A Nintendo community
by the fans!
           
  Forum main
 + 
OT: Hey, let's discuss this video series about the Sarkeesian backlash! [roundtable]
 
Yep, I'm makin' it a roundtable.

Not to get too "political" on you, but I watched this six-part video series recently, and I thought it was really well-done. It may seem like a typical anti-GamerGate video at the start, but it isn't. It isn't even truly about Anita Sarkeesian. The analysis is very logical and even-handed, and I appreciated the way that it recast the whole feminism issue (or any social progress issue, really) by framing it from the perspective of the people whom it irritates. Honestly, it almost single-handedly repaired the damage done to my judgement by thousands upon thousands of strident internet-liberals.

Try to go in without any pre-conceived expectations and watch it with an open mind.








I'll give you the Cliffs Notes, in case you don't want to watch right now. Essentially, the video series analyzes WHY people like Anita Sarkeesian produce such a strong negative reaction, and it goes beyond the usual simplistic "They're taking our games!!" rhetoric. This guy posits that the REAL, underlying reason why Anita makes many gamers uncomfortable is that she causes them to question their way they've lived their life to this point. Ignorance is bliss, and the aim of people like Anita is to remove that ignorance. Like the term "privilege". A lot of people hate that term, and it's always rubbed me the wrong way, as well. But it doesn't mean that your life is peaches and cream or that every person from a minority has it tough. It just means that a minority person in the same position as you would have it harder, solely due to the way they were born.

That's an uncomfortable thought, as most people think of themselves as fundamentally good people, and acknowledging that you've never questioned your advantages or thought to help the less fortunate would call your own morality into question. And we're ALL guilty of that, to be honest. It's almost unnatural behavior to revolt against a system that personally benefits you. I mean, I don't like the thought of killing living creatures. I find the thought of hunting utterly revolting. I don't even swat mosquitoes or gnats. If I really considered the fact that animals had to die just so I could enjoy a hamburger, I'd probably be a vegetarian. So I don't WANT to consider it. Because meat is delicious!

Similarly, look at freaking FoxConn. All of our consumer electronics products are basically made of Chinese children. Who the fuck wants to think about that?! What's the alternative?

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily going to change my behavior based on this video series. I still believe that ignorance is bliss, and if you spend all of your time thinking about the evils of the world, your life's probably not going to be very enjoyable. But I still think it was worth watching. It kind of brought stuff that has always been floating at the back of my consciousness to the forefront. And what I most appreciate is that it did so in a non-judgmental way. It might make you a bit uncomfortable, but it definitely won't single you out.

URL to share (right click and copy)
07/23/15, 21:45    Edited: 07/30/15, 05:09
 
Why not sign up for a (free) account?
   
 
@Hero_Of_Hyrule

The funny thing is that I think a similar stereotype exists about people who don't drink being holier than thou, which I definitely wouldn't accuse Mustache of despite his choice not to partake.
07/30/15, 05:17   
@Stephen

If the statistics say that men get into more accidents then women, then men get into more accidents than women. That's not discrimination, it's simply a fact.

The pricing takes that into account purely on the maths. It's not saying that 'Men are worse drivers so we'll charge them more'. It's saying that men are statistically more likely to have accidents so we have to price the risk accordingly. It doesn't go into *why* they're involved in more accidents. There's no conclusion drawn about men being worse drivers. Maybe they have more accidents simply because more men drive. Who knows. But the why is not being looked at here. The actuaries are simply interested in what is.

There's a fine distinction there but it is a distinction. Whether or not you think it's fair doesn't come into play. The numbers are the numbers. And the experts have analysed those numbers and determined them to be statistically significant enough to affect the pricing of the risk.

And if you were being consistent, then you should ' know better than to disagree with people in a matter of their expertise when you are just a civilian'.


@Zero

I'm guessing that in those areas they simply don't have those statistics, or it's not statistically relevant. I'd bet that if many studies came back showing that there were 1000 times more accidents involving Asian drivers than other ethnicities, then that absolutely would become a pricing factor.

And the thing to keep in mind here that these things are just part of the pricing. All that other stuff that was mentioned, experience, driving history etc, that absolutely comes into it as well. And probably given far greater weight, especially over time.
07/30/15, 05:24   
@Shadowlink

Charging men more than women for car insurance based on the fact they are male (as opposed to say because they drive a certain type of car which men are more likely to drive) is by definition discrimination. Whether it's justifiable or should be allowed is another question. Montana bans the practice, but as far as I know it's the only place that does that. (I haven't heard anything about Montana car insurance companies going bankrupt because of this, so I'm sure it's just about maximizing profits and isn't required to be a viable business.)

You are right, though, that driving history is more important. As the company gets more information about your driving habits, it can tailor your rates more to you rather than on statistics. You can still pay low rates as a man if you develop a safe driving record, driving a car considered more safe, live in a safer place, etc. Just now as low as if you were a woman.
07/30/15, 05:34   
Edited: 07/30/15, 05:36
@Jargon

When I applied for my mortgage some years back, I was hit with an extra insurance charge due to the fact that my deposit/income wasn't as high as the bank would like it to be. Thus it was determined that I'd be more likely to default on the loan.

Currently, I'm 6 years into a 30 year loan, but at my current rate of payments, I'm going to have the thing paid off in just over 11 years.

On an individual basis you can argue that the extra charge they hit me with wasn't 'fair'. But I can absolutely understand why they did it. I can argue that I'm not a financially irresponsible lout untill I'm blue in the face. They don't know me personally. All they can go on is the data they have and wider statistical trends. If, statistically speaking, I'm a riskier prospect, then it makes sense that they charge a little more to cover that risk.

And if you're not dilligent in managing that risk appropriately, then you might end up...I don't know... handing out loans to piles of people who can't afford them? Onselling that incredibly bad risk to other investors? Watch as the economy goes tits up when it all collapses around you?

An extreme example to be sure, but lets not pretend that bad consequences can't happen .
07/30/15, 06:03   
Edited: 07/30/15, 06:04
@Shadowlink

Again, I haven't weighed in on whether that particular form of discrimination should be condemned or not. And since I don't think it has much to do with our individual behavior as members of society, I don't see much reason to. I was just pointing out that it is absolutely a form of discrimination, whether justifiable or not.

I should mention there's a huge area of constitutional law in the US dealing with when different types of discrimination are allowed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Sixteenth Amendment so there's been plenty of grappling with questions such as that one.
07/30/15, 06:12   
Edited: 07/30/15, 06:19
@Shadowlink

They can analyze the numbers all they like, if they use it to make sexist policies that is on them.

That's a far cry from scientists declaring that Pluto isn't a planet say for example.
07/30/15, 06:19   
@Jargon

Fair enough, we're getting away from my main point anyway. Namely Stephen's wildly differing approaches to these sorts of discussions:


@Stephen

It's no different.

Scientists analysed the numbers/facts on Pluto and used them to justify why Pluto wasn't a planet based on their chosen definition.

The actuaries analysed the statistics on accidents and used them to determine the optimum risk pricing for men and women.


You back the actions of one lot of experts on premise that 'they're the experts and you don't presume to question them'. The actions of another group of experts however, you're more than happy to dispute- The difference being in this case is that you disagree with them.


Normally this sort of inconsistency would be ok. Most people tend to do similar things. I do however think that anyone who wants to get up on a soapbox and lecture others on the virtues of 'deferring to experts' should try for more consistency in such things if they wish to be taken seriously.

.
07/30/15, 07:30   
@Shadowlink You're not from America so perhaps you don't understand the culture here. No f-ing way would people be ok with whites or blacks or whoever paying more than anyone else for car insurance. I have no idea what things are like in Australia but here race and talking about racism and trying to make sure we aren't racist and such is a HUGE DEAL. For a variety of reasons, but the main one being you know... slavery.

Also gotta say your attempt to call out Stephen for inconsistencies isn't really working here. I don't see anyone disputing that the numbers the insurance companies come up with are wrong (except I vaguely recall someone disputed this before because they were certain women were worse drivers, but no one is disputing it in this thread.) We're disputing that it is ethically ok to make individuals pay more based on group trends. Doubly so when the group isn't defined by taking riskier actions or anything (like say, motorcycle drivers getting life insurance) but simply who they are.
07/30/15, 07:56   
Edited: 07/30/15, 08:20
@Shadowlink

It's not inconsistent though is it? I'm not saying their determination is factually wrong but rather the application of it is ethically wrong in my eyes. Saying their policies are sexist which they absolutely are doesn't mean I think their analysis is without merit.
07/30/15, 08:10   
@Stephen

But it is inconsistent.

I don't disupute the facts of Pluto either- The size, orbit, whatever. All facts.

What I questioned was the arbitrariness of the definition to which those facts were applied. Just like you are questioning the application of facts here.

Am I now allowed to lecture you on how your post underlines the problem with how society treats financial matters? Can I tell you that it's attitudes like yours that leads to things like the Global Financial Crisis? That if the best minds in the field have decided that they should price risk differently depending on different attributes of people, then that's what society should adhere to?


Or can you admit that your lecture was utter bullshit, and there's no reason why we cannot discuss such issues openly without seeking to automatically dismiss and belittle viewpoints that we don't agree with?
07/30/15, 08:35   
Edited: 07/30/15, 08:36
@Shadowlink

You may lecture me on how society treats financial matters if you wish. I stand by everything I've said and see no inconsistencies anywhere. Keep up the crusade though. This is a rather flimsy argument you've thrown yourself on to.
07/30/15, 08:51   
You defer to expert opinion when it suits you, and question them when it doesn't.

That's inconsistent whether you acknowledge it or not.
07/30/15, 09:48   
@Shadowlink

Good thing I didn't do that then.
07/30/15, 10:17   
@Stephen

Acknowledge your inconsistency? I suppose you didn't.

It exists nonetheless.
07/30/15, 10:53   
@Stephen

I like Austin Aries as a wrestler, surely, he's INCREDIBLE. But he's BEYOND smug. SMUGARAMA. (EDIT- I don't know how I forgot this, oh my gosh, and I just got done watching TNA; he refers to himself as "The Greatest Man That Ever Lived.") Dude, if you have to TELL SOMEONE that you're Vegan...that already carries a bunch of smugness with it. Can you imagine how ridiculous people would think I am (bear with me, BEYOND how ridiculous you guys think I am) if I wore a shirt or proclaimed "I'm not a Vegan?" They'd be like "what an asshole, what do I care what he eats?"

--And the fact that there is a wikipedia page for a list of Vegans? Dude. Dude.


Secret_Tunnel said:What!? Next you're gonna tell me you've never heard of Strawberry Cubes!


Strawberry Cubes forever!

---------



Page 7 stuff:
Zero said: I dunno, this sure sounds like a defense of racism:

You'd grow up a racist yourself, and then everyone would tell you how you're such an awful person, even though you weren't in charge of the way you were developed.

Maybe Rob could explain what he meant better but it sure seems like he is peeved that people are calling out Hogan for obvious racism because he "wasn't in charge of the way he was developed", and then he got into the 100% of Indians yada yada thing like trying to justify it because "everyone" from that culture is that way. Which, again, we're talking about a half? white dude from America who has absolutely no connection to people who live in India but whatever.

Bah. Maybe we should just try to get back on track here.


Let me tell you a tiny story. I don't want to go deep as hell now because I want to sleep real soon.

I was telling my parents a joke one time, and I said something like "how many Pollocks" blah blah blah, and they just looked at me like "what did you say!?" I wasn't even aware that it wasn't a nice thing to say because of how casually my young classmate said it to me. Now, imagine you grew up around parents flinging slurs around like nobody's business. What are the odds that you, too, are going to toss those around haphazardly? I can tell you that my cousin sounds exactly like my uncle, and they both have tons of guns in Florida, and my cousin's son will more than likely follow suit.

I wasn't defending Hogan directly, but YOU don't know how he grew up, or what his conditions were, or what his parents said about certain races, or what he's experienced, or what he's heard, or whats been done to him. All you really know is how YOU grew up, so stop acting (everyone) like they know everything about everyone. (Seriously, whats with you guys?) Different people experience different things.

--And why is no one mentioning the gypsies? Think of the gypsies!


@Stephen

And what happens when black-directed shows have black characters supporting those negative stereotypes? Let me remind you; I work at a TV station that shows plenty of black programming all day long. Again, I feel like I'm exposed to this stuff more than you guys (as I am with women's issues in programs, etc.), and you guys think you know everything from all of your....not..watching..black & women's programming. Soooo......

@Secret_Tunnel
@Stephen

Men are "worse drivers" because "drunk driving" gets lumped in there. So yes, guys are worse (and stupid to drink so much) drivers when they're completely hammered and killing people. Show me some numbers for "backing out of a garage completely sober" or "trying to parallel park." Those should be interesting figures.

@Zero

"Asian people are smart." I once went to a casino and there was an open seat at the baccarat table. The other 11 or so people were all Asian; counting cards is legal in this game, and actually how its played. They keep track. I had NO IDEA how to play, simply mimic'd what they were doing, and I profited. I SUPPOSE there could've been some Asian Community Day or something going on (at that specific table..?), but thats how stuff gets reinforced. It was very impressive.


EDIT- OH MY GOD, WHY CAN'T I FIND THE FORMATTING PROBLEM.
07/30/15, 13:20   
Edited: 07/30/15, 14:08
Mr_Mustache said:

--And why is no one mentioning the gypsies? Think of the gypsies!

I think of the Romani people often. The casual racism against them in Europe is appalling.
07/30/15, 14:53   
@Jargon

Why don't we talk about that here? Shadowlink has mentioned the Aborigines before.
07/30/15, 19:39   
Europe is sadly suffering a big increase in anti-Romani violence and harassment as a result of the normalization of neo-fascism these days, and that's saying something considering the Romani have been oppressed since forever, even before the original nazis came around and did their thing. Romani people who desperately flee to, for instance Sweden, in the hopes of making a better life for themselves are met with violence and hatred from otherwise ordinary people who have started to believe the nationalist myths portraying the Romani as being thieves and barbarians. We should totally talk about the Romani and the discrimination against them a lot more. In addition to the rest of the discrimination discussion, of course.
07/30/15, 20:25   
@Mr_Mustache Yeah but I'm not saying anyone knows his exact upbringing, I'm saying it is ok to call out his racism (or anyone's racism) and make him (or anyone being openly racist) face real life repercussions for it because that is how the adult world operates. Whether he should have been instantly erased from wrestling history is debatable. I might even side with "no" there (especially considering how much of 80s wrestling was about really racist characters.) But he shouldn't get a free pass for racism either. He made a mistake and he is facing repercussions now. That's not inherently bad. Hopefully he learns something from this mess.

I'm going to reiterate that the biggest problem with "beneficial racism" is that it hurts the people not under that umbrella. I mean, you can say "hey people look at this Asian dude and instantly think he is smarter than he is, how does that hurt anyone?" Well, even if we say that it doesn't hurt him (again, not true, Shirley has tons to say about this), it hurts whoever else he is being put above unfairly. A real life example would be if an Asian guy and a black guy are competing for a job and the black guy is the better candidate but the Asian guy is just assumed to be smarter / more competent / more reliable / etc. because he is Asian, so he gets the job.

That's not fair at all. "Benevolent sexism" has real victims.
07/30/15, 21:00   
Edited: 07/30/15, 21:00
I wouldn't put any stock in to the existence of a Wikipedia page of vegans. Hero of Hyrule though told us in this thread he is vegan. Can we agree he isn't smug about it? And that because of this, you can now directly confirm the existence of non-smug vegans?

Mr. Mustache said:
And what happens when black-directed shows have black characters supporting those negative stereotypes? Let me remind you; I work at a TV station that shows plenty of black programming all day long. Again, I feel like I'm exposed to this stuff more than you guys (as I am with women's issues in programs, etc.), and you guys think you know everything from all of your....not..watching..black & women's programming. Soooo......

I think it has been said before but people can absolutely hold racist/sexist opinions about groups they themselves may be a part of.
07/30/15, 21:12   
  Forum main
 +