45 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
45.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 28, 2014, 09:49
Verno
 
45.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 28, 2014, 09:49
Oct 28, 2014, 09:49
 Verno
 
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 22:40:

It's not the correct place, what you are doing is watering down the severity of this issue by throwing the attention elsewhere.

No, its asking if its such a severe problem then where are people like you on it? Equality, right? So where is your concern for others? Why is it limited to only one gender?

Since the guy below likes the house fire analogy, why should I care about my neighbors house when mine has been set ablaze several times and no one made it a big media issue?
Playing: Risk of Rain 2, Jedi Fallen Order, Last of Us II
Watching: Tenet, Peninsula, The Pale Door
Avatar 51617
44.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 24, 2014, 22:09
44.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 24, 2014, 22:09
Oct 24, 2014, 22:09
 
Julio wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 05:40:
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 22:40:
It's not the correct place, what you are doing is watering down the severity of this issue by throwing the attention elsewhere.

What I'm doing is supporting equality. Harassment is an issue for all, not just the select few.

I am impressed Julio. You are turning into quite the Warrior for Social Justice, with your two headed campaign against both Corrupt Journalism and the Harassment of Men!

Try to take the above as the light kidding it is, because while those are both serious issues, here is how you come across:

Person 1: Somebody threatened to rape and kill me!

Julio: Well, these other people over here were also harassed. Stop being a SJW/victim/whatever.

The issues you claim to support are indeed serious, but when your first response to any of these female harassment threads is "X also happens" it seems like at best a deflection, if not outright intentional misdirection or just trolling.


Other similar examples:

Person 1: I am starving!

Person 2: Please keep in mind, other people are starving also.

--------

Person 1: My house is on fire!

Person 2: Other people have had their houses on fire.

etc. Clearly these are hyperbolic examples but you should be able to get the point. Person 1 is not invalidated because of what is happening elsewhere. It's fine to keep bringing up harassment in general but your placement seems conspicuously callous.


Avatar 54863
43.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 24, 2014, 05:40
43.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 24, 2014, 05:40
Oct 24, 2014, 05:40
 
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 22:40:
It's not the correct place, what you are doing is watering down the severity of this issue by throwing the attention elsewhere.

What I'm doing is supporting equality. Harassment is an issue for all, not just the select few.
42.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 24, 2014, 04:15
42.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 24, 2014, 04:15
Oct 24, 2014, 04:15
 
Prez wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 03:25:
InBlack wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 03:06:
I hate men and misandrists, almost as much as I hate women and misogynists.

Well at least you are consistent and fair.

Yeah I try to hate everyone equally.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
41.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 24, 2014, 03:25
Prez
 
41.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 24, 2014, 03:25
Oct 24, 2014, 03:25
 Prez
 
InBlack wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 03:06:
I hate men and misandrists, almost as much as I hate women and misogynists.

Well at least you are consistent and fair.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
40.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 24, 2014, 03:06
40.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 24, 2014, 03:06
Oct 24, 2014, 03:06
 
I hate men and misandrists, almost as much as I hate women and misogynists.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
39.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 24, 2014, 02:58
39.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 24, 2014, 02:58
Oct 24, 2014, 02:58
 
Cutter wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 11:32:
Good thing I lack empathy and don't care about this trumped up bullshit. Hrm, think I'll go have a slice of dolphin served between two puppies for lunch.

Hhahaha
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
38.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 22:40
38.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 22:40
Oct 23, 2014, 22:40
 
Julio wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 20:35:
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:13:
Except if you actually look at the statistics, men are only slightly more likely to be harassed in general, but women are more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed, which a quite a bit more severe than name calling.

Good thing you aren't a journalist.

I'm getting really tired of hearing "it happens to men too" bullshit - that doesn't make it OK. One wrong doesn't make another wrong OK. If that is an issue you care about then this is not the correct place for it.

I can read the statistics in the article I linked quite well. Men are more likely to be the recipient of online harassment (44% vs 37% for women). More likely to be physically threatened, more likely to be called names, more likely to be purposely embarrassed. I've been physically threatened as well as sexually harassed, and I'd prefer the latter every time. Neither would be better of course.

This is a correct place to talk about harassment of men, as much as it is the place to talk about harassment of women. Neither should happen, and the men should not be ignored. Equality can be scary to some I guess. Goes against that SJW agenda.

It's not the correct place, what you are doing is watering down the severity of this issue by throwing the attention elsewhere.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
37.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 20:35
37.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 20:35
Oct 23, 2014, 20:35
 
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:13:
Except if you actually look at the statistics, men are only slightly more likely to be harassed in general, but women are more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed, which a quite a bit more severe than name calling.

Good thing you aren't a journalist.

I'm getting really tired of hearing "it happens to men too" bullshit - that doesn't make it OK. One wrong doesn't make another wrong OK. If that is an issue you care about then this is not the correct place for it.

I can read the statistics in the article I linked quite well. Men are more likely to be the recipient of online harassment (44% vs 37% for women). More likely to be physically threatened, more likely to be called names, more likely to be purposely embarrassed. I've been physically threatened as well as sexually harassed, and I'd prefer the latter every time. Neither would be better of course.

This is a correct place to talk about harassment of men, as much as it is the place to talk about harassment of women. Neither should happen, and the men should not be ignored. Equality can be scary to some I guess. Goes against that SJW agenda.
36.
 
No subject
Oct 23, 2014, 20:08
36.
No subject Oct 23, 2014, 20:08
Oct 23, 2014, 20:08
 
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:29:
That, but also the graphs show it as well.

The comments in this thread are just appalling. No wonder the world is such a fucked up place.

Yeah must be because people have long figured out that you can make any statistic dance, and people are now actually demanding proof of something. How fucked up.
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
35.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 18:30
35.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 18:30
Oct 23, 2014, 18:30
 
BobBob wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 14:15:
Agent.X7 wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 13:56:
Half the time I wonder if news sites make this shit up.

Anonymous "victim."
Anonymous "perps."
No official complaint to the authorities to back up the story.

News places used to be somewhat neutral, reporting on the events without spin. These days news places use any event to push their political agenda. I would not put it past them to make up stories to push their agendas.

It's all about revenue. Advertisers will pay more for whatever draws in the most potential customers. Social media has made this a prerequisite to gaining views and clicks through persistent posting of dramatic and highly opinionated articles. The news is now forced to compete by editorializing (for what used to be objective) articles with drama and bias in order to earn the same advertiser's money.

Except this particular article was by the ABC, a publicly-funded broadcaster with no advertising revenue. So.

Anyway it doesn't matter if the accusers are anonymous or not. Sarkeesian is not anonymous, but she's still accused of inventing everything bad that happens to her.
34.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 18:29
34.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 18:29
Oct 23, 2014, 18:29
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:19:
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:13:
Julio wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 12:14:
Who hasn't been harassed on the internet? I mean it`s happened to lots of us on this site. It's not difficult to poke someone online to make it happen. These people who are making a career of it are going to have to up the ante. Fake attacks will be next once the cash flow dries up from being a professional victim.

Also given men are more likely to be harassed than women (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/), why is the story one sided again?

It all comes back to no ethics in journalism.


Except if you actually look at the statistics, men are only slightly more likely to be harassed in general, but women are more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed, which a quite a bit more severe than name calling.

Good thing you aren't a journalist.

I'm getting really tired of hearing "it happens to men too" bullshit - that doesn't make it OK.

You mean this line?
Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.

That, but also the graphs show it as well.

The comments in this thread are just appalling. No wonder the world is such a fucked up place.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
33.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 18:19
Beamer
 
33.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 18:19
Oct 23, 2014, 18:19
 Beamer
 
bigspender wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:13:
Julio wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 12:14:
Who hasn't been harassed on the internet? I mean it`s happened to lots of us on this site. It's not difficult to poke someone online to make it happen. These people who are making a career of it are going to have to up the ante. Fake attacks will be next once the cash flow dries up from being a professional victim.

Also given men are more likely to be harassed than women (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/), why is the story one sided again?

It all comes back to no ethics in journalism.


Except if you actually look at the statistics, men are only slightly more likely to be harassed in general, but women are more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed, which a quite a bit more severe than name calling.

Good thing you aren't a journalist.

I'm getting really tired of hearing "it happens to men too" bullshit - that doesn't make it OK.

You mean this line?
Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.
32.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 18:13
32.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 18:13
Oct 23, 2014, 18:13
 
Julio wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 12:14:
Who hasn't been harassed on the internet? I mean it`s happened to lots of us on this site. It's not difficult to poke someone online to make it happen. These people who are making a career of it are going to have to up the ante. Fake attacks will be next once the cash flow dries up from being a professional victim.

Also given men are more likely to be harassed than women (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/), why is the story one sided again?

It all comes back to no ethics in journalism.


Except if you actually look at the statistics, men are only slightly more likely to be harassed in general, but women are more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed, which a quite a bit more severe than name calling.

Good thing you aren't a journalist.


I'm getting really tired of hearing "it happens to men too" bullshit - that doesn't make it OK. One wrong doesn't make another wrong OK. If that is an issue you care about then this is not the correct place for it.

The biggest cause of harm or death to a women by far is from a male, so maybe that's why people treat it seriously. There are some statistics you can go look up.

This comment was edited on Oct 23, 2014, 18:22.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
31.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 15:59
UHD
31.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 15:59
Oct 23, 2014, 15:59
UHD
 
Twitter has other uses. John Carmack's is usually interesting even if half the time I don't understand a word he tweets. I'll follow people that run or do things I like since news updates often go out on Twitter too.

Can't really have a discussion over Twitter though, 'cause at the end of the day it's global IM, and turns out having the Internet argue with the Internet isn't really conducive to anything productive.

The article is dumb but if interesting discussion can be borne from its loins... I mean the article will still be dumb but at least its thread can be salvaged.
30.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 15:13
Verno
 
30.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 15:13
Oct 23, 2014, 15:13
 Verno
 
UHD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 15:02:
The only reason I bring it up at all is there's a lot of "well they're doing it too, fancy that hmmmmmmmmm" going around and while I'm sure it's satisfying to say it doesn't really do much other than that.

They don't have to prove anything. Again, those sorts of comments are intended to show when the media is being one sided, they can go to credibility depending on the context or to force others to examine where they're coming from in the first place. In this case though its more of a "so what" to an exasperating story with little information.

As for Twitter, its only real use is bugging corporations who ignore email IMO

While I agree with you, it doesn't necessarily apply to this twitter drama

In a situation with completely anonymous sources, no official info and very vague assertions without any actual links or documentation I think its fair game. It's not like there is much else to discuss. "Some random people harassed some anonymous person on twitter, she thinks its because of this situation." ok then.

This comment was edited on Oct 23, 2014, 15:28.
Playing: Risk of Rain 2, Jedi Fallen Order, Last of Us II
Watching: Tenet, Peninsula, The Pale Door
Avatar 51617
29.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 15:02
UHD
29.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 15:02
Oct 23, 2014, 15:02
UHD
 
Verno wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 14:12:
It's not fallacious if it goes toward factual statements or credibility as I said already. Not every statement has to refute another either, pointing out hypocrisy is often used to force others to direct their own views internally.

This story is too vague to really decide whats what anyway.

While I agree with you, it doesn't necessarily apply to this twitter drama.

The only reason I bring it up at all is there's a lot of "well they're doing it too, fancy that hmmmmmmmmm" going around and while I'm sure it's satisfying to say it doesn't really do much other than that.

Best hypothetical example I can think of off the top of my head:

"You're being a dick on Twitter" "well you're being a dick on Twitter." You've successfully pointed out hypocrisy; now everyone's a dick on Twitter.

And that you can't argue
28.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 14:37
28.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 14:37
Oct 23, 2014, 14:37
 
Dagnamit wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 14:23:
For the most part, I think most places report the news (what, when, where?) well, and that includes Fox news and MSNBC. It's their commentary (why?) I can't stand. Make up your own mind about which outlets to trust. You only have access to literally all of them.

Who cares about if someone screwed someone else and, if all that's true, suffer the rightful professional consequences. It's not an indictment of the media. It's a stupid thing that's, quite frankly, none of my fucking business and we're all worse off for having been exposed to it.



I like this.

You also got to love how they bring in what jackwagons like us in cyberworld have to say on any topic. Jim Blowchunks tweeted "Blah blah blah blah blah", it is just totally worthless. We barley care what we say here and we quasi know each other, now just some complete random person says "blah blah", yeah? So? We all know people have opinions. Then they cherry pick the comments they want the listeners to here. You can see it just isn't right, but we head down the path anyway.
Avatar 17232
27.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 14:23
27.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 14:23
Oct 23, 2014, 14:23
 
Agent.X7 wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 13:56:
Half the time I wonder if news sites make this shit up.

Anonymous "victim."
Anonymous "perps."
No official complaint to the authorities to back up the story.

News places used to be somewhat nuetral, reporting on the events without spin. These days news places use any event to push their political agenda. I would not put it past them to make up stories to push their agendas.

There was never a good old days. The media has always pushed what will sell or get clicks. Nothing has changed there. Neutrality is a different issue entirely.

How can you tell which side they're pushing? Both sides of an issue use the same evidence as proof of bias. There's almost nothing to go on. Besides, there's a wide gulf between pushing a political agenda, and providing what creates revenue. Sure, sometimes the agenda is what creates the revenue, aka a "brand", (Fox News, HuffPo), but that's more like preaching to the choir than an active attempt to exert influence. I just don't buy it.

For the most part, I think most places report the news (what, when, where?) well, and that includes Fox news and MSNBC. It's their commentary (why?) I can't stand. Make up your own mind about which outlets to trust. You only have access to literally all of them.

Who cares about if someone screwed someone else and, if all that's true, suffer the rightful professional consequences. It's not an indictment of the media. It's a stupid thing that's, quite frankly, none of my fucking business and we're all worse off for having been exposed to it.

26.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Oct 23, 2014, 14:15
26.
Re: Morning Interviews Oct 23, 2014, 14:15
Oct 23, 2014, 14:15
 
Agent.X7 wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 13:56:
Half the time I wonder if news sites make this shit up.

Anonymous "victim."
Anonymous "perps."
No official complaint to the authorities to back up the story.

News places used to be somewhat neutral, reporting on the events without spin. These days news places use any event to push their political agenda. I would not put it past them to make up stories to push their agendas.

It's all about revenue. Advertisers will pay more for whatever draws in the most potential customers. Social media has made this a prerequisite to gaining views and clicks through persistent posting of dramatic and highly opinionated articles. The news is now forced to compete by editorializing (for what used to be objective) articles with drama and bias in order to earn the same advertiser's money.

Also, keep in mind, people can now anonymously comment on the articles, which leads to more volatility in expression with minimal to no consequence for inflaming a discussion. There is a narcissistic 15 seconds of fame phenomenon taking place as anyone can proclaim to be an expert seeking appreciation, despite having no experience or education on the subject at hand. People will post controversial or antagonistic views to gain more likes, replies, attention or ranking. This falls back on the primary article which is now expected to start a debate instead of simply relaying information or a story.

This comment was edited on Oct 23, 2014, 14:31.
Don't like my post? Submit a complaint
45 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older