Xilizhra Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 You finally get to the heart of the matter. Is it their fault they are idiots? Did they choose to be raised by idiots? Did they choose to be born in some sinkhole someone decided to call a town? Since the answer is obviously no on all accounts, should they be banned from using the internet? If yes then how will they ever be anything else? They will either learn on their own in time or get punched in the face enough times. No amount of moral outrage will change the way they think, or rather don't think. Banning will, with luck, teach them a lesson. If not... well, TOR isn't really equipped to serve as anyone's life coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Banning will, with luck, teach them a lesson. If not... well, TOR isn't really equipped to serve as anyone's life coach. So, again, as long as *you* don't see it you don't care if they go to another game and spout the same crap. Typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilizhra Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 So, again, as long as *you* don't see it you don't care if they go to another game and spout the same crap. Typical. Oh, no, I fully advocate everywhere else they go to doing the same thing, if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Oh, no, I fully advocate everywhere else they go to doing the same thing, if they do. And you see nothing wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatile Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/74303490062/steph-guthries-tedxtoronto-talk-about-online Steph Guthrie is speaking about largely about misogyny and how to tackle in the social media context, however her position on how "don't feed the trolls" is harmful (silence being seen as tacit consent, for example) is interesting, as well as applicable given Fabiyun's post and Bioware's, ahem, moderation practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilizhra Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 And you see nothing wrong with that? No, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) No, why? Ok, let's recap shall we? We established that saying offhand remarks is often done out of ignorance or in jest, not with the intent to berate someone, yes? We then established that these people are idiots or simply ignorant due to no fault of their own, because such behaviour is cultural and none choose where we are born nor who our parents are, yes? So, they are the way they are absent choice, correct? You then want to attack people for the way they are due to no intent on their own because they are attacking someone, intentionally or not, for the way they are due to no intent on their part? And you find absolutely *nothing* wrong with this logic? Yeah, ok. Edited January 23, 2014 by Jandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilizhra Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Ok, let's recap shall we? We established that saying offhand remarks is often done out of ignorance or in jest, not with the intent to berate someone, yes? We then established that these people are idiots or simply ignorant due to no fault of their own, because such behaviour is cultural and none choose where we are born nor who our parents are, yes? So, they are the way they are absent choice, correct? You then want to attack people for the way they are due to no intent on their own because they are attacking someone, intentionally or not, for the way they are due to no intent on their part? And you find absolutely *nothing* wrong with this logic? Yeah, ok. I'm not murdering them, just actually enforcing the anti-harassment rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) I'm not murdering them, just actually enforcing the anti-harassment rules. Harrassment? When did saying something in general chat that isn't directed at anyone become harrassment? And there is already a function in place for such behaviour, /ignore <playername> And besides, you calling someone an idiot is no better so, again, hypocrisy much? Edited January 23, 2014 by Jandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabiyun Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/74303490062/steph-guthries-tedxtoronto-talk-about-online Steph Guthrie is speaking about largely about misogyny and how to tackle in the social media context, however her position on how "don't feed the trolls" is harmful (silence being seen as tacit consent, for example) is interesting, as well as applicable given Fabiyun's post and Bioware's, ahem, moderation practices. That's so funny, I was just going to PM you that video But anyway, I totally agree, trolls need to be challenged. It's also why I keep posting, even when it's futile. As for BWs moderation policies, I didn't expect anything else from them. They don't respond to tickets, they don't respond to PMs and they delete threads. It's nothing new. I've also said before on these forums that the best thing that could possibly happen is to have a thread full of flaming trolls. The visibility of the hate will influence the dismissive majority, and a new majority may arise of those that see that something indeed is wrong. Now, every time hateful comments are posted, they are deleted, they never happened. And the people who say it has, have no proof of the fact that indeed it did. I did feel bad this morning, seeing how one post in general, the space that is claimed and dominated by heterosexual men, has so upset them, that they need to enforce their views on us in whatever way they can. Which I can handle, but I felt bad for having a safe space be invaded by creatures from the underworld. Edited January 23, 2014 by fabiyun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilizhra Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Harrassment? When did saying something in general chat that isn't directed at anyone harrassment? And there is already a function in place for such behaviour, /ignore <playername> And besides, you calling someone an idiot is no better so, again, hypocrisy much? Creation of a hostile environment directed toward a specific oft-discriminated against group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Creation of a hostile environment directed toward a specific oft-discriminated against group. So one or 2 people saying something dumb makes a hostile environment? Ok, yeah, what do you call Baghdad then? Please, I'd love to hear your colourful and not all out of proportions descriptives. You DO realize that if that's your criteria, every single place where enough people congregate can be classified as such? Dummies exist everywhere. Edited January 23, 2014 by Jandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatile Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) I did feel bad this morning, seeing how one post in general, the space that is claimed and dominated by heterosexual men, has so upset them, that they need to enforce their views on us in whatever way they can. Which I can handle, but I felt bad for having a safe space be invaded by creatures from the underworld. I swear, cishet white dudes are the most sensitive of everyone. Whining about Johnny Storm being played a black dude. God forbid Spiderman be bi Screaming about "historical accuracy", when you end up with films about Ancient Egypt with all white casts. And heaven forfend if you mention women doing anything. Guh. No saving grace about us, we aren't men, we aren't allowed to do things. Also, post in general? Do you mean like in general or General Chat... Edit: Oh, I follow FemFreq on tumblr, so I get stuff like that infrequently on my dash. Edited January 23, 2014 by Tatile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I swear, cishet white dudes are the most sensitive of everyone. Whining about Johnny Storm being played a black dude. God forbid Spiderman be bi Screaming about "historical accuracy", when you end up with films about Ancient Egypt with all white casts. And heaven forfend if you mention women doing anything. Guh. No saving grace about us, we aren't men, we aren't allowed to do things. Also, post in general? Do you mean like in general or General Chat... Edit: Oh, I follow FemFreq on tumblr, so I get stuff like that infrequently on my dash. Here is something you can throw in the face of someone who thinks homosexuals aren't men. Alexander the Great was flamboyantly homosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabiyun Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I swear, cishet white dudes are the most sensitive of everyone. Whining about Johnny Storm being played a black dude. God forbid Spiderman be bi Screaming about "historical accuracy", when you end up with films about Ancient Egypt with all white casts. And heaven forfend if you mention women doing anything. Guh. No saving grace about us, we aren't men, we aren't allowed to do things. Also, post in general? Do you mean like in general or General Chat... Edit: Oh, I follow FemFreq on tumblr, so I get stuff like that infrequently on my dash. I mean general on the forums. It's been erased, digitally incinerated. It's the new thing in Austin. I think the cold front in America has awakened a heat inside men that just needs to spray itself all over the place. On a different note. I find it somewhat sad that "unfortunate implications" keep on happening. I mean once is unfortunate, a second time could be a learning process, but really so many unfortunate implications just means that from the position of privilege they've been created there has been no learning curve whatsoever. At what point do sexist unfortunate implications, racists unfortunate implications and homophobic unfortunate implications make it abundantly clear that these things can be avoided by either stepping up your game and learning about your privilege and the different experiences of other genders, cultures and (sexual) identities or diversifying the workplace to get different input and feedback. I just wonder why though? Why is it such a terror from beyond to come to terms that there are other people in the world than white cis-het men whose lived experiences are different, but not alien, and that doesn't make them scum and villainy. But clearly once the first woman opens the eternity vault a great evil will unleash explosive conflict threatening the very existence of the white cis-het man. It's sad too, because I do quite enjoy the additions since czerka. Also, historical accuracy ... Mostly what they mean is the erasure of queer people, women and people of colour to create another hero's journey of the white cis-het man proclaiming supremacy of the white patriarch, martyring the white men who died in his service. And unfortunately that isn't exclusive to media but also to historiography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadess Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Ah yes, the old "By expressing your negative opinion towards my hateful slurring, you're oppressing my FREEDOM*, so SHUT UP!" Yeah, Musco told me that apparently Bioware take sexual harassment and death threats very seriously, but I guess their CS team didn't get that memo. Or maybe they only think it applies when it's actively directed at someone, not just making a toxic environment. "I don't get why you quite the game. I mean, it's not like all those horrific death threats in Gen. Chat 24/7 where specifically directed at you, they were just about people like you. I mean, it's not like you have to deal with that stuff near-constantly IRL, right? Right? You're still gonna give us money, yeah?" Well hey, I guess if it's ok to say in General Chat, it's ok for you to take screenshots of the conversation and spam SWTOR's twitter feed and/or the Community Team's inboxes with them. I mean, Bioware won't find all that hate offensive. Will they. *a freedom only applicable to and by your own government, largely with regards to your own government, and your ability to be a political dissident. It doesn't shield you from the consequences of private conversations, or public discourse when you do something monumentally stupid, like try to incite racial hatred. Freedom is great, but it is something that one needs to take responsibility for just as much as I need to take responsibility of the money I make. Both using freedom and spending can be abused, mishandled, and leave hurt people and lasting consequences in their wake. Something many in the US of A I've noticed fail to understand, and get mad when people call them on it. Makes me glad Canada has freedom of speech, but it's more a privilege like borrowing money in Canada is a privilege, not a right. Should you abuse either privilege, the government, or in the money case the bank, can take them away. Too bad Bioware in Austin I think fails to understand that freedom of expression and speech should be privileges in a game like this, and the privileges should be lost if they're abused, such as to encourage hate. And whoever says words have no meaning... It's not true. Our words have meaning and our words have power. I could point to so many times in human history where they did, such as fueling the American Revolution and rise of Nazi Germany... Do you think anti-Semite weren't used flippantly in Germany and Europe back then? And I think in general chat's context it is worse because my words can reach a person on the other side of the world. So yeah, I'm with the people who report things and if I catch any sexist, racist, or homophobic remarks I do report it as words and freedom have great power, and I've read enough of history to know that the consequences can lead to great disasters, and atrocities, if used irresponsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euphrosyne Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Here is something you can throw in the face of someone who thinks homosexuals aren't men. Alexander the Great was flamboyantly homosexual. Yeah, if you take out the "flamboyantly" and add a footnote about how classical Greek homosexuality came with an entirely different set of sexual and cultural context and meaning than modern homosexuality does. Also, historical accuracy ... Mostly what they mean is the erasure of queer people, women and people of colour to create another hero's journey of the white cis-het man proclaiming supremacy of the white patriarch, martyring the white men who died in his service. And unfortunately that isn't exclusive to media but also to historiography. While popular views of history do contain an awful lot of attempts to downplay and/or ignore the role of women, nonwhites, queer people, lower social classes, etc. in [European/American] history, I would say that academic historiography is decidedly less so in most ways. (Certain universities excepted, of course - but they always are. Waves of modern scholarship are apparently blocked by walls covered in ivy. They used the same stuff to build Oxbridge.) That was, after all, what the famous nineties 'culture wars' were all about. In recent years, in fact, I've gotten a sense of exhaustion from many of the scholars with whom I'm familiar. Instead of a world in which nobody participated in non-cis-het relationships in the past, we've reached a world in which, apparently, every marginally famous person did. Abraham Lincoln was apparently queer because JOSHUA SPEED! Alexander was apparently queer because HEPHAISTION! Queen Anne was apparently queer because SARAH CHURCHILL! This sort of approach isn't good history for the most part, it's just a bizarre form of poaching. And the people who engage in it are no less guilty of painting modern and anachronistic understandings of gender onto a context in which they would not make sense. I mean, on the one hand, there's bringing attention to the way non-cis-het people lived their lives in the past. I've done some work (well, scut work anyway) on that myself. This nonsense with famous people seems more about claiming some sort of kinship with a figure from the past: this person was 'on my side', so suck it, haters. The haters should still suck it, but that person has no relationship whatsoever to my side. Edited January 24, 2014 by Euphrosyne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yeah, if you take out the "flamboyantly" and add a footnote about how classical Greek homosexuality came with an entirely different set of sexual and cultural context and meaning than modern homosexuality does. From what I've read, he was quite overtly homosexual. Not in a "ancient Greek" way. Maybe I've just read the wrong books though so my mistake if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatile Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yeah, if you take out the "flamboyantly" and add a footnote about how classical Greek homosexuality came with an entirely different set of sexual and cultural context and meaning than modern homosexuality does. While popular views of history do contain an awful lot of attempts to downplay and/or ignore the role of women, nonwhites, queer people, lower social classes, etc. in [European/American] history, I would say that academic historiography is decidedly less so in most ways. (Certain universities excepted, of course - but they always are. Waves of modern scholarship are apparently blocked by walls covered in ivy. They used the same stuff to build Oxbridge.) That was, after all, what the famous nineties 'culture wars' were all about. In recent years, in fact, I've gotten a sense of exhaustion from many of the scholars with whom I'm familiar. Instead of a world in which nobody participated in non-cis-het relationships in the past, we've reached a world in which, apparently, every marginally famous person did. Abraham Lincoln was apparently queer because JOSHUA SPEED! Alexander was apparently queer because HEPHAISTION! Queen Anne was apparently queer because SARAH CHURCHILL! This sort of approach isn't good history for the most part, it's just a bizarre form of poaching. And the people who engage in it are no less guilty of painting modern and anachronistic understandings of gender onto a context in which they would not make sense. I mean, on the one hand, there's bringing attention to the way non-cis-het people lived their lives in the past. I've done some work (well, scut work anyway) on that myself. This nonsense with famous people seems more about claiming some sort of kinship with a figure from the past: this person was 'on my side', so suck it, haters. The haters should still suck it, but that person has no relationship whatsoever to my side. I can see why claiming certain historical individuals as queer* from a modern perspective might be grating, but they may have been queer within their own context - it would be hard to tell without appropriate contemporary evidence and texts. Homosexuality might have been popular in Sparta, but within a different context to our modern day idea of homosexuality, but I would hesitate to say that that stops any who engaged in it from being gay or bisexual, or that modern day gay men or bisexual men should not find themselves identifying with them. I also think ignoring any possible "queerness", particularly if put into accurate historical context, is doing a disservice to different historical periods and cultures, as well as to modern day members of the LGBT community. People love to appeal to history for justification - opening it up a de... Victorianising it would only be beneficial for all involved. Of course I am probably entirely misunderstanding your post. So if I'm making an arse of myself, sorry *hope you don't mind me using that, I can switch it out if anyone would prefer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadess Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I can see why claiming certain historical individuals as queer* from a modern perspective might be grating, but they may have been queer within their own context - it would be hard to tell without appropriate contemporary evidence and texts. Homosexuality might have been popular in Sparta, but within a different context to our modern day idea of homosexuality, but I would hesitate to say that that stops any who engaged in it from being gay or bisexual, or that modern day gay men or bisexual men should not find themselves identifying with them. I also think ignoring any possible "queerness", particularly if put into accurate historical context, is doing a disservice to different historical periods and cultures, as well as to modern day members of the LGBT community. People love to appeal to history for justification - opening it up a de... Victorianising it would only be beneficial for all involved. Of course I am probably entirely misunderstanding your post. So if I'm making an arse of myself, sorry *hope you don't mind me using that, I can switch it out if anyone would prefer My understanding of ancient Greek and Roman culture, as well as the ANE, is that it really depended on who was in charge as well as who the deities of the time were. For example, in Canaanite culture worship of the gods Baal and Ashera involved both ritual ****- and heterosexual sex because they were both fertility gods. I believe one of the Roman Emperors was homosexual, unfortunately he was also a pedophile, so he'd be a poor example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadess Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 For the record in my last post, I was not trying to be derogatory. I just didn't know the first 4 letters of homosexual would be censored by the filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadess Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 In recent years, in fact, I've gotten a sense of exhaustion from many of the scholars with whom I'm familiar. Instead of a world in which nobody participated in non-cis-het relationships in the past, we've reached a world in which, apparently, every marginally famous person did. Abraham Lincoln was apparently queer because JOSHUA SPEED! Alexander was apparently queer because HEPHAISTION! Queen Anne was apparently queer because SARAH CHURCHILL! This sort of approach isn't good history for the most part, it's just a bizarre form of poaching. And the people who engage in it are no less guilty of painting modern and anachronistic understandings of gender onto a context in which they would not make sense. I mean, on the one hand, there's bringing attention to the way non-cis-het people lived their lives in the past. I've done some work (well, scut work anyway) on that myself. This nonsense with famous people seems more about claiming some sort of kinship with a figure from the past: this person was 'on my side', so suck it, haters. The haters should still suck it, but that person has no relationship whatsoever to my side. To me those claims yank people out of their context, and to me don't really understand the times. For example, Abraham Lincoln did bring good changes to the US of A but at the same time he was a man of his time. Same goes for all the other people in history. Furthermore, the people who had positions of national authority and are confirmed to have lived a homosexual lifestyle obviously aren't on LGBT community's side, as they didn't use their authority to protect those with homosexual desires and tendencies. More like they used it to sleep around with whoever they wanted, and to hell with everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatile Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 For the record in my last post, I was not trying to be derogatory. I just didn't know the first 4 letters of homosexual would be censored by the filter. Yeah, a couple of words do that, and surprisingly some don't. Like dick. Or arse. Minge. Bollocks. ***** will trips you up, but not breasts. Pissweasel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcymru Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yeah, a couple of words do that, and surprisingly some don't. Like dick. Or arse. Minge. Bollocks. ***** will trips you up, but not breasts. Pissweasel. Our internationally (in)famous mayor recently introduced the wider population to a new one: bumbaclot. Let's see how that one fares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatile Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Our internationally (in)famous mayor recently introduced the wider population to a new one: bumbaclot. Let's see how that one fares. I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean but it sounds hilarious. Plus if it's not censored in the Us it might as well not exist as a word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts