Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

mikeman

Member Since 10 May 2004
Online Last Active Today, 07:51 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Today, 07:15 AM

I have to say one thing about the whole "it's just women's choices" issue when it comes to representation in STEM/wage gap: I've seen it being claimed by atheists who, in other discussions, will tell you that there isn't even such thing as "free will" or "choice" at all, and everything we think and choose is based on complex chemical reactions in the brain. I mean, given such views, it seems pretty logical that you'd assume our choices are heavily influenced by our environment, without that fact making us "brainwashed". It's just the way things work. If there's only the physical brain, and its interactions with the environment, including other physical brains, there isn't even such a thing as a "deep", "core" self that makes the choices without being influenced by anything other than itself. These people seem to contradict themselves a bit. And if you're going to claim "biology"(aka hormones) is the basis for the difference in choices...that's a pretty bold claim. It might account for *some* difference, but does it account for everything, or even the majority?

 

 

Though I have to ask: Given that most college students seem now to be women, but ones that follow humanities, are we stating as a goal that we want *less* women to choose humanities as a subject? I mean, it does seem a bit..."bizarre" to have such a goal, doesn't it? Or am I missing something on how the numbers here work?


In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Today, 06:05 AM

 

Unfortunately women equally contribute to the problem against women Twitter abuse - '50% of misogynistic tweets from women'   

 

Abuse on social networks is not new and neither is the revelation that women contribute to the problem.

A 2014 study from cosmetics firm Dove found that over five million negative tweets were posted about beauty and body image. Four out of five were sent by women

 

Internalized misogyny - Another concept and theory that you must accept as true if you want to be a "normal" person and not a sexist bigot, I guess. I mean, if a feminist is nothing more than a "normal" and non-sexist person, and feminists believe in theory/postulation A, then if you want to be non-sexist you have to accept theory/postulation A. If you don't, then you might claim that you believe in gender equality, but in reality you're still a sexist, since there can be only one distiction: "normal" people and bigots.

(and I don't even think that the concept does not have merit - I just detest people who believe that everyone that doesn't align with their views can't be anything other than an immoral person, ie fanatics).


In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Today, 03:48 AM

 

 

 

The term and nature:- feminism can't be eradicated.
Feminism means something. Masculism means something. And these are governed by hormones (note feminism doesn't mean all women as masculism also doesn't mean all men)

 
There is no such thing as a feminist.  There's just normal people and bigots.  It quickly becomes obvious which one one is.

 

So, a person that thinks women and men should be equals and have equal political and economic power, something that at this point in time is not true, but also believes that women as individuals can be sexist against men, and prejudice against anyone, even against "white males", is not justified, is...what? Are they "normal"(???) or bigots?

 

A person that thinks women should be equal to men is a bigot, yes.  That sentence itself is an example of "begging the question" because it has the built-in a priori assumption that being a man is the gold standard by which all things are measured and women are either not as good as or at the very most equal to men, by nature of their sex.  The English word for that is "discrimination."  Someone who says men and women are equals, however is not a bigot.  It's a subtlety.  That subtlety is important.  I can tell I've already lost most of the people on this thread.
 
Someone who thinks there are only human rights and responsibilities is a normal person. If you believe there are "women's rights" and "gay rights" and "minority rights" then you're being bigoted.  Every single one of those issues dubbed as "${adjective} rights" are fundamentally human rights and only distinguished by their casual denial by a self-appointed societal elite, usually in an effort to preserve some sort of privilege or entitlement (aka "the system").  Rights are rights, and only in their denial is there a problem.  In fact, any time you see someone called for "${adjective} rights" what they're calling for is actually an end to the systematic denial of human rights to the ${adjective}s.
 
It's true that there are groups of people who actively seek to deny rights to others on the basis of perceived or actual membership in a social group.  As a society, we have a long and sordid history of that. In the 1860s, the USA found an internecine war over the right to deny freedom to others, just as an example.  Left to their own devices, the jerks always seem to dominate and few will deny we have a long way to go before the ideal of true human equality is reached.  So, yeah, we're in agreement there's a problem.  I don't think we're in agreement that the case is that women need special treatment; it's my belief that the people who deny the basic human rights need to admit they have a problem and change their expectations of entitlement. 

 

Dude, seriously. I literally said :
 
a person that thinks women and men should be equals and have equal political and economic power, something that at this point in time is not true
 
(Which is something I myself believe; equals as in having equal rights and holding equal power and respect in all spheres of life; not some kind of intrinsic value of "worth" as a human being)
 
I have no idea where you got the sentence "women should be equal to men" and you started ranting off based on that, so I don't even know what to respond. Except my questions remains. If a person believes the above, but doesn't believe one of the dozens "tenets" of feminism, such as "women can't be sexist against men"...are they "normal"? Are they bigots? What are they? If there's no such thing as a "feminist", why feminists themselves are pretty severely divided in factions around issues such as sex work or transgender people? Which faction is the "normal" and which the "bigot"? Do we go even further, and say "there's no such thing as a person that believes in decriminalizing sex work, there are only normal persons and bigots that hate sex workers"(or the other way around). Is it going to be like that now in every debate? There are only "good" and "bad" guys?
 
See, what I'm getting here is that the basic principle of "women and men are equals and should be treated as such in all spheres of life" is excellent and should be respected by everyone, and everyone that doesn't *is* a bigot, but unfortunately all answers in current gender-related problems in our imperfect world do not directly and one-directionally and unquestionably follow from that single principle. Like the question posed in this thread, for instance(I mean, obviously, you think everyone that doesn't align with your position - that it is a good thing the event was cancelled - is at least a bigot that wants to keep their privilege unchecked, but such is the thinking of fanatics of every stripe, as I mentioned). Feminism is not as simple as that one principle mentioned above, it *is* an ideology and a movement with a specific history and "waves" and various "theorems" and postulations and definitions and practices and methods that it uses. The "a woman can't be sexist against a man" is one of them that you see mentioned over and over. 
 
Also, let's keep in mind that the large majority of women worldwide, and in the western world, do not identify as feminists. I don't think it's because they believe men and women should not be equals(although, mainly for religious reasons, there are probably a fair amount of them that believe even that). 

 

 


Here's a start: where do you think I got the "no such thing as a feminist" from?  Here is a relatively painless editorial piece to start with. 

 

 

Did I miss something here? I read that article and is a dissection of the concept of privilege. I didnt' see anything relevant to "no such thing as a feminist".


In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Yesterday, 05:21 AM

 

The term and nature:- feminism can't be eradicated.

Feminism means something. Masculism means something. And these are governed by hormones (note feminism doesn't mean all women as masculism also doesn't mean all men)

 

There is no such thing as a feminist.  There's just normal people and bigots.  It quickly becomes obvious which one one is.

 

So, a person that thinks women and men should be equals and have equal political and economic power, something that at this point in time is not true, but also believes that women as individuals can be sexist against men, and prejudice against anyone, even against "white males", is not justified, is...what? Are they "normal"(???) or bigots? 

Also, feminists would be happy to know there's no such thing as feminism, I guess? 

(I mean, I guess a fanatic would also say "there's no such thing as a socialist, there's only normal people and enemies of the people" or "there's no such thing as a capitalist, there is only normal people and degenerates" or "there's no such thing as a Christian, there's only normal people and Antichrists" or "there's no such thing as an atheist, there's only normal people and delusional idiots"....yeah you can say I don't have much respect for fanatics of any kind, for which their ideas are part of the very fabric of reality and anything else is just unthinkable and immoral).


In Topic: Game Engine success question.

Yesterday, 02:53 AM

Monsters killing themselves is an (awesome) feature btw, not a bug, and really has nothing to do with the graphics engine. :)

Aside from that, I think new DOOM looks awesome, and plays very smoothly on my machine(then again I do have a 980GTX).

 

Also, Carmack left Id and didn't have much to do with id tech 6 AFAIK. Also, he's not a deity, he's a very influential programmer, but there are other people that are very good in their jobs too.

But anyway, different engines do different things better or worse...and I'd say it's all about how many good developers can you afford, how much time and resources they are given, etc etc...It is even possible DOOM runs in sub-60fps on your machine because you have AMD or just unlucky. PC gaming is complicated like that. From what I've heard, it looks and plays smooth as butter in PS4.


PARTNERS