|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@StephenIf 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'. @ZeroI'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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@JargonFair enough, we're getting away from my main point anyway. Namely Stephen's wildly differing approaches to these sorts of discussions: @StephenIt'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. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@StephenI 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|