California has passed their "Yes Means Yes" bill, including a signature from Governor Brown.
Many people will look at this in the context of the "rape epidemic" that is plaguing college campuses around the nation. The "Yes Means Yes" bill only looks at how sexual conduct is managed on college campuses. Why only there? That's because it has a whole other system to use to enforce it--all without due process!
Usual disclaimer: rape is a terrible crime and there are things that can be done to reduce to incidence rates of violent crime. I am not a rape apologist.
"Yes Means Yes" boils down to this: affirmative consent must be given by both parties throughout the sexual encounter to ensure both are aware and are willing participants. Consent cannot be given or accepted if either party is intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics. Two issues arise here: first, does every action require a "yes" and, second, how intoxicated is too intoxicated?
If one received the "yes" for breast touching at minute 2, does that still apply for minute 5? What about minute 10? 30? Post-completion? When does the affirmative consent end? It can be framed to only mean for that very moment to ensure it isn't used after coitus, but that means the participants would be seeking continual consent for every grope, kiss, or thrust. It places an undue burden on men to ensure consent, lest they fail to achieve it on a particular step, and are branded a rapist.
If a hook-up pair have consented to sex and everything leading up to it, and, while in the heat of the action, the male's member slips out and is accidentally inserted into the female rectum, will that be considered rape? This is a murky moment that will require a significant amount of thought before a conclusion can be made. The female never gave consent to be penetrated anally, but the male never wanted to penetrate the female anally. Does that absolve him of the accident? This uncomfortable but brief moment can become a ticking bomb for either party, but most for the male. I have great doubts that if a claim was brought against the male for forcible anal rape that he would be unable to defend himself adequately under Yes Means Yes. He would admit to the incident, state it was an accident, reassert the process of consent that was exchanged by both parties, only to finish on emphasizing that it was an accident. Under the kangaroo court system imposed by the Department of Education, whereby guilt is assumed, due process is thrown out, and the need for "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been replace by "preponderance of evidence", the male would likely be found guilty, as he admitted to commit the accidental act without consent.
In California, you may still operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.08%. Driving is a significant engagement of perception and awareness. So, what is the "legal limit" for sex (on college campuses)? Taking this application to the logical conclusion, there will not be a way to prove a participant was either entirely sober or significantly intoxicated during the joke court proceedings many months down the line. As stated above, these proceedings are stacked against the accused (which are predominately men). It cannot be proven that consent was attained through the evening to all actions, that no lines were crossed, and that both were sober (enough?) to engage in the play. Alcohol impairs the judgement of both parties significantly enough that either side might lose sight of important body language, might skip a step in the affirmative consent dance, or may be unaware their 5AM date fell asleep for a moment during coitus.
Bills like these do not help solve the problem of sexual assault. Rather, they create a mine field of legal issues for those involved and for the colleges which they attend. The Department of Education's disregard for due process in show trails is only bolstered by such legislation. If we want to further reduce the diminishing number of sexual assault cases, then we need to do more to teach children about being assertive, how to interact with others, and how to read body language. We need to institute a lower legal drinking age, allow cheap and low alcohol content booze at all college parties (i.e., kegs), and discourage "pre-gaming" before college parties.
Convoluted laws based on bad statistics (1-5 women are not sexually assaulted during a 4-year college program) are failure as a community to address the issue of sexual assault. The rates of sexual assault are dropping, despite efforts by some groups to claim otherwise. Education into conduct and more reasonable approaches to consumption of intoxicants will be far more effective.
Notes: I was unable to find the bill's language around what "drunk" means. It merely referred to being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, having taken intoxicants, or being "drunk".
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Monday, September 29, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Post 10
God vs. Atheism: which is more rational?
This video, brought to you by the religiously conservative Prager University, an online school for those looking to immerse themselves into conservative thinking, is presented by Peter Kreeft. He is a philosophy professor at Boston College and is a Christian apologetic.
Most people around me will look at this video and conclude God is more rational. Why? Well, two key points: the universe is far more complex than our human minds can comprehend and the universe must have a prime mover or first cause (as Kreeft puts it later in his video, "the Big Bang requires a Big Banger!") to have started this all. This is the rational position? Within the previous lines one can easily see inherent problems with those two points:
- Complexity can be comprehended. It takes time and a well structured, rigorous, methodologically sound approach to tease apart billions of years of events to compile a sensible, reproducible explanation of everything. This point is known as the "God of the gaps"; God was the mover of clouds and the riser of the sun, then was the mover of the planets, then was creator of life, and now is only a "prime mover" to the creation of the universe. In other words, the more we know, the less reach God appears to have.
- If the universe required a prime mover, and one has designated God as the prime mover, then what created God? If this is countered with a claim akin to God always being there, then why can't the universe have always been there in some form?
Let's parse out what Kreeft claims in this video.
- "Logic can show there is a God." Kreeft goes on to claim the universe is covered in the finger prints of God, and refers us to 13th Century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, who developed the prime mover or "unmoved mover".
- "Just because scientists don't see a cause doesn't mean there isn't one." This was brought up in relation to radioactive decay, after Kreeft made the claim that "mere matter doesn't move itself".
- Science will be unable to find the first cause. Kreeft crafts this from reasoning around finding the cause for radioactive decay, then finding the reason for the reason for radioactive decay, then finding the cause to the reason to the reason for radioactive decay, and so on.
- Kreeft brings up a simple objection to the universe requiring a creator by posing the hypothetical question of "what if the universe is infinitely old?". Kreeft relies on scientists knowledge in this case to refute the possibility of an infinitely old universe, stating astrophysics believes the universe to have an age, which required a beginning to measure from.
- If the universe exists, it came from nothing. Things that do not have to exist must have a cause. The Big Bang was the precipitating event (which, I assume, he attributes to God). Kreeft mocks atheism for previously made claims by atheists that the Big Bang was "creationism in disguise", where only moments earlier he makes a statement that "no scientists doubt the Big Bang occurred".
- Kreeft invokes Einstein's theory of general relativity: "all time is relative to matter". Therefore, since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, that means that time only started 13.7 billion years ago.
- Kreeft returns to mocking atheism by pointing out it is irrational to not believe in God but to believe in something like multiverse theory, which has no empirical evidence.
- "The conclusion God exists does not require faith; atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God."
There are patterns we see in this brief video that one can acknowledge as being intentionally used to distract the viewer from thinking critically about either claims for God or the objections against atheism. Kreeft begins by dismissing science as able to find the first cause of anything, including this universe, but regularly invokes the wisdom and knowledge of science to support vapid points in favour of God as the creator. What's more, Kreeft mocks atheism for claims which it either never held or held so briefly due to the presentation of the evidence that a rational person can reduce Kreeft's mockeries to merely strawman attacks.
1. Logic can show there is a God.
No. It can't. If this video is an example of logic showing God, then you failed to convey that message in a sensible and understandable manner. Attempting to claim everything requires a first mover because of a philosopher from 800 years ago is akin to deriving navigational techniques for our space crafts from 13th Century ship captains. We have moved passed the position of a particular god being a mover of any sort in our lives, just as we have moved on from Zeus as being the cause for lightning.
2. Just because science don't see a cause doesn't mean there isn't one.
This is Kreeft painting science as inherently limited within the universe which God created. It's a good thing, however, that we do not exist in such a place, and, given enough time, the method of knowledge acquisition known as the scientific method will discover more about our origins than any religion has ever guessed.
3. Science will be unable to find a first cause.
This is a similar point to the one above, but this time with an example: radioactive decay. Kreeft, in effect, attempts to describe matter as some unknowable event where we can only peel away the superficial layers of mysteries. It is clear to me from the Wikipedia article on radioactive decay that we have a far greater understanding of radioactive decay than what Kreeft dishonestly conveys. Why does some matter decay? Unstable orbits! Why are some orbits unstable? Because of uneven chargers or orbital patterns or quantum tunneling or other events which weaken the strong nuclear force! The answer to the why question following this point is not "God"; the answer to "why do we have strong nuclear force" or any other event which might be responsible for radioactive decay must be looked at in a bottom-up manner (rather than the top-down, which invokes God as the answer): if these constants did not exist in this manner, we, as cognitive beings able to conjure images in our minds, would no exist, making any notion of God or universe moot. In other words, we are here because the conditions are such; not because the conditions were set as such for us.
4. What if the universe is infinitely old?
Such a question is a near fair one to ask when arguing against a person who believes God is the only answer to the universe. Given enough time, we can observe many remarkable things. This principle can be applied to our existence and that of the universe as well. Kreeft, however, dishonestly poses a strawman question. The real question is: what if matter is infinitely old? This is important for point 6. We do have strong theories around the Big Bang as the birth of our cosmos, even though there is some dissent from scientists, like Eric Lerner, on the viability of the Big Bang.
5. Nothing can come from nothing. The universe is something. The universe needs a reason to exist.
You can almost read that as "therefore... therefore... therefore...". First, let's look at the work of Lawrence M. Krauss. Krauss's theory is simply something can come from nothing without any supernatural involvement. This can be a bit confusing, though, as Krauss, an astrophysicist, uses nothing in a different manner as Kreeft, a philosopher. To what I have gleaned from Krauss's work, he believes matter has always existed, just in different iterations over their infinitely long existence. When matter is placed into a quantum vacuum, or "nothingness", it will behave in strange ways. Krauss does not attempt to explain where the laws of physics come from, as this can be a ploy to artificially apply top-down reasoning on a bottom-up problem. Philosophers had their place when it comes to the origins of the fields of study, including astronomy and astrophysics. Now, however, their time has passed, and the questions they ask about the origins of life without knowing biology or the origins of the universe without knowing astrophysics are clumsy and misguided. Philosophers who want to know why the laws are physics are such will continually apply the top-down reasoning fallacy to these questions. The laws are they way they are because matter exists and operates in this system. Change the laws, change the system, have an entirely different universe. This line of thinking is where the multiverse theory has found support.
6. General relativity's claim that time is a construct of matter; no matter existed until the Big Bang, which means time didn't exist until the Big Bang.
This point ties into points 3, 4, and 5. General relativity views matter as the important reference to existence. Time is measuring the change of matter. It can be taken, then, that without matter (i.e., existence) there can be no time. This is an ontological failing. Without matter, there would be nothing or there would something else. The mere fact that matter exists in this current system of laws means we, and other intelligent life, have the possibility of existing. Time, therefore, is only a relational mechanism to differentiate two points of existence, which can be employed by intelligent life. Time itself does not exist within matter. If matter has always existed, even prior to the Big Bang, then time too will have existed. This point does nothing to support the idea of God or a prime mover. God is not time. God is not matter. Existence, again, can be considered as a bottom-up problem: matter exists in its state because of the laws of physics make it so. The laws do not presuppose a creator of those laws, for if those laws were to change, our understanding of matter would change--or matter, and time, would cease to exist.
7. Multiverse theory has no empirical evidence, which makes it a joke that atheists believe in it!
Not exactly Kreefts words, but his mocking approach fails to convince me he had any other intent. Maybe it is because of thick irony which goes along with such a statement. One reason multiverse theory gains support from individuals (atheist or not; by the way, if one believes in an afterlife which is distinct from this plane of existence, then that person believes in a multiverse) is due to the feasibility of non-constant constants. That is, changing the laws of physics ever so slightly from how our universe operates may actually create another universe. There is metaphysics and the choice-based mutliverse theory, whereby each unique choice a conscious creature takes will immediately spawn another universe where everything is identical except the decision which was just made. Theories, indeed, but the plausibility is born out of an understanding of physics and a powerful imagination. God, on the other, comes from no understanding at all and a powerful imagination. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, either, other than the evidence one can conjure through filling in the gaps of understanding or applying faulty logic to.
8. The conclusion God exists does not require faith; atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.
An open mind and patience does not require faith. If this were in the era of when Jesus was thought to have lived, we would not understand how disease is spread. This is not a strawman; rather, this is the point of science and acquiring knowledge about how the universe operates. Prior to the germ theory of disease, humans attributed illness to wrath of their local god. We now know the failings of this both by germ theory and by the inability of prayer or ritual to stem the damage of illness or disaster. This, again, is the God of the Gaps argument. God is an ever receding pocket of human knowledge about the universe. A time will come when humans will know the origin of life, with the ability to reproduce it. We are here not because the universe was made for us to be here, but because the conditions are such that, given enough time, life came into existence and went through a billion or more years of evolution to the point of humans as we are today. Atheism takes no faith. It takes a mind willing to accept that we do not know everything right now, but, with effort, dedication, and time, we might one day know it all. It takes faith to believe in a God whose power is ever shrinking into, whose influence is waning, and cannot explain anything.
What's more to the argument put forth by Kreeft is the claim to what God. Nothing in his argument lends to the Christian God, or even the God of the major monotheisms. This "prime mover" can be interchangeably swapped with any other god or anointed divine being or explanation. For example: all life is of one spirit, that spirit is the creator, who created this all to experience it for itself, to go through the every life ever lived. That argument is as valid as God making all of this.
So, which is more rational to believe in? Faith is believe in the absence of evidence. Evidence is required to make rational inferences. One needs faith to believe in God which there is no evidence for. Kreeft fails to be compelling not only for God as the creator but the universe needing a creator at all. Which leaves the evidence on the side of atheism and rationality.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Post 9 (incomplete)
It's On Us. This is a new initiative taken by the President of the United States, the White House, numerous celebrities, many media conglomerates, and major sports organizations, such as NCAA, to tell the people of the United States that they can do more to not rape--on college campuses.
The emphasis is on sexual assault on college campuses. Not in general, not off of the campus, not in prisons, and not in the military, but on college campuses. Why the focus there? Well, because 1 in 5 women who attend a 4-year program will be victims of sexual assault. 1 in 5. That's 20% of all your female friends. Err... wait, not 20%, but 19%. At least, that's what the College Sexual Assault Study (CSAS, 2007; .pdf link) tells us. Well, not really tells once you look at the data.
Now, the emphasis from It's On Us and others who use the CSAS as clear evidence of either "rape culture" or pervasive nature of sexual violence is frequently on the experiences of women. I will point out the flaws and issues with this study and the current cultural view on the matter. I would like to be clear: male victims are sexual assault face equally great challenges as well. They too should be considered in any effort to reduce the incident rates of these violent crimes.
The CSAS is a wretched study, wrought with significant methodological and statistical problems. Allow me to briefly show where:
The emphasis is on sexual assault on college campuses. Not in general, not off of the campus, not in prisons, and not in the military, but on college campuses. Why the focus there? Well, because 1 in 5 women who attend a 4-year program will be victims of sexual assault. 1 in 5. That's 20% of all your female friends. Err... wait, not 20%, but 19%. At least, that's what the College Sexual Assault Study (CSAS, 2007; .pdf link) tells us. Well, not really tells once you look at the data.
Now, the emphasis from It's On Us and others who use the CSAS as clear evidence of either "rape culture" or pervasive nature of sexual violence is frequently on the experiences of women. I will point out the flaws and issues with this study and the current cultural view on the matter. I would like to be clear: male victims are sexual assault face equally great challenges as well. They too should be considered in any effort to reduce the incident rates of these violent crimes.
The CSAS is a wretched study, wrought with significant methodological and statistical problems. Allow me to briefly show where:
- The study looked at only two major universities in the United States. I haven't been able to find which two, but two is a small number. A report by the Institute of Educational Sciences lists the number of 4-year degree schools in 2007 at 2,629. That means the study looked at 0.00076% of all the colleges in the United States. It's not a leap to conclude that this is not a representative sample of the college population.
- The samples from the universities were derived from the entire enrolled population at the school. Estimates were made on the likely response rates (based on other studies of similar nature and methodological studies), and were then truncated down. That is, even when working with a minuscule sample size of the entire student population in the United States, the researchers then determined the need to cut down the sample pools to a smaller number, based on the belief that too many survey invites would reduce the total response rate. Thus, making the study and even less representative.
- Response rates were extremely low for this study. After truncation, the CSAS invited 12,836 women to respond. Of that, 5,446 women responded. That's a response rate of 42.4%. This is a considerably low response rate, one which greatly increases your confidence interval (i.e., less confidence in the data).
- The nature of response rates is challenging, as reasons for nonresponse can vary greatly, depending on the study. Consider, however, the emotional salience of sexual assault: if you were the victim of a car accident, would you be more or less likely to respond to a survey about intersection safety? If you were the victim of a sexual assault, would you be more or less likely to respond to a survey on sexual assault? It stands to reason the transparent goal of this survey (i.e., collect data on sexual assault rates on campuses) would be clear to the participants, and those participants would have the opportunity to respond, if they so choose. Those who see the value in telling their story would probably be more likely to respond to this survey than those who do not. We can reason the likelihood of a skewed response pattern from the low response rate to favour those who were victims of sexual assault or who are close to those who are victims of sexual assault.
- The numbers used for what constitutes sexual assault in the CSAS are not well organized or explained. The authors report 19% of women who responded (see above for issues with this) were sexually assaulted since entering college. On page 65 of the study .pdf, there is a table that lays out number for the respondents. Importantly, the 19% is at the top, and the numbers are broken down from there:
- N = 5,446; number of completed or attempted sexual assaults (n) = 1,073.
- Completed sexual assaults = 782 or 13.7% (with no accounting to where the other 292 individuals went in their math, considering the number for attempted was 682).
- Completed is broken down into Physically Forced (256 or 4.7% of the respondents) and Incapacitated (651 or 11.1% of the respondents). So, parent group stated n = 782, but the two child groups are n1(256) + n2(651) = nT(907).
- We find the legal definition of rape (which is defined differently from sexual assault) under the Physically Forced category, which 181 or 3.4% responded reported to have been victims of, and under the Incapacitated category at 507 or 8.5%.
- The definitions, as used above, are extremely broad. The study included "forced touching of a sexual nature" (page 52 of the pdf) into the same meta-level analysis as physically forced rape. While the authors do note their analysis does parse out the differences, their results (pages 64, 66, 90) are the only place which clearly state this statistic. The conclusion omits this particular line (a rather curious omission). If the fact that "1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted" was well founded in this (heavily flawed) study, why not put it in the most important part of the paper?!
This post is different from the rest as I will be going back to it to continually edit and add to it. My aim is to thoroughly debunk the CSAS paper in this post and point people to this post as a resource as to why citing "1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted on college campuses" is both harmful and a blatant lie. @nrokchi
Post 8
#GamerGate continues to move ahead. It's been around for the better part of 5 weeks with an ardent look at corruption between game developers and game "journalists". The developers are frequently indie devs who are looking for a way to better market their new product, which is a fair desire when you're a small fish in a vast ocean. Where it falls apart is on the game "journalists", whom take the opportunity to help friends, family, or lovers with the marketing, by writing reviews and articles favourable to the game. Immediately, anyone with journalistic integrity would question this practice (at a minimum!) and be understood as being someone who does agree with that such actions. That, however, has not been the case. Since the GameJournoPros email list was leaked, we've seen an internal shift of individuals who are willing to speak anonymously on the issue, who are against it, but fear reprisal from both sides.
Firstly, these anonymous dissenters are concerned about their jobs and maintain bridges within their "profession". This is a legitimate concern, considering the nature of the planning that has been going on in the GameJournoPros forum: coordinated attacks, article launches, community agreed blacklists, and the spreading of lies about the #GamerGate side. Which is the second side: the fear those who support #GamerGate will attack the dissenter. In a MundaneMatt article, he quotes a source who is in this very position. The game "journalist" openly stated that he feared his bank account would be hacked and his credit ruined if he spoke out. Hopefully people recognize that his is utterly stupid. If this source were to go public in support of #GamerGate, why the fuck would #GamerGate supporters attack him? It doesn't make sense.
What I would like to focus on is the nature of beast, and I do not go about this lightly. When you have a whole industry attempting to work as one mind then you have collusion. Collusion is a series crime in the United States when it comes to industry, but even the law doesn't view game "journalism" as worth looking into. However, it is important to note that collusion is a deeply corrupt practice, and legality aside, the philosophical and moral objections to it are well founded. The coordinated article launches by the GameJournoPros group is an unsettling look into what groupthink will do. The positive I can take from this is the actions look like a cornered animal. It will require continual coordinated efforts by the GameJournoPros to withstand the calls against them by #GamerGate, a practice which will not last. Even with the fear of reprisal over dissent in that community, after the first brick falls, the rest of the wall will quickly crumble.
Now, this goes onto the next question: why would someone care about collusion in game "journalism"? It's simple: I do not like being told I am something which I am not. Period. These "journalists" have made claims that they represent real gamers. A hilarious claim considering GameJournoPros had a coordinated article launch which we saw at least 10 articles released on the same day claiming "Gamers are Dead" or "The End of Gamers". Moreover, when you have a tool (or boss-wannabe) like Ben Kuchera, who, in the link shown, attempts to brand all male gamers as aggressive, sexist protectionists who actively work on keeping women away from games (I'm assuming in any and all formats). While there can be some people out in the wild west of the internet who might hold those actual beliefs (i.e., actually sexist) or are just trolls (i.e., sadistic narcissists), the majority of gamers I know are only looking for a community to play in. That community can be comprised of anyone. If the game itself is good then gamers will play it. Good is subjective, however, meaning that some people will prefer some games while others will flock towards other games. Sure, you can do some analysis on this and see women frequently play phone-based games like Candy Crush Saga while men prefer to play games such as Grand Theft Auto. These points do not detract from the fact that community is sought after, and not just one that is misogynist males only.
There is significant problems with the GameJournoPros side of this. They are corrupt, in collusion with one and other, and coordinated. They are speaking a message about people for whom they do not know. This message is slander in nature. They refuse to engage in a discussion on this, staying far and away in their ivory towers. When another well articulated point is made against GameJournoPros, they react by yelling "oppression!", "misogyny!", or in general deflecting the criticism by writing a story about how a female game dev was doxxed or threatened. (I'm not discounting that these things do happen. Of course they do. Just don't create connections where there are none; doxxing happens because someone is a shitty human being, not because #GamerGate wants to destroy someone. I'll get to that in a minute.) It cannot be considered fair practice to never address criticisms in an open and transparent manner as a journalist. These "journalists" run and hide behind the perceived suffering of others, which they then hijack and co-opt into their flawed world view. Ultimately, the influence from the baseless and inane 3rd-wave feminism has seeped into the world of game "journalism", stolen it from discourse, and is attempting to weaponize it against the consumers of the very media that these "journalists" cover. That's why we fight back.
There is no leader in the #GamerGate movement as the people who support it would be willing to go in on this fight alone. We are that passionate about this. There are, however, many key figure involved in this. MundateMatt, Internet Aristocrat, Thunderf00t, among many others. All of which have been vocal in their opposition to GameJournoPros. Importantly: these people have come out against equally shitty behaviour on their own side, such as threats and doxxing. The #GamerGate movement wants to convey to the other side that their behaviour is inherently wrong and destructive, which can only be done through reasoned discourse, the cultivation of facts and evidence against them, and continual pressure to have these sites respond to the claims made against them. It should go without saying that actions such as doxxing or threats do not help the cause and hinder the efforts of whatever side is engaging in the acts.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Firstly, these anonymous dissenters are concerned about their jobs and maintain bridges within their "profession". This is a legitimate concern, considering the nature of the planning that has been going on in the GameJournoPros forum: coordinated attacks, article launches, community agreed blacklists, and the spreading of lies about the #GamerGate side. Which is the second side: the fear those who support #GamerGate will attack the dissenter. In a MundaneMatt article, he quotes a source who is in this very position. The game "journalist" openly stated that he feared his bank account would be hacked and his credit ruined if he spoke out. Hopefully people recognize that his is utterly stupid. If this source were to go public in support of #GamerGate, why the fuck would #GamerGate supporters attack him? It doesn't make sense.
What I would like to focus on is the nature of beast, and I do not go about this lightly. When you have a whole industry attempting to work as one mind then you have collusion. Collusion is a series crime in the United States when it comes to industry, but even the law doesn't view game "journalism" as worth looking into. However, it is important to note that collusion is a deeply corrupt practice, and legality aside, the philosophical and moral objections to it are well founded. The coordinated article launches by the GameJournoPros group is an unsettling look into what groupthink will do. The positive I can take from this is the actions look like a cornered animal. It will require continual coordinated efforts by the GameJournoPros to withstand the calls against them by #GamerGate, a practice which will not last. Even with the fear of reprisal over dissent in that community, after the first brick falls, the rest of the wall will quickly crumble.
Now, this goes onto the next question: why would someone care about collusion in game "journalism"? It's simple: I do not like being told I am something which I am not. Period. These "journalists" have made claims that they represent real gamers. A hilarious claim considering GameJournoPros had a coordinated article launch which we saw at least 10 articles released on the same day claiming "Gamers are Dead" or "The End of Gamers". Moreover, when you have a tool (or boss-wannabe) like Ben Kuchera, who, in the link shown, attempts to brand all male gamers as aggressive, sexist protectionists who actively work on keeping women away from games (I'm assuming in any and all formats). While there can be some people out in the wild west of the internet who might hold those actual beliefs (i.e., actually sexist) or are just trolls (i.e., sadistic narcissists), the majority of gamers I know are only looking for a community to play in. That community can be comprised of anyone. If the game itself is good then gamers will play it. Good is subjective, however, meaning that some people will prefer some games while others will flock towards other games. Sure, you can do some analysis on this and see women frequently play phone-based games like Candy Crush Saga while men prefer to play games such as Grand Theft Auto. These points do not detract from the fact that community is sought after, and not just one that is misogynist males only.
There is significant problems with the GameJournoPros side of this. They are corrupt, in collusion with one and other, and coordinated. They are speaking a message about people for whom they do not know. This message is slander in nature. They refuse to engage in a discussion on this, staying far and away in their ivory towers. When another well articulated point is made against GameJournoPros, they react by yelling "oppression!", "misogyny!", or in general deflecting the criticism by writing a story about how a female game dev was doxxed or threatened. (I'm not discounting that these things do happen. Of course they do. Just don't create connections where there are none; doxxing happens because someone is a shitty human being, not because #GamerGate wants to destroy someone. I'll get to that in a minute.) It cannot be considered fair practice to never address criticisms in an open and transparent manner as a journalist. These "journalists" run and hide behind the perceived suffering of others, which they then hijack and co-opt into their flawed world view. Ultimately, the influence from the baseless and inane 3rd-wave feminism has seeped into the world of game "journalism", stolen it from discourse, and is attempting to weaponize it against the consumers of the very media that these "journalists" cover. That's why we fight back.
There is no leader in the #GamerGate movement as the people who support it would be willing to go in on this fight alone. We are that passionate about this. There are, however, many key figure involved in this. MundateMatt, Internet Aristocrat, Thunderf00t, among many others. All of which have been vocal in their opposition to GameJournoPros. Importantly: these people have come out against equally shitty behaviour on their own side, such as threats and doxxing. The #GamerGate movement wants to convey to the other side that their behaviour is inherently wrong and destructive, which can only be done through reasoned discourse, the cultivation of facts and evidence against them, and continual pressure to have these sites respond to the claims made against them. It should go without saying that actions such as doxxing or threats do not help the cause and hinder the efforts of whatever side is engaging in the acts.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Monday, September 15, 2014
Post 7
First, here's an article by Christopher Hitchens, referring to 2010 talk shown in this post, and discussing the term *Islamofascism*. Hitchens is supported by historian Victor Davis Hanson, a writer for The National Review, stating "the general idea of 'fascism'—the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology—fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate." Hanson follows up by drawing a link between similar fascist regimes' adherence to the the blood curse and continual anti-Semitic stance.
Second, the claim made by Horowitz that MSAs are a network establish by the Muslim Brotherhood is true. The first MSA came into being in 1963 at the University of Illinois. This... uhhh... interesting video, while feeling like it was made by a major Fox News fan, does have facts correct around MSA actions. Again, we see the anti-Semitic nature of MSAs. (Side note: blind support for Israel is a common position of fundamentalist Christians, as they believe the complete re-establishment of the Jewish state and the reconstruction of Solomon's Temple will bring about the beginning of the end times--an eschatological wish that Christianity is in love with.) With that said, more can been read in this article from the right-wing discoverthenetworks.org's stub for MSAs. While infowars-level-crazy, this stub is accurate, well cited, and decently thorough.
This is important to bring up with the recent outcry from Yale's MSA over the invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. MSA board member Abrar Omeish did the usual "Islamophobe!" dance around the invitation, also claiming that Ayaan Hirsi Ali "lacked credentials" to speak about Islam. As we recall, Hirsi Ali has a PhD in Islamic studies, but views Islam as a "nihilistic death cult"--a common view among the atheist community, as well. Notable was the degree which group think exists on campus when a total of 35 groups signed the MSA's letter condemning the invitation. Group think triggers include: *it's not free speech, it's hate speech!*, the confusion between "hateful" and "critical" (which is so often lost on those the statement is critical of), and feigning victimhood as a way of drawing attention away from justified criticism.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Second, the claim made by Horowitz that MSAs are a network establish by the Muslim Brotherhood is true. The first MSA came into being in 1963 at the University of Illinois. This... uhhh... interesting video, while feeling like it was made by a major Fox News fan, does have facts correct around MSA actions. Again, we see the anti-Semitic nature of MSAs. (Side note: blind support for Israel is a common position of fundamentalist Christians, as they believe the complete re-establishment of the Jewish state and the reconstruction of Solomon's Temple will bring about the beginning of the end times--an eschatological wish that Christianity is in love with.) With that said, more can been read in this article from the right-wing discoverthenetworks.org's stub for MSAs. While infowars-level-crazy, this stub is accurate, well cited, and decently thorough.
This is important to bring up with the recent outcry from Yale's MSA over the invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. MSA board member Abrar Omeish did the usual "Islamophobe!" dance around the invitation, also claiming that Ayaan Hirsi Ali "lacked credentials" to speak about Islam. As we recall, Hirsi Ali has a PhD in Islamic studies, but views Islam as a "nihilistic death cult"--a common view among the atheist community, as well. Notable was the degree which group think exists on campus when a total of 35 groups signed the MSA's letter condemning the invitation. Group think triggers include: *it's not free speech, it's hate speech!*, the confusion between "hateful" and "critical" (which is so often lost on those the statement is critical of), and feigning victimhood as a way of drawing attention away from justified criticism.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Post 6
Ray Rice punches his fiancee in an elevator, knocking her out, then awkwardly drags her out of the elevator. Why? MISOGYNY! No, really.
Let me get this straight. Ray Rice, who has a criminal record containing only 1 crime--that of aggravated assault III--occurring 6 months ago, which were later dropped, who was disciplined by his employer 3 months ago, who went on to marry the victim of his assault, and is part of a league where players like 49ers' Ray McDonald (felony domestic assault), Rams' Jo-Lonn Dunbar (assault), and Panther's Greg Hardy (two counts misdemeanor assault) all actively players, and the final decision is to vilify and destroy a man's career and image because he struck his then-fiancee--after she struck him no less than 2 times!--once.
That's right. Once. You hit a woman once, you might not go to jail, but it'll be considered "just" to have your life destroyed. Your image tarnished. Even if you perfectly follow court orders and still throw a lavish wedding.
Yup. That's where we're at. That's the misogyny. An adult man who agrees to successfully complete court supervised anger management courses (something that is only offered to first time offenders) in exchange for the dropping of his third degree assault charge and engages into the program can still suffer a form of double-jeopardy in the public's eye. Never mind the dozens of active players that have domestic assault chargers (which stand today; some of them multiple) who did not have a video released about their particular incidents. What is NFL commissioner going to do about those men who did something, at least in the eyes of the justice system, far worse than Mr. Rice? Is he going to encourage teams to cut contracts to open the door for indefinite suspensions? No. He isn't. And it's nothing to do with 'misogyny' as to why.
Events such as Mr. Rice's are PR nightmares. It's impossible to maintain and image of integrity when your product producers act in idiotic ways. This includes mouthing off police officers during a DUI traffic stop, fighting bouncers at strip clubs, hitting girlfriends/wives/children, and possessing stock piles of drugs. Rare opportunities, however, arise that allows the NFL to scapegoat a player. Consider it a yearly sacrifice. Who doesn't remember Michael Vick's troubles? Where is he now? Back in the NFL making a paycheque. What about Claude Terrell? Well, at a similar time as Vick was the whipping boy for the unruly NFL, Terrell was busy beating his wife. Yeah, that's right, not just one punch! It's clear, however, that his crime was worse, as he was charged and never played again in the NFL. But did you hear about it?
Here's some fun news: there were lots from around Vick's sacrificing. Rollingstone has an article on it! The important note is how quiet each of these events became when a singular event can be raised to prominence. It eclipses all other events, effectively doing damage control. Think about it like this: a man comes into the emergency room riddled with stab wounds. Most of which are severe. One has lacerated his femoral artery. As an attending, your focus is going to be on the one that is doing the most bleeding, thus you move to manage the femoral laceration. Once complete, you don't start celebrating your success as an ER doc while leaving all other wounds untreated, though! That's the NFL's method here.
McDonald (SF), Branch (BUF), Bell (PIT), Blount (PIT), Blackmon (JAX), Dunbar (STL), Johnson (PHI), and Gordon (BAL): all names of players who have been arrested since July 1, 2014. There were snippets, sure. But there wasn't a video released on the same day as the NFL Week 1's Monday Night Football. The list is much, much larger, though. UT San Diego has that long, long list.
UT San Diego also has an article claiming "we" (people? men? women? Americans? sports fans?) "only care about domestic violence when we see it." Sure, and what I saw was a woman striking a man a few times and him only striking her once. Where's the cry about domestic violence going both ways? Why must "we" only vilify the man when we see domestic violence? Anyways, if that were true, then the justice system wouldn't care if a woman reported domestic violence. "Your husband hit you? Yeah, that's all well in good that you say that, but if we didn't see it, then you're kind of shit outta luck then, eh?" IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
I don't see misogyny in this. I see hyperfeminism that has infected the due process of men to ensure they continue to receive harsher sentences than women. I see the hyperfeminism infection that has convinced people to take up the SJW cause to use events like this to further their fascism. I see a rot that tries to take extra swings after the final bell has rung. And then I see these fascists claim they are oppressed and this is the only way to fix it. I say... bullshit.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Let me get this straight. Ray Rice, who has a criminal record containing only 1 crime--that of aggravated assault III--occurring 6 months ago, which were later dropped, who was disciplined by his employer 3 months ago, who went on to marry the victim of his assault, and is part of a league where players like 49ers' Ray McDonald (felony domestic assault), Rams' Jo-Lonn Dunbar (assault), and Panther's Greg Hardy (two counts misdemeanor assault) all actively players, and the final decision is to vilify and destroy a man's career and image because he struck his then-fiancee--after she struck him no less than 2 times!--once.
That's right. Once. You hit a woman once, you might not go to jail, but it'll be considered "just" to have your life destroyed. Your image tarnished. Even if you perfectly follow court orders and still throw a lavish wedding.
Yup. That's where we're at. That's the misogyny. An adult man who agrees to successfully complete court supervised anger management courses (something that is only offered to first time offenders) in exchange for the dropping of his third degree assault charge and engages into the program can still suffer a form of double-jeopardy in the public's eye. Never mind the dozens of active players that have domestic assault chargers (which stand today; some of them multiple) who did not have a video released about their particular incidents. What is NFL commissioner going to do about those men who did something, at least in the eyes of the justice system, far worse than Mr. Rice? Is he going to encourage teams to cut contracts to open the door for indefinite suspensions? No. He isn't. And it's nothing to do with 'misogyny' as to why.
Events such as Mr. Rice's are PR nightmares. It's impossible to maintain and image of integrity when your product producers act in idiotic ways. This includes mouthing off police officers during a DUI traffic stop, fighting bouncers at strip clubs, hitting girlfriends/wives/children, and possessing stock piles of drugs. Rare opportunities, however, arise that allows the NFL to scapegoat a player. Consider it a yearly sacrifice. Who doesn't remember Michael Vick's troubles? Where is he now? Back in the NFL making a paycheque. What about Claude Terrell? Well, at a similar time as Vick was the whipping boy for the unruly NFL, Terrell was busy beating his wife. Yeah, that's right, not just one punch! It's clear, however, that his crime was worse, as he was charged and never played again in the NFL. But did you hear about it?
Here's some fun news: there were lots from around Vick's sacrificing. Rollingstone has an article on it! The important note is how quiet each of these events became when a singular event can be raised to prominence. It eclipses all other events, effectively doing damage control. Think about it like this: a man comes into the emergency room riddled with stab wounds. Most of which are severe. One has lacerated his femoral artery. As an attending, your focus is going to be on the one that is doing the most bleeding, thus you move to manage the femoral laceration. Once complete, you don't start celebrating your success as an ER doc while leaving all other wounds untreated, though! That's the NFL's method here.
McDonald (SF), Branch (BUF), Bell (PIT), Blount (PIT), Blackmon (JAX), Dunbar (STL), Johnson (PHI), and Gordon (BAL): all names of players who have been arrested since July 1, 2014. There were snippets, sure. But there wasn't a video released on the same day as the NFL Week 1's Monday Night Football. The list is much, much larger, though. UT San Diego has that long, long list.
UT San Diego also has an article claiming "we" (people? men? women? Americans? sports fans?) "only care about domestic violence when we see it." Sure, and what I saw was a woman striking a man a few times and him only striking her once. Where's the cry about domestic violence going both ways? Why must "we" only vilify the man when we see domestic violence? Anyways, if that were true, then the justice system wouldn't care if a woman reported domestic violence. "Your husband hit you? Yeah, that's all well in good that you say that, but if we didn't see it, then you're kind of shit outta luck then, eh?" IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
I don't see misogyny in this. I see hyperfeminism that has infected the due process of men to ensure they continue to receive harsher sentences than women. I see the hyperfeminism infection that has convinced people to take up the SJW cause to use events like this to further their fascism. I see a rot that tries to take extra swings after the final bell has rung. And then I see these fascists claim they are oppressed and this is the only way to fix it. I say... bullshit.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Monday, September 8, 2014
Post 5
The Fappening. Where private images on the cloud were "taken" (more like copied) and spread about the internet. The response is entirely what is expected: happy jokes about how the women missed their calling into the erotic film industry--oh wait, no, that was what happened with NBA player Greg Oden had his private nude images leaked. Women writers, talk show hosts, and bloggers joked about the size of Oden's penis and remarked he had a "solid" fall back career (as a perennially injured player, not a bad idea to be thinking ahead, Oden!).
No. It was immediately taken as sexist. As violence. As slut shaming. How can it be any of those things?! Honestly, look at what you have for facts: individuals store pictures in the cloud continually. Someone reasons out that people take pictures with their phones. At times, some of those photos are nudes. Our phones really are these small and private devices which we think no one else will look at, as if it is some unwritten commandment. Anyways, it doesn't take much longer to find some database which contains user information and then go from there. As I understand, it was the cloud itself that was hacked, but a third party device which had authenticated access to the cloud, making it a far easier task than hacking the cloud itself.
Next, the hacker reasons that of all the nude photos on the cloud there are a few particular iPhone users who would likely seek a decent price from tabloids. In effect, the person or persons who managed to access these photos were probably not Robin Hoods, looking to give back to the internet as a whole. There is a money to be made from these pictures, and he/she/they very likely did. Not only did the hacker(s) make money, consider the massive amount of traffic generated on sites like 4chan, reddit, TMZ, CNN, etc.
Back to the sexism part of this. Is it violence against women to share nude photos of them? Well, let's break that last sentence down: "It is wrong to share nude photos?", now add "without permission". The simple answer is yes, it is wrong to share nude photos of someone who did not give you permission to do so. Notice how there is no reference to gender in there. You can conclude it is equally wrong to share nudes of males as it is of females if no permission was granted to do so. Let's expand this further: "Is it violence to share nude photos without permission?" This is a more complex question, as we must consider what violence entails. The top definitions from a variety of sources state that violence is the use of a physical force to do harm. If we use that definition, then the answer is no, it is not violence to share nude photos of someone who did not give you permission. However, violence can also include a great destructive energy. This makes the answer less clear, but I still feel the answer is a no. Again, I never referenced gender in my question! So how does gender suddenly change the trajectories of the answers?
If sharing Oden's nudes was not considered violence, how can it be considered violence when a nude picture of Jennifer Lawrence is shared? After all, she comes across as a (mostly) well adjusted woman who is possess her own agency. Certain people and much of the media will use her pictures mostly to generate site traffic. That does not harm her directly. If you believe in "all publicity is good publicity" then this will only help Lawrence's career. Moreover, she's now in a position where she can more easily move ahead with a topless scene, knowing that she's not sacrificing something about herself. It has expanded her abilities as an actor! Or it hasn't, and she'll continue to use her own agency to choose to not take roles/do scenes which require her to be topless.
How does violence come into this? Is it done because there are people out there claiming there is "slut shaming" taking place? Who are these people?! Stefanie Williams of HuffPo says it best: "I challenge all who would call Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Kirsten Dunst and whomever else's photos got leaked a whore, to show me your phones." It's a simple request. If taking nude pictures of yourself or having an intimate partner of yours take a nude picture of you is slut shaming, then we're a big nation of sluts! Which is exactly what the two groups in this country believe: the ultra-conservatives (but who cares about them in relation to this?) and the neo-feminists which have concocted a world which there is a fake misogyny that exists to slut shame. Not that some men don't do that, and you'll often find them in the former of those two lists, but to assume there is a only one male view on this is ludicrous. There is no slut shaming for women--or men!--who take nude pictures of themselves, only people who respond to these events with a tragically biased opinion (born out of a delusion) who claim that maybe someone thinks this, attributes it to the whole, and then makes the greater claim.
Look, it's the same thing I've said before: if there was misogyny, there would be no privacy for women. There would be no scandal when nude pictures get leaked, because it would be the normal operation for men controlling these data storage centers to take what they wanted from women whose pictures end up these servers. These women would have no recourse to have images removed. The only misogyny that exists in this, is that which is falsely claimed by the neo-feminists.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
No. It was immediately taken as sexist. As violence. As slut shaming. How can it be any of those things?! Honestly, look at what you have for facts: individuals store pictures in the cloud continually. Someone reasons out that people take pictures with their phones. At times, some of those photos are nudes. Our phones really are these small and private devices which we think no one else will look at, as if it is some unwritten commandment. Anyways, it doesn't take much longer to find some database which contains user information and then go from there. As I understand, it was the cloud itself that was hacked, but a third party device which had authenticated access to the cloud, making it a far easier task than hacking the cloud itself.
Next, the hacker reasons that of all the nude photos on the cloud there are a few particular iPhone users who would likely seek a decent price from tabloids. In effect, the person or persons who managed to access these photos were probably not Robin Hoods, looking to give back to the internet as a whole. There is a money to be made from these pictures, and he/she/they very likely did. Not only did the hacker(s) make money, consider the massive amount of traffic generated on sites like 4chan, reddit, TMZ, CNN, etc.
Back to the sexism part of this. Is it violence against women to share nude photos of them? Well, let's break that last sentence down: "It is wrong to share nude photos?", now add "without permission". The simple answer is yes, it is wrong to share nude photos of someone who did not give you permission to do so. Notice how there is no reference to gender in there. You can conclude it is equally wrong to share nudes of males as it is of females if no permission was granted to do so. Let's expand this further: "Is it violence to share nude photos without permission?" This is a more complex question, as we must consider what violence entails. The top definitions from a variety of sources state that violence is the use of a physical force to do harm. If we use that definition, then the answer is no, it is not violence to share nude photos of someone who did not give you permission. However, violence can also include a great destructive energy. This makes the answer less clear, but I still feel the answer is a no. Again, I never referenced gender in my question! So how does gender suddenly change the trajectories of the answers?
If sharing Oden's nudes was not considered violence, how can it be considered violence when a nude picture of Jennifer Lawrence is shared? After all, she comes across as a (mostly) well adjusted woman who is possess her own agency. Certain people and much of the media will use her pictures mostly to generate site traffic. That does not harm her directly. If you believe in "all publicity is good publicity" then this will only help Lawrence's career. Moreover, she's now in a position where she can more easily move ahead with a topless scene, knowing that she's not sacrificing something about herself. It has expanded her abilities as an actor! Or it hasn't, and she'll continue to use her own agency to choose to not take roles/do scenes which require her to be topless.
How does violence come into this? Is it done because there are people out there claiming there is "slut shaming" taking place? Who are these people?! Stefanie Williams of HuffPo says it best: "I challenge all who would call Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Kirsten Dunst and whomever else's photos got leaked a whore, to show me your phones." It's a simple request. If taking nude pictures of yourself or having an intimate partner of yours take a nude picture of you is slut shaming, then we're a big nation of sluts! Which is exactly what the two groups in this country believe: the ultra-conservatives (but who cares about them in relation to this?) and the neo-feminists which have concocted a world which there is a fake misogyny that exists to slut shame. Not that some men don't do that, and you'll often find them in the former of those two lists, but to assume there is a only one male view on this is ludicrous. There is no slut shaming for women--or men!--who take nude pictures of themselves, only people who respond to these events with a tragically biased opinion (born out of a delusion) who claim that maybe someone thinks this, attributes it to the whole, and then makes the greater claim.
Look, it's the same thing I've said before: if there was misogyny, there would be no privacy for women. There would be no scandal when nude pictures get leaked, because it would be the normal operation for men controlling these data storage centers to take what they wanted from women whose pictures end up these servers. These women would have no recourse to have images removed. The only misogyny that exists in this, is that which is falsely claimed by the neo-feminists.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Post 4
Do women need role models? More specifically, do women need female role models? That is, should we see more women in the oil fields, driving long haul truck, resurfacing roads, picking up the garbage, or porting patients around hospitals? The fact is, role models occur in a vacuum. Thus, one should always look up to astronauts! Alright, back to reality: the use of role models is only effective in the minds of the lost or unformed: children, sheep, and the gullible. It's an effort to avoid responsibility for one's choices when one immediately defers to the actions of another as justification for their own actions. It's a sign of immaturity that requires a firm response, not a soft, placating voice that kindly coos "it's okay."
It's not fucking okay. When you fuck up then it is on you*. Take responsibility! Here's what happens when you fuck up: you take responsibility or you refuse to take responsibility. Either way, you, as a human being, will get better at either. One, however, is significantly better for you. You can avoid responsibility until life forces you to take responsibility, and how prepared will you be for it? It's simple. It comes down to honesty. Taking responsibility makes you a noble person. A desirable friend. A good person. Take responsibility, learn to handle the consequences, and appreciate yourself for telling the truth over saving yourself embarrassment. It's a tough choice, but the right choice. When a role model fucks up, what do they get to do? Celebrity allows one to avoid responsibility (e.g., Justin Beiber) with fame and money. It's not being a good role model. So, having men as bad role models is not enough to convince feminists that role models are bad. No! They want female role models. For what? To disappoint (mostly) young girls and lost neofeminists in college?
Blaze your own path. Go fail on your own and learn from those mistakes. Take on the world and challenge people on their statements. If they do not have the logical consistency to back up their claim, call them out on it. Know your data. Make sure your data is valid and reliable. Use it to debunk others. Do not let bullshit sit and fester to the point that on one notices the smell. You'll be mocked, decried, and shunned by others. Who's left? Well, good friends that appreciate you for your methods and process and not your view. Also, it's the internet age: get good friends. You will find them for the same reason. It's a great feeling.
That coming from someone who has lost friends for his views, not for his process.
----
Women claim sexism when they are asked if they have a boyfriend/partner, receive a "cat call", are "eyed up" when they wear highly revealing clothing, (are asked out for coffee,) and are grabbed in public spaced. How much of this is honest reporting? None of it. That's not to say these things do not occur, rather, it is up to the individual to manage their own emotions. Well, that's not an easy point to hash out. If a woman is (sexually) assaulted on the street, is this sexism or assault by an opportunist man? If sexism existed to the extent third wave feminists claim, a man grabbing a woman's breast or buttocks, the police or entire justice system would make no effort--zero, none--to follow up on the assault. If a woman is sexually assault on the street out front of a bank, getting on a subway, or on a bus, then there was a camera present that will prove the assault and result in justice for the assault. The act in of itself is not sexism--it is the state/community's response to the incident which is indicative of the level of sexism.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
It's not fucking okay. When you fuck up then it is on you*. Take responsibility! Here's what happens when you fuck up: you take responsibility or you refuse to take responsibility. Either way, you, as a human being, will get better at either. One, however, is significantly better for you. You can avoid responsibility until life forces you to take responsibility, and how prepared will you be for it? It's simple. It comes down to honesty. Taking responsibility makes you a noble person. A desirable friend. A good person. Take responsibility, learn to handle the consequences, and appreciate yourself for telling the truth over saving yourself embarrassment. It's a tough choice, but the right choice. When a role model fucks up, what do they get to do? Celebrity allows one to avoid responsibility (e.g., Justin Beiber) with fame and money. It's not being a good role model. So, having men as bad role models is not enough to convince feminists that role models are bad. No! They want female role models. For what? To disappoint (mostly) young girls and lost neofeminists in college?
Blaze your own path. Go fail on your own and learn from those mistakes. Take on the world and challenge people on their statements. If they do not have the logical consistency to back up their claim, call them out on it. Know your data. Make sure your data is valid and reliable. Use it to debunk others. Do not let bullshit sit and fester to the point that on one notices the smell. You'll be mocked, decried, and shunned by others. Who's left? Well, good friends that appreciate you for your methods and process and not your view. Also, it's the internet age: get good friends. You will find them for the same reason. It's a great feeling.
That coming from someone who has lost friends for his views, not for his process.
----
Women claim sexism when they are asked if they have a boyfriend/partner, receive a "cat call", are "eyed up" when they wear highly revealing clothing, (are asked out for coffee,) and are grabbed in public spaced. How much of this is honest reporting? None of it. That's not to say these things do not occur, rather, it is up to the individual to manage their own emotions. Well, that's not an easy point to hash out. If a woman is (sexually) assaulted on the street, is this sexism or assault by an opportunist man? If sexism existed to the extent third wave feminists claim, a man grabbing a woman's breast or buttocks, the police or entire justice system would make no effort--zero, none--to follow up on the assault. If a woman is sexually assault on the street out front of a bank, getting on a subway, or on a bus, then there was a camera present that will prove the assault and result in justice for the assault. The act in of itself is not sexism--it is the state/community's response to the incident which is indicative of the level of sexism.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Post 3
Why is verbal consent required when engaging in sexual intimacy with a partner? Why does one have to clearly say "yes" on every step of the way? Let's be honest, though: a man would not likely have the same rigorous commitment to responding "yes" to the collection of queries brought to him along each step of the sexual dance. Another issue is around lust and the desire gained out of taking without having explicit permission. Not to be confused with denied permission (the clearly stated "no" along with appropriate body language). That is, when in foreplay, not asking:
"Can I take off your pants?" (response)"Can I touch your mons pubis?" (response)"Can I remove your lingerie?" (response)"Can I stroke your uncovered labia?" (response)*inserts finger to perform digital stimulation* (NO RESPONSE; RAPE!)
When laid out in a manner that makes it appear as a man acting upon a woman, it barely survives some sexist scrutiny. Is it only men who do the acting on women? Why are these consent laws, such as California Senate Bill 967, mostly framed as a way to protect women by requiring their partners to achieve consent--the clearly stated 'yes'--for the sexual actions the partners desire to engage in? Looking at the small list of questions that I put above, along with this quote from Gloria Steinem and Michael Kimmel's September 4, 2014 NYT article: "While doomsayers lamented that the new rules would destroy the mystery of campus sex, the students took it in stride. Instead of, “Do you want to have sex?” they simply asked, “Do you want to implement the policy?”, really makes it seem like passion is a logical endeavor that people partake in.
Unfortunately, passion and logic do not go together well. It's fine to have the discussion and talk about how explicit "yes" consent on each step up the sexual jungle gym would be grand, but it's similar to talking about how you would act when faced with a gunman who is brandishing a gun at your face. Sure, when drinking whisky with the boys, a guy might come up with an elaborate plan involving physically over-powering the gunman using agility, strength, and tactical know-how, but would that be honestly translatable to what would actually happen when faced with such a situation?
I look at the list of questions and the irony of calling it "implementing the policy" and think about it as a simple program, involving many simple puts and gets to continue along a if/then loop.
Remember, though, that "no" can mean "yes". Mehrabian's theory is that most of our communicative language is done through non-verbal body language (e.g., degree of eye contact, openness of shoulders and arms).
Congruency is important to conveying a message. However, consider a slightly intoxicated freshman couple in the first week of classes:
Both have drank to the same blood alcohol level. Both have expressed a desire for sex that night. They both go to their desired dorm room, arms around one and other, kissing and fondling. There has been no explicit "yes" on grabbing her ass or breasts, but this does not bother the girl; conversely, there hasn't been an explicit "yes" from the male on the topics of stroking his genitals through his clothes. Now, the couple is naked. The male is standing in the room wearing only a condom. The female is on the bed, laying on her back, legs spread open and knees up. She is gently biting her left index finger as she coyly smiles. Her eye contact is constant. She is lightly moving her knees to and fro. The male approaches. Bending down he crawls on the bed, hand walking himself up to meet her lips. The male, filled with the passion in his voice, asks, "do you want me?", while the female is pushing her hips upwards to have their genitals press together. The female responds sternly, "no."
What now?! Maybe in text the subtly of the moment is lost. There is no way to sense the irony in the moment. You have a verbal message (7% + 38% = 45%) that, if hear from the other side of the dorm room door, would be a clear, concise rejection of the permission to engage in sex. But that's only 45% of the communication! The other 55% (the majority) is clearly indicating that she wants to have sex: allowing him to kiss her, eye contact, smiling, touching of the genitals, grinding of the hips on his penis. There is a lot to be said about this situation. It comes back to the gunman problem: we can claim we know how we'd best the goon, but could we do it in practice? The "no" offered here could be one of jest; after all, in her mind, she might clearly know that her non-verbal communication is speaking (so to speak) far louder than her facetious response.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
"Can I take off your pants?" (response)"Can I touch your mons pubis?" (response)"Can I remove your lingerie?" (response)"Can I stroke your uncovered labia?" (response)*inserts finger to perform digital stimulation* (NO RESPONSE; RAPE!)
When laid out in a manner that makes it appear as a man acting upon a woman, it barely survives some sexist scrutiny. Is it only men who do the acting on women? Why are these consent laws, such as California Senate Bill 967, mostly framed as a way to protect women by requiring their partners to achieve consent--the clearly stated 'yes'--for the sexual actions the partners desire to engage in? Looking at the small list of questions that I put above, along with this quote from Gloria Steinem and Michael Kimmel's September 4, 2014 NYT article: "While doomsayers lamented that the new rules would destroy the mystery of campus sex, the students took it in stride. Instead of, “Do you want to have sex?” they simply asked, “Do you want to implement the policy?”, really makes it seem like passion is a logical endeavor that people partake in.
Unfortunately, passion and logic do not go together well. It's fine to have the discussion and talk about how explicit "yes" consent on each step up the sexual jungle gym would be grand, but it's similar to talking about how you would act when faced with a gunman who is brandishing a gun at your face. Sure, when drinking whisky with the boys, a guy might come up with an elaborate plan involving physically over-powering the gunman using agility, strength, and tactical know-how, but would that be honestly translatable to what would actually happen when faced with such a situation?
I look at the list of questions and the irony of calling it "implementing the policy" and think about it as a simple program, involving many simple puts and gets to continue along a if/then loop.
Remember, though, that "no" can mean "yes". Mehrabian's theory is that most of our communicative language is done through non-verbal body language (e.g., degree of eye contact, openness of shoulders and arms).
According to Mehrabian,[1] the three elements account differently for our liking for the person who puts forward a message concerning their feelings: words account for 7%, tone of voice accounts for 38%, and body language accounts for 55% of the liking. For effective and meaningful communication about emotions, these three parts of the message need to support each other - they have to be "congruent". In case of any incongruence, the receiver of the message might be irritated by two messages coming from two different channels, giving cues in two different directions.
Congruency is important to conveying a message. However, consider a slightly intoxicated freshman couple in the first week of classes:
Both have drank to the same blood alcohol level. Both have expressed a desire for sex that night. They both go to their desired dorm room, arms around one and other, kissing and fondling. There has been no explicit "yes" on grabbing her ass or breasts, but this does not bother the girl; conversely, there hasn't been an explicit "yes" from the male on the topics of stroking his genitals through his clothes. Now, the couple is naked. The male is standing in the room wearing only a condom. The female is on the bed, laying on her back, legs spread open and knees up. She is gently biting her left index finger as she coyly smiles. Her eye contact is constant. She is lightly moving her knees to and fro. The male approaches. Bending down he crawls on the bed, hand walking himself up to meet her lips. The male, filled with the passion in his voice, asks, "do you want me?", while the female is pushing her hips upwards to have their genitals press together. The female responds sternly, "no."
What now?! Maybe in text the subtly of the moment is lost. There is no way to sense the irony in the moment. You have a verbal message (7% + 38% = 45%) that, if hear from the other side of the dorm room door, would be a clear, concise rejection of the permission to engage in sex. But that's only 45% of the communication! The other 55% (the majority) is clearly indicating that she wants to have sex: allowing him to kiss her, eye contact, smiling, touching of the genitals, grinding of the hips on his penis. There is a lot to be said about this situation. It comes back to the gunman problem: we can claim we know how we'd best the goon, but could we do it in practice? The "no" offered here could be one of jest; after all, in her mind, she might clearly know that her non-verbal communication is speaking (so to speak) far louder than her facetious response.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Post 2
Why are white knights bad?
White knights are bad in the same way as missionaries going to far off lands are bad: you're preaching a problem that doesn't exist. Going to a tribe of people who have no concept of a Christian god or his sacrificed son, telling them to believe or they are going to suffer an eternity of pain, is a way to either corrupt the people there or have yourself labeled an idiot.
White knights are only slightly different. They are not going off to far lands to spread the gospel. No, no, no! They are returning to familiar lands where the old gospel has died and they are looking for battles to wage over it again. They are looking for damsels to save where there are none. Damsels that are no longer damsels but women. Women who have their own agency, their own rights, and their own paths to take in life. Women no longer need a white knight to show up and save them from their place or themselves. Yet, white knights exist... why? Why is it that the knights still travel looking for someone to save?
The new feminism is why. White knights now have a new standard to carry into battle. New feminism has women as the rulers, using the white knights to do their battles. New feminism needs only swoon and cry oppression for the army of white knights to arrive. As soon as the knights have left the ivory tower, the damsels return to their thrones. White knights are being used. Chivalry is dead and feminism killed it.
Links to a variety of views as to why one can say that chivalry is dead and that feminism is to blame:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10648415/Chivalry-is-dead-and-feminism-is-to-blame.html
http://alphamom.com/parenting/has-feminism-killed-chivalry-and-good-old-fashioned-manners/
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/four-things-feminism-has-accidentally-ruined-20140227-33kob.html
http://elitedaily.com/dating/chivalry-dead-womans-perspective/
http://whitemaleoppressor.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/chivalry-is-dead-because-feminism-killed-it/
Debatable whether that's a bad thing or not. Focusing on the issue of chivalry alone, first and second wave feminism likely did kill it and it's not that terrible of a thing. The question I have now is whether or not we're teaching the right values to men when it comes to manners versus chivalry? Are we raising our boys to still be chivalrous, in a time when it's not needed, and seeing our boys fail to get ahead because they become exploited by opportunist females? Lofty questions that might take us down some paths some will be too scared to explore.
Back to white knights. White knights are the now the pawns in this game. New feminism needs something, so it banks on second way feminism: a woman can do it herself! So she does, but she isn't as far as she'd like. Let's take... Zoey Quinn and Depression Quest. She uses are body to get press. Nothing inherently wrong with that, it's her body, her ambition, and her choice. She gets press from game journalists for her game. People ask the journalists, "don't you think that's unethical?" Journalists deflect this question to framing it as a misogynist (sleeper cell call word!) front against Quinn. White knights amass and the Quinn battle standard, creating a thick wall between the people questioning the ethics of the journalists and the journalists themselves. Unnecessary conflict emerges, creating divisions where there needn't be any. The questions about ethics are lost in the melee of comments and replies, videos, blogs, counter-posts, and idiots with too large of a stage to handle spouting off.
Quinn's case is only an example. But look at the method: victimhood used as a way to gather support of white knights, even when there is no victimization present. (Now, that's not to say Quinn hasn't be the target of excessive slander and threats. It is important, however, to ask if playing the role of a victim after the threats has protected her from further attack from those people who look for weak targets of opportunity. There is evidence that such people exist, who do not care about the issue at hand, who look to only target weak people with slander and threats--the only gain is that of the excitement and enjoyment of doing it! Brings into question the validity of the threats being issued if they are done so because it's fun to issue threats and not because there's some end goal to be achieved if the threats are not persuasive enough.) These white knights will continue wandering around until they have a battle standard. What to do? Just like everything else in life, question it. Question their intentions, what they look to get out of the fight, what the know about the fight, what they know about the people they've been co-opted to fight with, and what would it take to change their minds.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
White knights are bad in the same way as missionaries going to far off lands are bad: you're preaching a problem that doesn't exist. Going to a tribe of people who have no concept of a Christian god or his sacrificed son, telling them to believe or they are going to suffer an eternity of pain, is a way to either corrupt the people there or have yourself labeled an idiot.
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'
Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'
Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
-Annie Dillard
White knights are only slightly different. They are not going off to far lands to spread the gospel. No, no, no! They are returning to familiar lands where the old gospel has died and they are looking for battles to wage over it again. They are looking for damsels to save where there are none. Damsels that are no longer damsels but women. Women who have their own agency, their own rights, and their own paths to take in life. Women no longer need a white knight to show up and save them from their place or themselves. Yet, white knights exist... why? Why is it that the knights still travel looking for someone to save?
The new feminism is why. White knights now have a new standard to carry into battle. New feminism has women as the rulers, using the white knights to do their battles. New feminism needs only swoon and cry oppression for the army of white knights to arrive. As soon as the knights have left the ivory tower, the damsels return to their thrones. White knights are being used. Chivalry is dead and feminism killed it.
Links to a variety of views as to why one can say that chivalry is dead and that feminism is to blame:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10648415/Chivalry-is-dead-and-feminism-is-to-blame.html
http://alphamom.com/parenting/has-feminism-killed-chivalry-and-good-old-fashioned-manners/
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/four-things-feminism-has-accidentally-ruined-20140227-33kob.html
http://elitedaily.com/dating/chivalry-dead-womans-perspective/
http://whitemaleoppressor.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/chivalry-is-dead-because-feminism-killed-it/
Debatable whether that's a bad thing or not. Focusing on the issue of chivalry alone, first and second wave feminism likely did kill it and it's not that terrible of a thing. The question I have now is whether or not we're teaching the right values to men when it comes to manners versus chivalry? Are we raising our boys to still be chivalrous, in a time when it's not needed, and seeing our boys fail to get ahead because they become exploited by opportunist females? Lofty questions that might take us down some paths some will be too scared to explore.
Back to white knights. White knights are the now the pawns in this game. New feminism needs something, so it banks on second way feminism: a woman can do it herself! So she does, but she isn't as far as she'd like. Let's take... Zoey Quinn and Depression Quest. She uses are body to get press. Nothing inherently wrong with that, it's her body, her ambition, and her choice. She gets press from game journalists for her game. People ask the journalists, "don't you think that's unethical?" Journalists deflect this question to framing it as a misogynist (sleeper cell call word!) front against Quinn. White knights amass and the Quinn battle standard, creating a thick wall between the people questioning the ethics of the journalists and the journalists themselves. Unnecessary conflict emerges, creating divisions where there needn't be any. The questions about ethics are lost in the melee of comments and replies, videos, blogs, counter-posts, and idiots with too large of a stage to handle spouting off.
Quinn's case is only an example. But look at the method: victimhood used as a way to gather support of white knights, even when there is no victimization present. (Now, that's not to say Quinn hasn't be the target of excessive slander and threats. It is important, however, to ask if playing the role of a victim after the threats has protected her from further attack from those people who look for weak targets of opportunity. There is evidence that such people exist, who do not care about the issue at hand, who look to only target weak people with slander and threats--the only gain is that of the excitement and enjoyment of doing it! Brings into question the validity of the threats being issued if they are done so because it's fun to issue threats and not because there's some end goal to be achieved if the threats are not persuasive enough.) These white knights will continue wandering around until they have a battle standard. What to do? Just like everything else in life, question it. Question their intentions, what they look to get out of the fight, what the know about the fight, what they know about the people they've been co-opted to fight with, and what would it take to change their minds.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Post 1
There is a mess on the internet over the problem with gaming culture. Social justice warriors claim that gaming culture grooms boys into misogynist men with continual depictions of women as background decoration, disposable characters, or plot advancers. This statement is made in a manner that eludes to this being the only case in gaming. It has since evolved into having a brand of heroine known as the "Fighting Fuck-Toy", in which she is the center of the story, the playable character, and is strikingly beautiful or sexy. Is there any truth to this? Are there no other games out there that have female characters who aren't "fighting fuck toys"?
Ideally, these thoughts will come into a more formed, laid out argument. Really.
In a vacuum, Quinn's Depression Quest might be an important, education game for people who have someone close to them suffering from depression. In a vacuum, Depression Quest would be played by people who are curious about the struggle that a depressed person undergoes on a daily basis. Again, all of this in a vacuum. The problem is two-fold with this not being in a vacuum: first, it's a game about depression. That miserable psychological state whereby one might lack motivation, be easy irritable, unable to sleep the correct amount (too much or too little), and be ahedonic (unable to find enjoyment in activities or things). People with depression do not want to be depressed but lack the choice to escape it so flippantly; why would someone who isn't depressed want to play a game where they are viewing the world from a depressed person's eyes? That does not sound enjoyable in any medium, be it games, movies, comics, or books. Second, and tying into the first, Depression Quest isn't a model that can make money. That's right, it is a bust. Greenlight isn't enough to get the game off the ground. The only way to make the game worth investing in is to make it free. Let's be honest, people would need to be paid to have to live as a depressed person for 20 minutes, not have to pay for such an experience.
That's the problem with Depression Quest. It isn't that it is made by Quinn. Where Quinn comes into this comes directly back to an attempt to resolve the two problems with Depression Quest outside of a vacuum. Games must be marketable, not just passive artistic works that people may stumble upon. Efforts must be made to put a game out onto platforms that have a significant user base (e.g., PlayStation, Steam). That's where Steam's Greenlight comes in: support an indie game enough and Steam will put it on sale on their store, possibley put the game into a featured highlight, give it deals during the correct season, and other little perks. Here's a snippet right from Steam's Greenlight about page:
Ideally, these thoughts will come into a more formed, laid out argument. Really.
In a vacuum, Quinn's Depression Quest might be an important, education game for people who have someone close to them suffering from depression. In a vacuum, Depression Quest would be played by people who are curious about the struggle that a depressed person undergoes on a daily basis. Again, all of this in a vacuum. The problem is two-fold with this not being in a vacuum: first, it's a game about depression. That miserable psychological state whereby one might lack motivation, be easy irritable, unable to sleep the correct amount (too much or too little), and be ahedonic (unable to find enjoyment in activities or things). People with depression do not want to be depressed but lack the choice to escape it so flippantly; why would someone who isn't depressed want to play a game where they are viewing the world from a depressed person's eyes? That does not sound enjoyable in any medium, be it games, movies, comics, or books. Second, and tying into the first, Depression Quest isn't a model that can make money. That's right, it is a bust. Greenlight isn't enough to get the game off the ground. The only way to make the game worth investing in is to make it free. Let's be honest, people would need to be paid to have to live as a depressed person for 20 minutes, not have to pay for such an experience.
That's the problem with Depression Quest. It isn't that it is made by Quinn. Where Quinn comes into this comes directly back to an attempt to resolve the two problems with Depression Quest outside of a vacuum. Games must be marketable, not just passive artistic works that people may stumble upon. Efforts must be made to put a game out onto platforms that have a significant user base (e.g., PlayStation, Steam). That's where Steam's Greenlight comes in: support an indie game enough and Steam will put it on sale on their store, possibley put the game into a featured highlight, give it deals during the correct season, and other little perks. Here's a snippet right from Steam's Greenlight about page:
"There's a game on Steam Greenlight that I really want to see succeed. What can I do?
Go tell your friends; just don't be annoying about it."
I guess sleeping with journalists in what appears to be an exchange of physical intimacy for positive review articles on high traffic gaming review sites is the fastest way to build support behind getting a piece of work moved from obscurity to the bright lights of Steam's Greenlight. But is that wrong of Quinn to do? Should Quinn be willing to exchange her body for such a review? Feminists claim it is the natural misogyny of the gaming culture that requires someone like Quinn to give up her body to get ahead in a male-dominated scene. Humanists, like myself, don't give a shit if she does that--it's her body! She can do whatever she wants with it, including use it to convince others to agree with her. If she made a conscious, non-coerced choice to do so, then why judge her for doing it? Feminists cannot claim she was coerced into this choice because of some vague theory about the misogyny in the world without stripping her of her agency--which, in turn, is the same agency that feminists are using to create this claim!
The cruel light of this is not to be centered on Quinn. She's merely one of many actors in this mess. It's the same mess that we see in politics. Don't know what I mean? Go watch Netflix's House of Cards and see the relationship between Spacey's and Mara's characters. The difference is that the journalists are not the ones engaging in the sex for the story. It's completely opposite. But a trade is being made in both instances. Quinn gets her story a thousand-fold. She gets the articles and she gets the attention from the backlash. Grand guerrilla marketing. Something someone with a communications degree might make up! No, the focus is on the gaming journalists. Gaming journalists who are attempting to deflect the story onto Quinn so they may claim misogyny and avoid the scrutiny for their actions in this. No, we must look at how journalists are corrupted by the industry itself, how SJWs are able to manipulate journalists and the industry--which the industry then goes on to pressure developers and journalists.
It's not about Quinn. Do not be distracted. It's about the journalists and the infection that is the social justice movement. It comes across as a big sleeper cell which is activated as soon as someone uses the word "misogynist!".
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)