Oh hey, Panticus is back... Wait. I'm probably on his ignore list still... 
(I still don't know why).
(I still don't know why).
Do Girls Play Elite?
- Thread starter Old Duck
- Start date
- Status
I'll reply.
"Women are generally treated FAR better than males ingame"
Incorrect. Women are treated exactly the same as everyone else, until it becomes apparent they are women. Then we are frequently condescended and insulted with backhanded compliments by people who think they mean well.
"Difference is, we don`t whine about it like they do"
Incorrect. Everyone on the planet is a whining botch, including you whining about other people getting attention right there. It's pick your flavour of self-righteousness these days. You've certainly jumped on the bandwagon.
"then get insulted because someone called them an idiot, g@y, wimpy girl, bossy, n-word or the raft of other insults men take as routine"
The difference is you have safety. You can ignore someone or insult them back, it doesn't matter. You're not going to get beaten and r4ped for impugning someone's femininity, are you? This isn't complicated. We've been getting our ahses kicked for a long time. We're not having it any more, and if you don't like it you can get out of the way. None of you can stop us.
Also, you apparently don't know what 'male' and 'competition' means. Awesome.
Last edited:
Yup. This thread is doomed.
DOOMED! I TELL YOU!
*Gets more popcorn*
DOOMED! I TELL YOU!
*Gets more popcorn*
After almost 20 years of online gaming, started with EQ1 in 1998.. I find the whiteknights far more bothersome than the straight up unapologetic misogynists. At least the misogynists are some times funny.
I agree and said the same in a previous post, but that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about problems he hasn't seen, so he's arguing they don't exist.
Last edited:
How about as a skin-thickness gauge?
I recognize it as a joke, and it doesn't phase me in the least.
I'd run out of numbers trying to count the number of women who would be equally unphased by jokes like this, or even laugh at them.
Of course, I also know that there are probably at least some percentage of that number of women who would get their undergarments (if they opted to wear them) in huge knots at the very thought that someone out there, somewhere, might even crack a smile about a stereotype joke. And this holds true not just for women, but for people of every gender, color, creed, system of beliefs, or any other applicable label, especially those who make every effort to avoid a label and cannot fathom that we actually need labels, and that they are not bad things in and of themselves, to talk about abstract concepts with any sort of frame of reference, otherwise we just end up sitting around staring at each other and saying nothing at all about anything at all.
It's a little overstated, but I think you've identified a significant problem in lefty arguments. We waste so much time on caveats and hair splitting and nuances in labels to include people who could quite reasonably assume we're still on their side and not attack if we don't say cis or leave a letters off of LGBTQ. I've also overstated it a bit, but those are isolated examples I've seen. The arguments about identity and classes based on them is pretty hard for people not involved to engage with. SeaFireliv is a pretty good example of that.
Last edited:
Who says it's a lefty argument, the Daily Mail?
Stereotypes ahoy, the good ship SS Stereotype is sailing on the Seven Seas of .
Stereotypes ahoy, the good ship SS Stereotype is sailing on the Seven Seas of .
Last one up the old sea dog gets a lick of the cat
Who says it's a lefty argument, the Daily Mail?
Stereotypes ahoy, the good ship SS Stereotype is sailing on the Seven Seas of .
I'm saying that identity is a big part of the cases people on the left often make about social issues. This thread was started with the idea that women added something special, that the universe is dead and boring without us. I don't say it doesn't come from elsewhere too, I was saying I think arguments made out of identity politics are difficult for the people not involved to identify with. My SeaFireliv example, there's a guy who just doesn't know what he's talking about. He's probably not a bad person to his friends, I doubt he kicks his dog, but I don't think it's right to assume he thinks those things because he hates women or something. The arguments people apparently throw at people like him bounce off because, I think, they don't address something they know in their lives.
Last edited:
That's a bad analogy. This society is very much 'in control'. The fact that there has not been any widespread rioting against declining social conditions surely is evidence of that.
The mass public approbation thing is the way it's always been, in any society. Those with opinions that 'don't fit the pattern' usually have the brains to keep it to themselves - especially if it upsets others.
- - - Updated - - -
Sounds like you're wrapping some sense in yet another stereotype. Identity can be an issue for people on the left, right, and wherever.
The mass public approbation thing is the way it's always been, in any society. Those with opinions that 'don't fit the pattern' usually have the brains to keep it to themselves - especially if it upsets others.
- - - Updated - - -
Sounds like you're wrapping some sense in yet another stereotype. Identity can be an issue for people on the left, right, and wherever.
Last edited:
Hey!
Which way to the forum about the space ship game?
Which way to the forum about the space ship game?
I should give an example of how I'd reframe a feminist argument away from identity. The line goes, with either the earnings gap or the wage gap arguments, that women earn less than men and need to be compensated more. My suggestion would be to not argue that women need to earn the same as men. It would be to argue that everyone is being paid a pittance compared to their productivity, and that the root cause of this problem is the exploitative relationship between the employer and the employee. This follows further, while an employee is exploited, they must exploit their spouse to do housework and child rearing (worth $100k per year on the free market) since they don't have the time or energy to do it themselves. Their employer owns the majority of their time and most of what they create. This goes further now, with both parents working it has become necessary for more families to start relying on their children for extra income. The wealth of a few grows and raiding of treasuries all over the world continues. It's just a problem for women, even if we can make a pretty good case it hits us harder.
Last edited:
You are conflating two totally different things here. Is anybody threatening to delete your forum account because of your opinions? Deny your access to the Internet? Come to your house and intimidate you? Deny your right to vote? Lock you up? No - that is how a dictatorial and anti-individualistic society operates.
You have the right to an opinion, as well as the right to voice it. Equally, other people have the right to form an opinion of you based on what you say. If your opinion isn't popular that isn't an infringement of your right to hold it, or voice it, or evidence of a sinister plot to suppress it. That's just how a free society operates.
How can classic liberalism collapse when it has never been a reality, just a façade? An idea to aim towards for the intellectuals while the real business carries on?
I would suggest that technology and social media is largely responsible for the offence to be spread, repeated and made into a 'big issue', rather than any organised 'fascist liberalist' agenda - look at David Moyes incident to see how it was settled for parties involved, only for others with different agendas to become predictably involved. However, if you've worked in the media, you'll know how it goes. First of all, you the intrepid reporter will contact Women's Aid for an opinion, after giving them a basic outline of what's happened. You cherry pick what they say back. This then is reported as complete fact.
I would also suggest that the media ignores the MOR opinions and tends to show the extremes. Then a microphone gets shoved in some spokesperson's mouth and they respond how they think they should. Because if they don't...their group loses power.
Having said that, people are genuinely offended over things and safeguards should be made in any democracy. It's all under control
You have the freedom to pretty much say what you want, as long as it doesn't offend anyone, because it's of no consequence.
Last edited:
I'd say that identity is a big part of people, period.
Last edited:
- Status