never been to the middle east or Africa, eh?
Studied biology much?

I believe the post you're quoting is - rather unsuccessfully - attempting sarcasm.

 

[Prince Valiant]

Throw this thread in the trash where it belongs.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Some people need to escape from feeling utterly alone in the world. Isolating yourself tends not to work against that, you know. And, of course, the funny thing is that spaces excluding dominant groups wouldn't be necessary at all if members of these dominant groups could be counted on to be empathetic, understanding, open to listening, and respectful of the needs and wants of other groups. That's part of the insidious nature of privilege, though - most people are blissfully unaware of it, and thus equally unaware that their behaviour is seen by others as domineering, disrespectful, dismissive, derogatory, or just plain hurtful. The concept of mansplaining is an excellent example of this.

a) Aren't these people usually the instigators to whatever they're running away from? It's like committing a crime in the USA and then jumping the border to Mexico so they don't have to hear the rebuttal.
b) I can't believe people are really that thin-skinned. Conflict resolution is a skill they'll never learn if everyone keeps sheltering them.
c) If they're constantly hiding from people that's different from them then how will they develop an understanding of why whatever they did caused whatever they were hiding from?

"The feminists".

The concept of "safe spaces" was invented and promoted by the feminists movement.

But, on the other hand, most people who have lived through any kind of systemic oppression will recognize that creating a space fundamentally free of this would take an enormous weight off people's shoulders.

How many 80 year old people that were actually oppressed in concentration camps and gulags insist on "safe spaces?" Probably none. See point b above. This concept is creating a "bubble" generation that's absolutely mortified that if they see or hear one bad thing they'll be tainted for life. Be thankful there's no world war going on right now.

Dismissing this idea simply shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the experiences of people different than you.

It's not like victims of rape, abuse, and attempted murder are asking for these. If school, church, synagogue, and mosque attacks have taught us anything, "safe spaces" are vulnerable to real threats.

I don't see how that statement applies to what I said whatsoever. I didn't say that these same people in the same situation would be reliable fathers and partners if not imprisoned, nor did I at all touch on the effect of single-parent households. I was talking about how people end up becoming criminals in the first place. The quote from that article only adds a bit of nuance, and doesn't contradict what I said in any way.

When women are forced into a impoverished situation because men (the "bread winner") were stripped away, they don't resort to violence like their husbands did even though their situation is even more desperate than when he was around. Nay, if he murdered someone for whatever reason, there's a pretty good chance he was abusive to her too so the family may actually be much better off without him. Men and women are very different, even in the same circumstance.

So: please argue against things I've actually said.

A bunch of platitudes that really don't make a point?

Uhm... we don't currently even know if autism is a purely genetic condition - if it was, it would be possible to diagnose far earlier than it is today, likely before birth. While it's almost certain that certain genetic combinations increase the risk for autism or predispose children to it, we ultimately still don't know anything about its exact causes (other than that it's not caused by vaccines). Secondly, that is frankly an absurd attempt at an argument. Autism, as with Asperger's syndrome and other diagnoses on "the spectrum", impact the parts of our brains that allow us to interact, empathise and communicate with other people and the world in general in more advanced cases. Very, very few other conditions impair human social function in comparable ways. In other words, you're cherry-picking the one thing that affects the fundamental requirements for social function and saying "of course genetics affects personality and culture." Also, this is yet another straw man - I've never said it doesn't affect our behaviour - I've said that it doesn't cause it. That's a very, very significant difference, which you seem to be ignoring. I even brought up epigenetics and how the understanding of this in recent years has massively changed how biologists view the effects of genes on our physiology, a point which you've conveniently ignored. Also, the Wikipedia page you linked just underscores what I'm saying here: that autism has high heritability and is thus very likely caused by some sort of genetic issue (though that may not be the only cause), but beyond that, we don't really have a clue.

And now you're trying to argue the science is wrong. Good job.

Can you show me a single such study that can actually fully account for upbringing and social background?

http://personalityresearch.org/papers/panko.html

Conduct disorders, attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity, and antisocial personality disorder are all common behavioral problems in problem children. The majority of young boys retain these traits throughout the course of their lives. These traits develop into adult criminality. Girls are more likely to develop internalizing disorders instead of turning to criminal activity.

You know that "instinct" in science essentially means "we don't know why this happens", right?

Do I seriously have to throw Webster at you again?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Just because something is a dictionary definition of a word doesn't mean that that definition can't be a metaphorical usage of the word.

How often am I metaphorical? I'm not a poet and this isn't poetry.

 

[StrayKAT]

How many 80 year old people that were actually oppressed in concentration camps and gulags insist on "safe spaces?" Probably none. See point b above. This concept is creating a "bubble" generation that's absolutely mortified that if they see or hear one bad thing they'll be tainted for life. Be thankful there's no world war going on right now.

I've had a theory for awhile. I blame bicycle helmets. I think my generation (X) was the last that beared with discomfort or pain better. But not as well as people a hundred years ago either.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I believe the post you're quoting is - rather unsuccessfully - attempting sarcasm.

It's difficult to tell with people making statements as ridiculous as the ones being made in this thread, especially some of yours.

Do I seriously have to throw Webster at you again?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

Right?

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Great argument, very well put. A valuable addition to this debate.
Have I changed my argument? Really? If you mean adding nuance to clear up your (seemingly willful) misunderstanding of it (which was still accompanied by statements that are outright wrong), then yes, I have done so. Nothing I've said since contradicts my initial argument in any way, however. If that to you is "changing your argument to suit the conditions" in a bad, dishonest or misleading way, then you don't seem to understand how informed debate works (or really the concept of clearing up misunderstandings). I don't have the patience to teach you that, I'm afraid. Also, it's very convenient that you entirely fail to address my arguments questioning the basis of your thinking, instead attempting to change the subject in a rather blatant attempt at derailing the discusison. Sorry, but I won't bite.

Let me put your cluelessness another way so you understand simple words: you are not informed. the rest of what you said is gibberish, pointless, and baseless fluff to up your word count. Thanks for playing, goodbye.

 

[R-T-B]

Be thankful there's no world war going on right now.

That's more an arguement against world wars than an arguement against safe spaces, ford.

And I may be lost somewhere, but how on earth are you trying to apply that paper on ADHD children to the general population?

Let me put your cluelessness another way so you understand simple words: you are not informed. the rest of what you said is gibberish, pointless, and baseless fluff to up your word count. Thanks for playing, goodbye.

I haven't really seen that. He lacks some citations, but most (maybe not all) of what he is saying is pretty on target.

Let me put your cluelessness another way so you understand simple words: you are not informed. the rest of what you said is gibberish, pointless, and baseless fluff to up your word count. Thanks for playing, goodbye.

I haven't really seen that. He lacks some citations, but most (maybe not all) of what he is saying is pretty on target. These dismissal attempts at his points are pretty dissapointing though.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That's more an arguement against world wars than an arguement against safe spaces, ford.

Name one valid argument for "safe spaces." I can name an argument against:
https://mindhacks.com/2015/11/12/the-real-history-of-the-safe-space/

One of the ideas behind sensitivity training, was that honesty and change would only occur if people could be frank and challenge others in an environment of psychological safety. In other words, without judgement.

Practically, this means that there is an explicit rule that everyone agrees to at the start of the group. A ‘safe space’ is created, confidential and free of judgement but precisely to allow people to mention concerns without fear of being condemned for them, on the understanding that they’re hoping to change.

Enter activists:

From here, the idea of safe space was taken up by feminist and gay liberation groups, but with a slightly different slant, in that sexist or homophobic behaviour was banned by mutual agreement but individuals could be pulled up if it occurred, with the understanding that people would make an honest attempt to recognise it and change.

Enter politics:

And finally we get to the recent campus movements, where the safe space has become a public political act. Rather than individuals opting in, it is championed or imposed (depending on which side you take) as something that should define acceptable public behavior.

From "sensitivity training" (a universally good thing), to a private club, to blatant political activism.

And I may be lost somewhere, but how on earth are you trying to apply that paper on ADHD children to the general population?

I didn't. He asked for a "study that can actually fully account for upbringing and social background?" and that article does. It just happened to focus on children with "conduct disorders, attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity, and antisocial personality disorder."

 

[trparky]

Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life on this planet.

I don't want to live in this society anymore. Anyone up for building a nice bunker in the middle of nowhere?

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I haven't really seen that. He lacks some citations, but most (maybe not all) of what he is saying is pretty on target.

Not from where I'm sitting.

 

[Valantar]

a) Aren't these people usually the instigators to whatever they're running away from? It's like committing a crime in the USA and then jumping the border to Mexico so they don't have to hear the rebuttal.
b) I can't believe people are really that thin-skinned. Conflict resolution is a skill they'll never learn if everyone keeps sheltering them.
c) If they're constantly hiding from people that's different from them then how will they develop an understanding of why whatever they did caused whatever they were hiding from?

The concept of "safe spaces" was invented and promoted by the feminists movement.

How many 80 year old people that were actually oppressed in concentration camps and gulags insist on "safe spaces?" Probably none. See point b above. This concept is creating a "bubble" generation that's absolutely mortified that if they see or hear one bad thing they'll be tainted for life. Be thankful there's no world war going on right now.

It's not like victims of rape, abuse, and attempted murder are asking for these. If school, church, synagogue, and mosque attacks have taught us anything, "safe spaces" are vulnerable to real threats.

Well, thank you for making abundantly clear why you fail to understand these things. Let's see:

• "Actual oppression" to you apparently amounts to nothing less than concentration camps and gulags. I suggest you look into the difference between discrimination and genocide, and that you read up some on the very well-documented psychological, physiological, economic and sociological effects of living with systemic discrimination. But frankly, this is so ridiculous I'm not even going to argue against it - if you can't see the problem with this, you're a lost cause.
• "Not like victims of rape ..." uhm, do you know how many women are raped? 1 out of 6 US women are victims of rape or attempted rape. Yes, a lot of the people asking for "safe spaces" are victims of rape, violence, or exclusion from other spaces. The rest are typically people who have seen others around them live through this. What basis do you have to say this is not the case? And why is it somehow bad for people who haven't lived through hell to argue for the creation of safe spaces for those who have? This doesn't make sense. Do you argue against healthy people becoming doctors? In relation to this, your argument also seems (though please correct me if I'm reading too much into this!) to express a very outdated understanding of rape - that rape is only/mainly perpetrated by violent, "high testosterone" men. Most rape happens at home, and most rapists are in relatively close relationships with their victims. Most rapes are not explicitly violent (beyond the violence of performing sex acts on an unwilling person).
• Discrimination is not something you "instigate". That, my friend, is victim blaming at its very finest. If a person of color walks down the street and someone shouts "f***ing n***er" at them, how exactly do you propose they "resolve" that "conflict"? By becoming white? Or are you suggesting they walk over to the person shouting and say "Hey, why don't we go for a cup of coffee so I can show you how I'm not a f***ing n***er?" Or if a woman walking home at night is ... let's not even say assaulted, but just followed home by some creepy-ass dude - not a rare occurrence, and definitely one that seriously undermines one's feeling of safety and security significantly. How, exactly, is she supposed to "resolve" that "conflict"? Discrimination isn't conflict, and thus conflict resolution is not applicable as a method to resolving it. Discrimination is - purely - the responsibility of those perpetrating it, whether this is small-scale, unconscious bias or large-scale explicit, violent racism, sexism, homophobia and so on. And yes, society at large - including the government - has a responsibility towards minimizing systemic discrimination of any group.
• The oppressed people before and during WWII had a safe space. It was called the USA. They weren't free from discrimination there either (far from it, really), but they had far more freedom than in fascist Europe at the time (and unlike non-fascist Europe, the chance of invasion was minimal). As for not needing more localized safe spaces at the time, a) that's where your "tribalism" (establishing somewhat homogeneous neighbourhoods) comes in, as well as b) that there weren't really that many Nazis roaming the streets of the average US town at that time (even if there were quite a few Nazis in the US, they were not a socially or politically dominant group). The fact that a concept gets a new name making it more explicit does not mean that the concept itself is even remotely new.

And you're correct that safe spaces are vulnerable to real threats. How, though, is this a problem with the spaces, or the people fighting for their creation? Isn't this the fault of those threatening them? Again, your logic has a weird twist here: the threats are not due to the existence of the space; the threats exist because of the values and views of the people making the threats. Removing a safe space doesn't make someone who would threaten or attack it any less violent or dangerous.

And frankly, not only are you blaming victims of discrimination for how others treat them, but you're also putting the onus on them to somehow "fix" other people's thinking and acting. At the same time, you're harshly critical of people actually protesting discrimination (how else are they going to change it?) and those seeking to avoid exposing themselves to it. How does that make sense? Your logic here is deeply flawed, and frankly typical of someone with deep-seated (likely unrecognized) privilege. As I don't know you at all, I have no basis whatsoever to say that this is factual, but that's how you come off.

When women are forced into a impoverished situation because men (the "bread winner") were stripped away, they don't resort to violence like their husbands did even though their situation is even more desperate than when he was around. Nay, if he murdered someone for whatever reason, there's a pretty good chance he was abusive to her too so the family may actually be much better off without him. Men and women are very different, even in the same circumstance.

Oh, so people only become poor if the man in the family is sent to prison? Sorry, but that's not what I was talking about - nor is that how reality works. What you're describing there is the failures of a society with no social safety net, as well as the fundamental, indisputable economic insecurity in a society where the ability to feed people is limited to a single family member - which is a fundamental reason for the existence of the feminist movement in the first place. What I'm talking about is the indisputable fact that poverty in and of itself is a root cause of crime. Poverty leads to stress and desperation. Stress and desperation lead to bad decision-making and the inability to plan long-term and make good choices to improve your situation. Bad decision-making in a society where violence and crime is (if marginally) more accepted (and in some cases linked to positive social status) for one specific group, will for some members of that group lead to violence and crime to either try to better their self-worth or provide for themselves and their family. This, of course, as with all social dynamics, doesn't apply to all people experiencing poverty. Not by a long shot. Just like biological determinism is a fallacy, so is social determinism. But there is far stronger evidence for causal links between socioeconomic status and crime/violent behaviour than there is between genetics and violent behaviour. And as with many fields of study, this one where there have been made major advances in identifying and stripping out the biases of early researchers and theorists - which were many, given that racism, classism and sexism have been dominant forces in society for centuries. The gradual disintegration of this is purely due to the emergence of democracy and increased access to education over time.

A bunch of platitudes that really don't make a point?

Ah. You got me. What a cutting argument. Well said. Still no response to my arguments, though.

And now you're trying to argue the science is wrong. Good job.

Nope. I'm arguing that you've either misunderstood the science, or are just willfully ignorant of the complexities involved.

http://personalityresearch.org/papers/panko.html

If the three-ish paragraphs briefly discussing "Biological and Environmental Influences" in that paper to you amounts to fully accounting for the impact of upbringing and social reality on behaviour, then you don't understand what I'm talking about. Also, using the most over-diagnosed and over-medicated disorders in the world (which is in itself being questioned by both psychologists and others in terms of whether its seeming prevalence is actually real or a consequence of a societal desire to "diagnose away" problematic behaviour) to make a point about the general population or about "criminals" as a group just shows that you're insistent on making correlation into causality, and that you're actively looking for ways of blaming this on genetics and thus saying "there's nothing we can do to improve this".

Do I seriously have to throw Webster at you again?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

Something being a dictionary definition does not mean it's scientifically accurate. As I explained above, the more we study animal behaviour, the more behaviour is removed from the "instinct" column and attributed to socialized learning, even in animals. While there's little doubt that some behaviour is genetically encoded, or at the very least potential for behavioural patterns and drives (such as sex and eating), we're nowhere near actually understanding how this works, why, or to what extent. As such, we can't fully account for outside influences, and thus my argument still stands. This also applies to behavioural arguments like "all dogs dig the same way, even if they're raised away from other dogs" - how can you account for this not being a product of trial and error and a specific physiology (ability to smell things in the ground; forelegs that work a specific way, so on)? In such cases, the potential for behaviour can be said to be at least partly genetic, but the behaviour itself is not necessarily so.

How often am I metaphorical? I'm not a poet and this isn't poetry.

If you believe metaphor only/mostly exists in poetry, your understanding of language is woefully underdeveloped. You know of this thing this forum is on, called the 'web'? That's a metaphor. As is this version of the word 'forum', actually. And the screen/monitor you're likely reading this through (while it can be argued to screen whatever is behind it from your view, this has nothing to do with its display capabilities, and it definitely doesn't monitor anything - yet both these words spring from metaphorical uses of these verbs in early applications of the technology). Just because a certain use of a word becomes common enough to become a dictionary definition - and even overtakes the original usage in frequency, or the original usage becomes outdated and dies - does not mean that it somehow moves from metaphor to physical reality. A vast portion of the words we use every single day are metaphorical.

 

[StrayKAT]

I think the majority of people simply don't care about the trans community. Just like they generally don't want to hear about anyone else's sexual identity issues.

Dismissive, yes. Oppressive, not so much.

As for women, I certainly won't pay attention to anything the Left wing says.. who've buddied up with the more notorious branches of Islam for some odd reason. Just a few years ago, they had some sense. Female genital mutilation was a often discussed issue, but now it's ignored. And we have people like Justin Trudeau saying "honor killings" aren't barbaric.. As if it's just some misunderstanding and clash of cultures. lol. These people are morally bankrupt.

 

[Caring1]

The concept of mansplaining is an excellent example of this.

Mansplaining is a derogatory term made up to make women feel better while deriding men.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Ah. You got me. What a cutting argument. Well said. Still no response to my arguments, though.

Yes, they really did get you.

I think the majority of people simply don't care about the trans community. Just like they generally don't want to hear about anyone else's sexual identity issues.

That about sums it up. I'm one of those people that would prefer not hear about or see anything related to the LGBTQP+ community at all. It's one of the reasons I don't watch TV that much anymore. Tired of seeing a bunch of obnoxious dysfunctional nonsense that is representative of less than 5% of society, much of it disturbingly foul.

As for women, I certainly won't pay attention to anything the Left wing says..

To be fair, the far right wingers can be just as idiotic. It's better to stay middle ground and focus on logic, reason and common sense.

Mansplaining is a derogatory term made up to make women feel better while deriding men.

Exactly.

 

[StrayKAT]

To be fair, the far right wingers can be just as idiotic. It's better to stay middle ground and focus on logic, reason and common sense.

Exactly.

Well, to be fair, the barbarism of honor killings is a foreign and extreme "right wing" ideology too (but flavors of it exist in different forms). So I guess I'm criticizing that too. But people like Trudeau frustrate me just as much. Being so relativistic as to have no solid values at all is destructive in it's own right. They may be more dangerous, in fact.. by appealing to and killing you with kindness, by championing "humanitarianism", and various slogans of tolerance. It's like a trojan horse. The barbarian isn't as devious and can be spotted quickly.

 

[Valantar]

Yes, they really did get you.

You keep saying that, yet... no arguments, no contradictions, nothing. Hm. Weird.

The thing is, biological determinism doesn't become any less of a fallacy if you keep calling it "science" and keep repeating invalid arguments.

That about sums it up. I'm one of those people that would prefer not hear about or see anything related to the LGBTQP+ community at all. It's one of the reasons I don't watch TV that much anymore. Tired of seeing a bunch of obnoxious dysfunctional nonsense that is representative of less than 5% of society, much of it disturbingly foul.

So, you don't care about them, but you dislike seeing or hearing them. Care to explain how that makes sense? 'Cause it sure sounds like they bother you, somehow. What does it harm you seeing people different from you from time to time? I thought the shutting out the voices of other people with different backgrounds was a bad thing that feminists wanting safe spaces did? Also, don't come here claiming straight people on TV aren't both obnoxious and unrepresentative of society.

I think the majority of people simply don't care about the trans community. Just like they generally don't want to hear about anyone else's sexual identity issues.

Dismissive, yes. Oppressive, not so much.

I think you're somewhat right, though an argument can and should be made that ignoring discrimination is at least in part enabling discrimination. If we want a fair and free society, it's on all of us to stand up for it, not only those who experience various forms of discrimination and oppression. Thinking that we don't have to act and it'll turn out okay is a typical symptom of privilege.

Of course, there's a significant number of people who do take issue with the very existence of trans people. Trans people are far more likely to be victims of assault and "random" violence than the average person (just like gays and other non-heterosexual/non-gender conforming groups, though this has improved in recent years). Even if these people likely represent a rather small percentage of the total population, they're still common enough to be a very real problem.

Then there's the "grey areas" (read: not actually) where people don't actually attack or murder people, but still call them names, laugh at them, deride them, and generally shame them for daring to exist in public. Sadly, this group is not small. And while a lot of these things are quite small on an individual level for the perpetrators (what does it matter if you laughed at someone? It was just you, after all.), they matter to the people who live with this, as for them it's not just you. It's you, and a dozen other people when they go grocery shopping. It's the taxi driver who refuses to take their fare. It's the people who refuse them service simply for being who they are. And the hundreds upon hundreds of dark looks, snickers, pointed fingers, and so on. All of this adds up - especially when you're already starting from a basis of feeling like an outsider and being fundamentally different than the people around you. Most trans people - as with most other people classified as "other" by mainstream society - want nothing more than to be treated exactly like everyone else. The problem is that they aren't.

As for women, I certainly won't pay attention to anything the Left wing says.. who've buddied up with the more notorious branches of Islam for some odd reason. Just a few years ago, they had some sense. Female genital mutilation was a often discussed issue, but now it's ignored. And we have people like Justin Trudeau saying "honor killings" aren't barbaric.. As if it's just some misunderstanding and clash of cultures. lol. These people are morally bankrupt.

If Trudeau said that, he's got some serious explaining to do. That is some messed up s**t. I guess we Norwegians are lucky with our left-wing politicians, if so. Nor are they "buddied up with the more notorious branches of Islam", even if people do love equating fighting for a just, non-discriminatory, open and respectful society with a cultural free-for-all where whatever they define as "our" culture is being thrown on the trash heap. At the same time, most of these people seem to believe culture is somehow constant and not constantly undergoing dramatic changes (as it has always done), and as such are "defending" some construct of their imagination mainly by promoting conspiracy theories and hatred towards outsiders.

There's no doubt that people on the ideological left have made massive missteps (to use a mild word) both recently and historically, across the globe. Here in Norway, we had a party in the 70s and 80s who wholeheartedly praised Stalin and Mao, two of the cruelest dictators the world has ever seen. The "funny" thing is, there was nothing socialist or communist about the actions or policies of either (nor really Lenin, possibly outside of the initial years during/after the revolution) - they were both quite classic fascists. Outside of modern Scandinavian governments (which are largely social democratic, i.e. a moderate offshoot of socialism), there have never really been socialist governments anywhere in the world - every state that has claimed this has either already been or soon subsided into oligarchy, fascism or other disgusting power dynamics. Luckily, at least here we're seeing a new generation of politicians who actually have some ideological follow-through (and don't just blindly praise whoever claims to believe in the same as they do, yet act contrary to this), and at the same time are better than before at promoting their policies through the combination of scientific data and economic models. Things that actually work - such as strict regulation of markets to avoid boom-bust cycles and predatory capitalism.

As for the left's stance on discrimination, I don't think it's possible to draw any kind of real line (as with anything, really), but at the very least a common denominator is that the policies are based on treating people with respect, listening to their needs, and fighting for everyone to have the opportunity of a good life. It's not really very complicated. Empathy and generosity gets you a long way. The right likes to smear empathy as being "weak" or somehow bad, but then pissing on the weak and maintaining power structures has been a core tenet of right-leaning policies since before the terms "right" and "left" existed. Classical conservatism was rooted in maintaining the power of the aristocracy, and the logic hasn't changed much since even if the power structures have. As such, discrimination (and the opposition to anti-discriminatory policies) is a fundamental tenet of the right. Conservatism, while of course infinitely more complex than this (especially the "slow and steady progress" version), but is still fundamentally opposed to changes to social order. It's not really any wonder that people on the right struggle to come to terms with this stuff, particularly when they simultaneously proclaim their love for liberty and freedom for all. Doesn't really add up, that.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You keep saying that, yet... no arguments, no contradictions, nothing. Hm. Weird.

You assume that I would care enough to waste my time after you've already made clear your points of view. No thank you.

The thing is, biological fact doesn't become any less correct if you keep calling it "wrong" and keep repeating invalid arguments.

There we go, fixed that for you.

As for the left's stance on discrimination, I don't think it's possible to draw any kind of real line (as with anything, really), but at the very least a common denominator is that the policies are based on treating people with respect, listening to their needs, and fighting for everyone to have the opportunity of a good life. It's not really very complicated. Empathy and generosity gets you a long way.

The only thing you got wrong there is that you assume such thinking is limited to the left-wing. It is not. Otherwise spot on.

The right likes to smear empathy as being "weak" or somehow bad, but then pissing on the weak and maintaining power structures has been a core tenet of right-leaning policies since before the terms "right" and "left" existed.

That is were you lost it again. The left-wing does just as much smearing, if not more.

Classical conservatism was rooted in maintaining the power of the aristocracy, and the logic hasn't changed much since even if the power structures have.

Those in/with power want to maintain that power, regardless of political leanings.

It's not really any wonder that people on the right struggle to come to terms with this stuff, particularly when they simultaneously proclaim their love for liberty and freedom for all. Doesn't really add up, that.

And yet those on the left want to limit personal freedoms and liberties in the name of "safety".

You have spent a lot of time smearing in this thread yourself. Perhaps you might consider looking at yourself and thinking about what is actually correct and reasonable instead of lumping in with a group and championing agenda's which are illogical and flawed.

 

[VSG]

Update, September 7 2018: Two Riot Games employees, including one referenced above, have since been let go by the company as reported by The Verge

 

[StrayKAT]

People are now determined to get outraged at CDProjekt/Cyberpunk too :\

This must be the third metokur vid I've linked to on this site. Sorry. He's crass, but entertaining.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

He needs a better mic but hilarious.

Update, September 7 2018: Two Riot Games employees, including one referenced above, have since been let go by the company as reported by The Verge

I read that article but I'm confused about the events that transpired leading up to it. So one of them is a feminist guy (how does that even work?) that attacked members of the LoL community that scoffed at the notion of a no-men-allowed event? I assume he had something to do with the event being organized and was defending it? If this is all correct, then I completely get why Riot terminated him because it went countrary to the company's goals.