TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 266

Thread: Exposing Sexual Harassment...

  1. #151
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    Really, Kolya?

    Going slightly sideways I just came across this video about harassment in Overwatch when girls dare to speak in voice chat:



    There's a depressingly hostile strain in the gamer pool out there. Some of the ladies responding to the guy from Eurogamer were talking about how they don't speak in voice chat so as to avoid the possibility of being called a cunt several times. You know, saying nothing to get along...

    I mean if it were me I'd just mute the assholes but the damage is done in a sense.

  2. #152
    Jeez, the levels of mansplaining and male entitlement in this thread are pretty shocking...

    Seriously Kolya, "sugartits"? In a thread about sexual harrassment? You think that's funny?

  3. #153
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    Interesting development with Louis CK admitting everything and Jeremy Piven denying everything.

    I suppose Jeremy Piven should just resign, eh SD and Brethren?

    It doesn't matter if he's innocent, how he or his family will suffer - more than one woman has accused him so it's a done deal? Right?
    I am perfectly comfortable believing that he is probably an abuser. I don't know why that simple application of mathematics upsets you so.

  4. #154
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    Urgh, I could only bear to watch less than two minutes of that clip about Overwatch.

    I used to see some of that back when I still played League of Legends, and do specifically recall a few unpleasant cases (such as someone admitting they were a woman and then getting flamed for everything by someone else), but at least there there was no voice chat in that game. People were mostly just horribly unpleasant to everyone, I guess.

    That's honestly something I really can't understand.
    I can understand people making inappropriately / sexist comments because they are socially inept and don't truly understand appropriate behaviour towards strangers, but I really can't understand people being that vile and having such intense hatred towards someone just because they are a woman.

    Even at a most basic level and selfish level, I would have thought that most of the people being awful like this are straight men who would theoretically be interested in meeting women, so they should be eager to see more females in their currently male-dominated activities.

    I also can't even fathom things like women getting paid less than men for the same jobs. Who would even think like that? How does it even occur to employers to try something like that? And why do people allow the unspoken rule to never discuss how much you earn cover things like that up?

    I guess I'm just naive.

  5. #155
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    Quote Originally Posted by scumble View Post
    Really, Kolya?

    Going slightly sideways I just came across this video about harassment in Overwatch when girls dare to speak in voice chat:



    There's a depressingly hostile strain in the gamer pool out there. Some of the ladies responding to the guy from Eurogamer were talking about how they don't speak in voice chat so as to avoid the possibility of being called a cunt several times. You know, saying nothing to get along...

    I mean if it were me I'd just mute the assholes but the damage is done in a sense.
    I'd hesitate to to say that this is exclusively a problem that female gamers face because with any competitive game you're going to get arseholes who will scream obscenities at other players. How many male players have had homophobic abuse yelled at them because another player got angry? Personally speaking I avoid competitive games almost entirely (And would never play one that had voice coms) because of this and I'm about as white and male as you can get. I'm certainly not excusing the language female gamers are subjected to, I'm just saying anyone who verbally abuses another player in a game should face sanctions regardless of the gender of the victim.

    Quote Originally Posted by SD
    I am perfectly comfortable believing that he is probably an abuser. I don't know why that simple application of mathematics upsets you so.
    I see you're edging away from your earlier statement that:

    If you have women queuing up to accuse you of inappropriate behaviour, it's a done deal in my book.
    I assume this is because you now realise how ridiculous this is. (Emphasis my own)
    Last edited by driver; 13th Nov 2017 at 18:20.

  6. #156
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Which brings us back to the very first post.

    Big Bush, again.



    Cant wait...


  7. #157
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by driver View Post
    I see you're edging away from your earlier statement...
    Those statements are not contradictory.

  8. #158
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    :edit:

    You know what, I'm not going to play this game. You're either obtuse or trolling, but the distinction doesn't matter.

  9. #159
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I was done after counterstrike. Couldn't stand those little shits.

    World of Warcraft on the other hand was excellent. The second in command of the guild I ran for 5 years was female. Abuse towards women (from what I observed throughout that time) was almost unheard of.

  10. #160
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The Onion weighs in on the Roy Moore scandal:

    https://politics.theonion.com/roy-moore-on-pedophilia-accusers-these-women-are-only-1820405898


    MONTGOMERY, AL—Waving off the current allegations against him as vicious attempts to sabotage his election bid, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore told reporters Monday that the women accusing him of pedophilia were only doing so now because "shifting sociocultural norms have created an environment in which assault allegations are taken seriously." "These women have had 30 years to come forward, and the one and only reason they'e speaking out now is because they suddenly have less fear that their lives will be utterly destroyed," said Moore, adding that the women accusing him of sexually pursuing them as teenagers were just several of many "jumping on the sexual assault bandwagon these days" in light of meaningful systemic change and the fact that society would no longer immediately discredit them. "My accusers are nothing but slandering opportunists taking advantage of the deteriorating influence of the patriarchy that has traditionally silenced any woman who makes such claims. If the American public at large had not finally begun truly hearing victims and decided that enough was enough, I guarantee that these women would never have had the audacity to accuse me of such heinous crimes." Moore went on to say that he would nevertheless continue his run for the Senate despite the charges against him because while the norms had shifted, they had not shifted nearly as much in Alabama.

  11. #161
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    Seems typical that comedy hits closest to the truth

  12. #162
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    I think that's the first time I haven't found an Onion article funny.

    Meanwhile, wtf is going on in Alabama?? I mean, seriously?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/53...rticle/2640544

    Wonder if the National Republican Senatorial Committee will really expel that POS if he does manage to get re-elected.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/co...rticle/2640538



    Still waiting for karma to wake up and do its thing .............


  13. #163
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    Well I think this outrage is a bit like throwing a bible at your pimp. Don't pretend like only men watched Game of Thrones or whatever. You're just as complicit.

    And no Vasquez, that doesn't make it right to sexually assault anyone. But I never said that. What I said is that I had a problem with this demonization and idolization. A self-rightous mob that makes itself feel better.
    That's not all you said or I wouldn't be posting in this thread, but anyway ...

    Look, part of me gets what you are saying here, and in fact I haven't watched GoT for this reason, but I would never expect others to be that overly puritanical. Society has to draw the line at some point, to accept some forms of sexuality while "demonising" others. I'm not going to say what that line should be but clearly there is an immense difference, in terms of impact on people's lives, between a bit of GoT style perving and actual honest-to-goodness real-life sexual harassment. One hurts people, the other doesn't (to a first approximation). I'm pretty sure you understand the distinction.

    I think it's telling that everyone who tries to argue on behalf of the misogyny brigade in this thread ends up retreating into generic SJW mob justice arguments. Ok sure, I'm not denying that ever happens, and it does concern me and I'd like society to be able to more gracefully handle grey areas where we have enough evidence to be concerned for people's safety but not enough to assume guilt ... but right now we have the specific cases of Weinstein, Louie CK, etc in front of us. If you say you have a problem with mob justice in this thread, then please let me know who specifically you think is facing misguided mob justice at the moment.

  14. #164
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    @Kolya

    I can't understand your train of thought in this thread. Let me ask you a question from a different angle:

    Suppose you hear about this great job opportunity, something that could make your dream career a reality, so you interview for the job and it turns out to be a good fit and you're the best qualified candidate. But then you get passed over for a weakly qualified female candidate because the hiring manager is a womanizer and traded sex for the job you wanted. Would that be OK with you?

  15. #165
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Quote Originally Posted by Chade View Post
    That's not all you said or I wouldn't be posting in this thread, but anyway ...
    No, that's not all I said. But you also won't find an instance where I said sexual assault was normal or okay, which is what Vasquez had implied and I answered to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chade View Post
    If you say you have a problem with mob justice in this thread, then please let me know who specifically you think is facing misguided mob justice at the moment.
    The stories I read about Kevin Spacey, George Takei and Dustin Hoffman all sound ridiculous to me. Happened decades ago, even then relatively light weight cases (no rape, no coercion), they now make headlines. If you want more, knock yourself out: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeinsteinEffect/

    @heywood: When you get passed over for a weakly qualified female candidate in real life, the reason is a women's quota. Would that be OK with you?
    As for your far fetched question: I probably wouldn't want to work in such a place anyway.

  16. #166
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    Meanwhile, wtf is going on in Alabama?? I mean, seriously?
    I live about half an hour away from Alabama. None of this shit surprises me.

  17. #167
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by driver View Post
    :edit:

    You know what, I'm not going to play this game. You're either obtuse or trolling, but the distinction doesn't matter.
    I am neither of those things, you clearly just don't understand where I am coming from.

    I am not a court of law - I don't profess to be a court of law - and I do not possess the means to impose judgements upon anyone, so there is no requirement for me to arrive at conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt. Probability is sufficient for me to arrive at a conclusion that is satisfactory for my own purposes - "in my book", so to speak. And since I have no reason to believe that most accusations of wrongdoing are not true, it follows that most accusations of wrongdoing are true, and I therefore shall treat them as if they were true, unless and until I have good reason not to.

    In this, I hardly believe I am unique, or even unusual. I would suspect most people operate in a similar manner. For instance, if a neighbour had multiple accusations of molestation of minors against him, I doubt most folk would allow their children to keep playing in his yard, on the basis that the accusations hadn't been tested in court. They would, in all likelihood, ensure that their children didn't go anywhere near him, on the basis that the accusations were probably true.

  18. #168
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    No, that's not all I said. But you also won't find an instance where I said sexual assault was normal or okay, which is what Vasquez had implied and I answered to.
    No, you said it was OK for Weinstein to require sexual favors as a condition for employment. Basically, as long as he wasn't physically forcing himself on women then you don't care. That's what Vasquez called you on. Your response was to accuse everyone who is attracted to attractive women of being hypocrites for calling out sexual harassment, which is a complete non sequitur to me.

    @heywood: When you get passed over for a weakly qualified female candidate in real life, the reason is a women's quota. Would that be OK with you?
    As for your far fetched question: I probably wouldn't want to work in such a place anyway.
    You dodged. The point is, you shouldn't find yourself in this position in the first place. Telling people they should just go get a job elsewhere is not an acceptable answer.

  19. #169
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    No, you said it was OK for Weinstein to require sexual favors as a condition for employment. Basically, as long as he wasn't physically forcing himself on women then you don't care. That's what Vasquez called you on. Your response was to accuse everyone who is attracted to attractive women of being hypocrites for calling out sexual harassment, which is a complete non sequitur to me.
    No, again that's not what I said. What I did say was that "everyone should know what they get themselves into" and "Obviously no one should be forced to do anything against their will." Given that, if an actress gave sexual favours to a producer, it "doesn't bother me much".
    That doesn't mean I think it's cool, but the proverbial casting-couch has existed for at least a 100 years, so I'm neither surprised nor suddenly throwing a moral fit about it, just because some people here and half of Twitter has decided it's payback time.
    As I stated I have a problem with the moral absolutes being thrown about and so I observed that men using their status or position to have consenting sex with beautiful women isn't exactly rare nor usually illegal.
    And then I looked at the culture of Hollywood as a vent and substitute for America's puritanical morals. Where on the one hand people cannot get enough tits and brutality on their screens and on the other hand have been pushing one of the most restrictive socio-sexual codes of any western nation in the last two decades. And yeah, I think there's a connection.

    And quite frankly the way people have been fruitlessly trying to nail me down and put words into my mouth in this thread speaks volumes about exactly the kind of overexcited virtue-furor that I tried to point out to you equally fruitlessly.
    If Spacey was infatuated with a teenager 20 or 30 years ago, that's a bit embarrassing for him, but hardly a reason for an outraged mob to cause him lose his job now. And yes, I know he also "created an atmosphere of sexual harassment" on the set of House of Cards. Having gotten to know some rather touchy fruits that liked to call everyone "love" like some senile grandma and generally display their sexuality to everyone who would listen or not, I think I have a pretty good idea of what that means in real life. I guess you could feel harassed by that if you're a sexually insecure guy. And I guess you might get the idea to make a lot of money of it. Especially when you realize you won't just get away with it, but people all over the world will hasten to jump to your side in a blind moral rage.

  20. #170
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    And just to point this out once more: If any actual laws are proven to have been broken, I'm all for the punishment that is usually reserved for the relevant crimes. But if an enraged mob ruins people's lives outside of court, I'm not for that. It baffles me that this is apparently a controversial viewpoint these days.

  21. #171
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Kolya, it's your dismissiveness about the issue and your victim blaming that really stands out in this thread. You downplayed Mad Men style of sexism and you said that people who didn't reject Weinstein's advances were prostitutes and you're questioning the motives of the accusers.

    And then, on top of all that, you bring irrelevant things into the conversation, like maybe there were women who willingly slept with Weinstein in order to advance their careers. Maybe, but what has that got to do with harassment? You are essentially insinuating that the women who accuse Weinstein actually had sex with him willingly and are now lying about it.

    As for "happened decades ago", so what? A lot of people still care, apparently. And the victims still care. People care because it's still a serious and pervasive issue that needs addressing, not some relic of the past that has been dealt with.


    Anyway, here's an short quiz on this topic, courtesy of SNL:

    Last edited by Starker; 14th Nov 2017 at 16:03.

  22. #172
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Your "dismissiveness and victim blaming" is me being annoyed with your self-rightous destructive outrage, with your thinning out of the meaning of the word "victim" and my attempts to show that the world obviously isn't separated into black and white, evil and holy.
    You think publishing accusations on twitter is more effective than filing charges. I think it's slander. You think you care about victims in minor cases from decades ago, I think you're plunged over your head into presentism. You're looking at the past with today's eyes and apply today's social codes to it, in order to dish out a jealous retro-active punishment. Consciously or not, this is also an attempt to rewrite history by ignoring it.

  23. #173
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Victims of sexual harassment dilute the meaning of the word "victim"? Not to mention that lot of these things were not just minor indiscretions, they were pretty serious, even in the context of "it was different in the oldie times". A man forcing himself on a minor is not a trivial incident, for example.

    Also, even if some of these things are not literally crimes or prosecutable (any more), that doesn't make it okay. Grabbing someone's genitals or buttocks without their consent is not okay. Exposing your genitals to colleagues or strangers and masturbating in front of them is not okay. Pressuring people into having sex with you is not okay. Asking people to remove their clothes in a job interview is not okay if it's not related to the job.

    Also, nobody thinks that "publishing accusations on twitter is more effective than filing charges". Just because someone doesn't want to or can't file charges, doesn't mean that they can't talk about it. And if it's slander (which it's not, if it's on twitter or any other written medium, btw), well, there are laws about that too.
    Last edited by Starker; 14th Nov 2017 at 18:33.

  24. #174
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I'm just impressed at the range of people Kolya has managed to align against him in this thread.

  25. #175
    Mistaken for a man
    Registered: Jun 2000
    Location: Helsinki, Finland
    Kolya, you have no problem whatsoever that men in power use that power to pressure women to having sex.
    I have no problem that if a man behaves like a sexist pig over and over again, the whole world hears about it. Tweeting about your experience of sexual harassment ain't against the law, either.
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    You think you care about victims in minor cases from decades ago
    I don't cry over individual victims I don't know personally, although I can emphasize how horrible and humiliating it must've been for them. What bothers me is how common this kind of harassment is, and how many people seem to think it's normal and okay, because "that's how it's been done for 100000 years". Well, maybe it's time things finally change.

    Edit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Exposing your genitals to colleagues or strangers and masturbating in front of them is not okay.
    And it's almost funny that something like this has to be stated, instead of it being OBVIOUS to everyone. But it's really not funny, it's creepy.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •