Gamer Girl Jayd3Fox Bullied off web by Feminist

Darkmantle

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,031
0
0
AkaDad said:
carnex said:
AkaDad said:
That's the thing about equality, it doesn't have different meanings. Equal is equal. Men and women getting paid the same for the same job. Straight and gay marriage, and so forth.
Not to be rude but I do have one important fact to state here.

There are at least 3 ways to view equality when it comes to genders. And that is simpler case since we predominantly deal with binary division (based either on gender or sex).

Equality of opportunity
Equality of chance
Equality of results

First states standard and whoever satisfies the standard, is OK. Second sets different standards based of averages of different groups to give equal chances of participation and third doesn't care about standards but equal participation. I think you can see yourself how these are fundamentally different.
Equality

noun, plural equalities.
1.the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.


Why don't you give examples of what you're talking about.
What is your metric for determining when we have reached Equality Aka? What is the end game of equality with your definition, basically, how will we determine that the genders are equal?
 

carnex

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
21
AkaDad said:
carnex said:
AkaDad said:
That's the thing about equality, it doesn't have different meanings. Equal is equal. Men and women getting paid the same for the same job. Straight and gay marriage, and so forth.
Not to be rude but I do have one important fact to state here.

There are at least 3 ways to view equality when it comes to genders. And that is simpler case since we predominantly deal with binary division (based either on gender or sex).

Equality of opportunity
Equality of chance
Equality of results

First states standard and whoever satisfies the standard, is OK. Second sets different standards based of averages of different groups to give equal chances of participation and third doesn't care about standards but equal participation. I think you can see yourself how these are fundamentally different.
Equality

noun, plural equalities.
1.the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.


Why don't you give examples of what you're talking about.
Since you take passive aggressive stance that whenever you state something it's not your to prove anything ot clear the meaning of any statement i will stop being cooperative.

Also that is philosophical argument it doesn't really need example even if there are examples of all three approaches in real world.

So let me ask you a counter question to try to start your mental cogs turning. When employer is looking to hire new employee is he free to hire best person for the job or does he have to adjust qualifications by some additional metrics or he has to keep quota of groups of employees regardless of other factors?
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
When women and men get paid equally for the same job. When straights and gays can marry. When whites and non-whites serve the same jail sentences for the same crimes. You know, when people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, and sexual orientation.

I'd also like to see our representatives in Congress actually represent the demographics of the population.
 

carnex

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
21
AkaDad said:
When women and men get paid equally for the same job. When straights and gays can marry. When whites and non-whites serve the same jail sentences for the same crimes. You know, when people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, and sexual orientation.

I'd also like to see our representatives in Congress actually represent the demographics of the population.
The first is part is all rather nice, but I would be more specific. I would say equal pay per unit of work for same job, equal punishment for same transgression under same or significantly similar circumstances etc. It does not fall under any of three categories I mentioned, as those are basic human rights the way I see them.

Second is wish for result. That can easily be achieved by Equality of Outcome but is that what you really want or you want more women to successfully go through all the steps proving that they are worthy of congress thus getting more of them into congress? Totally different approaches.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
carnex said:
AkaDad said:
When women and men get paid equally for the same job. When straights and gays can marry. When whites and non-whites serve the same jail sentences for the same crimes. You know, when people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, and sexual orientation.

I'd also like to see our representatives in Congress actually represent the demographics of the population.
The first is part is all rather nice, but I would be more specific. I would say equal pay per unit of work for same job, equal punishment for same transgression under same or significantly similar circumstances etc. It does not fall under any of three categories I mentioned, as those are basic human rights the way I see them.

Second is wish for result. That can easily be achieved by Equality of Outcome but is that what you really want or you want more women to successfully go through all the steps proving that they are worthy of congress thus getting more of them into congress? Totally different approaches.
Yes, basic human rights. I've been arguing equality all along so yes, run for congress like men do. Nobody I know is arguing otherwise.
 

carnex

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
21
AkaDad said:
Yes, basic human rights. I've been arguing equality all along so yes, run for congress like men do. Nobody I know is arguing otherwise.
You still have to define equality. Never forget that same data can be statistically shown to prove completely opposing claims. Like that females earn 77 cents per male's dollar earned but also can be shown that they are payed exactly equally and that in IT industry females are actually paid percentage or two more.

NeverSoGrandiose said:
This is just about the lowest bar imaginable, don't you think?

I mean, we had a congressman express the worry that Guam might capsize if there were too many people on it.

EDIT: To add video and correct some misremembered details
Humans are not exactly known for their collective intelligence. While individually we can be brilliant collectively we are utter morons. How do you call opposite to collective intelligence organism?
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
AkaDad said:
Netrigan said:
AkaDad said:
I think anti-feminist women are precious. They don't even make me mad. It's so absurd I just have to laugh. They remind me of gay Republicans who vote for the politicians who think their an abomination and should be treated like second-class citizens.
I'm bisexual and voted Republican up until a couple of elections ago. Neither me nor my former lesbian roommate had a problem with voting for Republicans because... well, they never could get any political juice to do anything about it. Pretty much the entire social plank of their Party is a losing proposition. They lose ground every year.

As for anti-feminist women.

I say Margaret Thatcher to you.

Stay with me here, because I'm going off-road on this one, so it's going to be messy and filled with holes... but hopefully I can communicate a part of incomplete idea swirling around in my head.

I think Margaret Thatcher should be hailed as a Feminist Icon. Partially because this would have pissed her off to no end and that kind of thing amuses me greatly, but mostly because she brought the idea of female equality to Conservatives. She inspired a great many women to enter politics on the Right side of the aisle. Men not only accept these women, but they often revere them, holding them up as among the best their political parties offer.

This in the most hostile of environments. Yes, Thatcher did nothing to advance the various political causes of feminism, but she without even trying inspired women to take their rightful place in the political arena. That's an amazing accomplishment no matter how much you despise the woman and her politics.

So if Margaret Thatcher isn't welcome (and she's not), then you're leaving out a pretty substantial number of women who fall on the political right, women who embrace on a personal level the idea they're the equal of men and demand to be treated as such. Meaning, feminism is political in a way that always gets conveniently forgotten when chastising some young lady who dares to say "I'm not a feminist, but...", because maybe those women just don't see eye-to-eye with the prevailing politics they see as central to the movement.

Because no matter how much you say "it's about equality", people have very different ideas about what equality means. These Conservative women may, in their own way, believe in equality, but an equality which they see at odds with feminism. And if I were a woman, I think I'd object just on the principle that I'm ridiculed if I don't declare myself one.

I'm not trying to argue against feminism here. I respect feminism greatly and I've had my mind changed on a great number of subjects because of feminist critics... most recently with the celebrity nude picture leak where I was successfully shamed into recognizing my complicity in the on-going invasion of privacy... just because I wanted to look at some famous boobs. That Feminists have had such a great influence on the public debate speaks volumes to how successfully they presented their ideas.
That's the thing about equality, it doesn't have different meanings. Equal is equal. Men and women getting paid the same for the same job. Straight and gay marriage, and so forth.

I think it was the very conservative Anne Coulter who once said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. How can you not laugh at people like that?
Yeah, and there's some Feminist voices who define equality in a very peculiar way. I wish I had caught the name, but one woman advocates reducing the male popular to 10% because that's the only way to achieve equality.

The Republican "equality of opportunity" thing doesn't sound so unequal next to that.

So there are some odd voices accepted with the Feminist community, at least tolerated within the Feminist community. The S.C.U.M. Manifesto is heralded in some circles as the start of Radical Feminism and I'd considered the book to be nothing more than hate speech.

But, and I should stress this, it's not as though Feminism has ever been some organized entity. If a bunch of Conservative women declared themselves Feminists and started preaching their brand of it, they'd probably begrudgingly be accepted within the community.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
TheKasp said:
Netrigan said:
Yeah, and there's some Feminist voices who define equality in a very peculiar way. I wish I had caught the name, but one woman advocates reducing the male popular to 10% because that's the only way to achieve equality.

The Republican "equality of opportunity" thing doesn't sound so unequal next to that.

So there are some odd voices accepted with the Feminist community, at least tolerated within the Feminist community. The S.C.U.M. Manifesto is heralded in some circles as the start of Radical Feminism and I'd considered the book to be nothing more than hate speech.

But, and I should stress this, it's not as though Feminism has ever been some organized entity. If a bunch of Conservative women declared themselves Feminists and started preaching their brand of it, they'd probably begrudgingly be accepted within the community.
The woman in question is refered to as, and I quote, "psychotic woman who would like to reduce the male population by 90%." (just from one quick google search).

Each community has its oddballs. There is no advocacy that Christians accept all the child abuse or abuse of homosexuals just because some groups and communities do that, there are people fighting against 'gamer' being labelled sexist due to all the history of small communities abusing women, why can one say that some crazy people who call themselfs Feminist are "accepted" or "at least tolerated"?

You yourslef said: The SCUM Manifesto is heralded in some circles. In most I'd say it is regarded as a pile of nonsense. So why even bring it up as an example? Some gamers argued during the Cross Assault incident that sexism and racism is part of the fighting game community, you don't see that example used to label all gamers as the defenders of sexism and racism as a whole. Radical thought exists in every movement, using that as the poster child to argue against that movement is like shooting fish in a barrel.
A lot of this is what I was driving at. Although Radical Feminism was a thing. It called itself that. And it frequently had a very odd view of equality.

I find feminist thought to be quite interesting. I could probably pass myself off as a male feminist if I chose because I'm pretty close in thought to mainstream feminism. But as an overall movement its deeply fractured and to say the unifying theme is equality... well, I wouldn't quite go that far.

I think the unifying theme is closer to that old propaganda poster "Yes, we can" in which women refuse to allow other people to define them. The more mainstream feminism is equality based, but that definition would exclude a fair number of important feminist thinkers over the years.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Good going guys, let's just keep defining large groups with a wide variety of beliefs by one extremist. That's never made anyone look irrational.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Lets get back to topic on this. Broken up into 3 parts that people seem to be talking the most about.

Why this is terrible?

Someone was harassed a bullied because of an ideological difference or because someone wanted to be a raging asshole. Much like the case every time this happens online, this is a terrible display of humans being assholes to one another.

This does not mean that her being harassed is more or less important then other people being harassed, nor that her gender makes it more noteworthy. The tone and emotion of her video as well as how she reacted shows that she was rather upset by the whole thing, but beyond any sort of personal value from knowing her as a personality, her story is no more inherently more important then the millions of other people being harassed. Ironically, the only reason we are hearing it now and we care is because it is raised as a counterpoint to another equally important/unimportant case of harassment that has been championed by the media lately. In this instance Jayd's story is representative of any random story out there as people try to explain what is wrong with Anita's story getting the attention it has by comparing the two.

Why this is different then Anita? Why aren't they treated with the same weight by some? Why is Jayd taken at word but anita not? Isn't it hypocrisy to call Anita out but not Jayd?
Because people love to compare, and because people have harped on Anita for bullshit, this is an expected topic. It is also pretty damn obvious to anyone not trying to be intellectually oblivious that these people would be believed differently simply for being different individuals making claims that are reliant upon their character to back their word.

But that requires breaking it into two parts.
First is realizing that the claims are of a different value from one another, determined by the character of the ones making the claims. Do remember that these are claims made to be taken at face value on the trustworthiness of the word of the person speaking them. The claims being believed or not is a matter of the personal belief of the person hearing the claims. Each is believed differently, though there does seem to be some consistent reasons shaping why people would respond differently to one over the other.

Jayd, by virtue of being a relative unknown, has no record of good or bad character to most people hearing the claim. She is blank and is at default "believable" in the same way any random person would be in making a claim that is possible and not unexpected. There is also consistency in the claim by responding in a way that would be rationally expected for the situation is what one would expect from someone harried and harassed off the internet and as such the claim retains the default status of "believable but unproven". The idea that the story is straight and reasonable and thus believable. Thus most people would then apply the idea of assuming the truth until proven otherwise and working from there.

Anita on the other hand is more known, and has a history of profit directly proportional to the harassment she claims she receives, and she does claim it often. She has also been shown to have a history of dishonesty. This makes her character less believable, as a history of dishonesty would suggest that she is less trustworthy then an average person making the claim. Furthermore, she acts in a way counter to basic reasoning on how someone harried would respond, adding inconsistency to her behavior and casting more doubt on the truthfulness of the claims. Because of all that many people(not all but certainly many)go with the status of the claim here as "unbelievable but unproven". Thus they respond with skepticism and doubt of the same claim. After all, when there is a very valid motive to lieing, one that has been seen used before, and the character of the person making the claim has been shown willing to lie in the first place, then yeah, you will get a different response then an unknown acting in a way that fits the claim.

So we have the explanation of the different values for the same claim, what is the second part?
Importance. As said before, any case of online harassment is terrible and it is unfair to try to say one is more important then another. Even death threats and doxing happens often enough online and to many sorts of people, so trying to argue one is more important -or newsworthy if you will- is at best a futile exercise and at worst a dishonest misrepresentation of an issue to suit an agenda. What does this have to do with the first part though?

Well when it comes to the hardcore harassment online, all cases are about the same in terms of importance over all. Peeling it back to claims, if all else were equal, claims would also be of equal importance. And when we apply the values from above, we see that Jayd's, as having a higher likelihood of not being a false claim, should be given more importance if someone was solely trying to argue about harassment online. Hers is simply the more believable, and thus more relevant, claim in the comparison. And that is a large reason the two claims are treated different by some.

To boil it down into a statement many will still disagree with after all said above, Jayd is simply believed more because her character hasn't be shown to be untrustworthy yet. As I said above, hers is simply a suitable analogy of any other case online that was ignored while Anita's was picked up on.

Why is this hypocrisy to for news to talk about Anita but no one covers Jayd?

Well, after going through the first two point, the first answer is pretty clear: Jayd's claim is more likely to have happened thus if one had to choose, it would be the better source. But we all know that she won't be reported on at all. So why not?

Well that is a lot of speculation and I wanted to avoid anything claiming truth to anything openly speculated in this instance. It could be because of the various connections Anita has to the journalists reporting her story, connections that have caused the Gamergate issue in the first place. It could that it would require reporting that self-proclaimed feminists were the ones calling and harassing Jayd. It could be that the journalists didn't believe her claims. Really, that isn't that important.

What is, is what we know, that the journalists ran another "Anita under attack" story, elevating her personal claims, which are already dubious to many who don't take her at her word, and tried to use it to promote several ideas, including that Gamers are evil and attacked her, that this is misogyny, and that this is an epidemic that needs to be addressed. and in doing so, made what could be considered a wider community and social issue, all about one woman who isn't even that widely believed to be telling the truth and thus damaging the integrity of any journalist reporting on any harassment because people are shallow a lot of the times and will be less trusting of the reporting on harassment afterwards.

How does that relate to hypocrisy? Well, for all the protests and calls against it, the actions of journalists actually have are more likely increasing the likelihood that claims of that level of harassment are not taken seriously, thus increasing the chance of people harassing more and more often.
 

Darkbladex96

New member
Jan 25, 2011
76
0
0
I miss the good old days. Back then, when someone got loud and stupid, we knew that the pack was going to descend on them. We didn't condone it, but we also didn't coddle the victim of the mauling like they didn't deserve it at least a little. Everything sorted itself out, if the abused was legit, their support was loud and strong, if they weren't, well, it was dark times ahead for them. Things sorted themselves out, said person either wised up or kept getting attacked.

The internet now seems to breed professional victims.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Darkbladex96 said:
I miss the good old days. Back then, when someone got loud and stupid, we knew that the pack was going to descend on them. We didn't condone it, but we also didn't coddle the victim of the mauling like they didn't deserve it at least a little. Everything sorted itself out, if the abused was legit, their support was loud and strong, if they weren't, well, it was dark times ahead for them. Things sorted themselves out, said person either wised up or kept getting attacked.

The internet now seems to breed professional victims.
Well before the Internet, if you were going to get abused it wasn't likely to be more than fifty people unless you did something really bad. Now it's thousands upon thousands, some of whom can whip your home address out of nowhere.

However, your attitude does explain the number of unreported cases of assault, harassment, etc, etc that has gone on in the past. See, what you're referring to has a name. It's 'victim blaming'. "They probably deserved to be harassed for disagreeing/being female/not conforming/loudly criticising a public favourite." They didn't behave according to the rules, so they get to behave according to mob rule.

I think this is better, y'know? I think it's better in a society where you can say something risky without being left at the mercy of the offended, whose limits are probably not very clearly defined.

I miss the good old days. Back then you could beat your own slaves and that was your right.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Thyunda said:
Darkbladex96 said:
I miss the good old days. Back then, when someone got loud and stupid, we knew that the pack was going to descend on them. We didn't condone it, but we also didn't coddle the victim of the mauling like they didn't deserve it at least a little. Everything sorted itself out, if the abused was legit, their support was loud and strong, if they weren't, well, it was dark times ahead for them. Things sorted themselves out, said person either wised up or kept getting attacked.

The internet now seems to breed professional victims.
Well before the Internet, if you were going to get abused it wasn't likely to be more than fifty people unless you did something really bad. Now it's thousands upon thousands, some of whom can whip your home address out of nowhere.

However, your attitude does explain the number of unreported cases of assault, harassment, etc, etc that has gone on in the past. See, what you're referring to has a name. It's 'victim blaming'. "They probably deserved to be harassed for disagreeing/being female/not conforming/loudly criticising a public favourite." They didn't behave according to the rules, so they get to behave according to mob rule.

I think this is better, y'know? I think it's better in a society where you can say something risky without being left at the mercy of the offended, whose limits are probably not very clearly defined.

I miss the good old days. Back then you could beat your own slaves and that was your right.
Now I might not be seeing what you are here, but I could have sworn they were arguing that when someone started shit, they would get stopped by the crowd for starting shit. Or to put it another way, when someone started to say shit, many people would speak up and call them out on it.

I don't really see how that is unfair to begin with (no one is free from criticism), nor how that relates to beating slaves unless you took the phrasing as legitimate violence against someone talking shit. And if that was what was meant to be said there, well, I can see how some would disagree (appropriate response arguments to be had) but still that is again a far cry from beating slaves.

Honestly the message I get from them is a regret that things have changed so that people can talk all the shit they want and hide behind claims of harassment to avoid being called on it or criticized. If I read that right, I have to agree, it is a terrible occurrence that the net has helped propagate. No one should be protected from the results of their own actions when they do them willingly. And speaking a lot of shit about a group of people would rightly get a lot of those people speaking a lot of shit back. Not exactly nice, but nor is it unfair.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
I'm imagining a janitor named Journalist with a nasty habit of leaving piles of debris under ladders. Grammar kills, friend.

This site is killing me. I miss arguing over things that aren't feminism. Of course, I could stop visiting the forums but I'm a glutton for punishment and so bored even arguments are more fun than whatever I'm doing.
 

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
255
0
0
Thyunda said:
Darkbladex96 said:
I miss the good old days. Back then, when someone got loud and stupid, we knew that the pack was going to descend on them. We didn't condone it, but we also didn't coddle the victim of the mauling like they didn't deserve it at least a little. Everything sorted itself out, if the abused was legit, their support was loud and strong, if they weren't, well, it was dark times ahead for them. Things sorted themselves out, said person either wised up or kept getting attacked.

The internet now seems to breed professional victims.
They didn't behave according to the rules, so they get to behave according to mob rule.

I think this is better, y'know? I think it's better in a society where you can say something risky without being left at the mercy of the offended, whose limits are probably not very clearly defined.

I miss the good old days. Back then you could beat your own slaves and that was your right.
What's the point of rules if they can and will be easily broken by those not wishing to obey the rules? Yes, I believe those that don't follow the rules a government has laid upon it's people it's free game. If you have the balls to bother speaking your opinion that is against the rules you better be prepared to back them up and back them up quickly. When you decide to try to change society, you put your neck on the line. Society has always been like that and no law from any government will change that. The 1st amendment only guarantees that the government itself can't throw you in jail for criticizing it. It doesn't stop society or private businesses on doing whatever the fuck they want to people they don't agree it including censorship.

The wants and needs of the majority are more important than the wants and needs of the individual who was "offended".
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
Darkbladex96 said:
I miss the good old days. Back then, when someone got loud and stupid, we knew that the pack was going to descend on them. We didn't condone it, but we also didn't coddle the victim of the mauling like they didn't deserve it at least a little. Everything sorted itself out, if the abused was legit, their support was loud and strong, if they weren't, well, it was dark times ahead for them. Things sorted themselves out, said person either wised up or kept getting attacked.

The internet now seems to breed professional victims.
Oh, I remember back when forums ate you alive for it. Not just the other members, the mods! Of course, the Escapist has always been the tamer of the forums I frequent.
 

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
Racecarlock said:
Why am I never supposed to trust sarkeesian or quinn but I am supposed to trust this random girl you searched for online completely?
I think the point being made is that consistency would be nice.
That either you believe claims of harassment, or you don't.
Rather than base it off the political slant of the person being harassed.

That said, I don't think you are condoning an act of harassment, just making the same point back at Op.
Insofar as, why is this girl believed, when so much doubt is cast at sarkeesian or quinn.

Personally, I still believe that any claim of harassment deserves to be taken seriously and at face value.
It's only at the point that you have to lay blame for the harassment on someone that you should apply vigorous scrutiny to evidence.
In this case, the person who harassed her claimed to be doing so because of the anti sarkeesian/quinn slant of the victims belief.
There is no evidence to directly point out a perpetrator.

On a final note.

The girl in this video asked for this to be dropped, partly out of wanting the situation to be ended.
Possibly out of fear of further reprisal.

As such, I'd like to gather the opinion of other posters here regarding whether we should just let this thread sink or request it be locked.

One part of me wants to honor her wishes.
Another wants to draw attention to harassment in any form and condemn it.
Another wonders if this could be considered censorship in some way.


Frankly, I'm torn on the matter.