Back on the issue of GamerGate, it seems to me that a lot of the sexists/homophobes/racists in GG do think it's about ethics in games journalism.
It's just that they're idiots who think that "ethics" means "not factoring issues of female and minority representation into coverage of games."
So rather than just mocking them ad nauseum for claiming it's about ethics in video game journalism, maybe there should be more mockery around the notion that "ethics" means "not talking about social issues."
BUT... if there's a lesbian high school student and nobody will be friends with her because she's gay, the reaction would tend to be that the other kids in that high school are bigots and assholes.
That would be a legitimate reaction if we knew the other kids didn't want to be friends because she was gay.
But what if she was just assuming that was the reason and not considering that it might be something else about her? Or if she was only interested in befriending the cool kids, and had been ignoring everyone else all along?
Quote:
You don't ever hear the unqualified response "Nobody owes you their friendship."
That is actually true, though. Friendship is fairly broad and fairly low-risk, so people are more likely to encourage or push people into having platonic relationships with needy people than sexual ones. But nobody should be pushed into either one, really.
Quote:
Or, one that I've seen many times, if a gay white guy says "Sorry, I don't date/have sex with black guys, I'm just not attracted to them" the reaction would tend to be that the guy is a racist. I've seen that brought up as evidence of the (white) gay community's racism many, many times.
What I don't see is people saying "Black gay guys are not owed sexual relationships with white gay guys" and leaving it at that.
Now, there are more nuanced reactions, such as saying your sexual desires are probably shaped by the racism permeating society, and you should make an effort to try to question your attitudes and so forth rather than seeing them as completely unproblematic, but you're not obligated to have sex with anyone you don't want to. That position, however, would seem to necessitate not denouncing any white gay man who doesn't want to have sex with black men as an unrepentant racist. But I don't see much pushback against that.
That is racist, though. It is totally a legitimate personal choice that people have every right to make for themselves, but if you are not attracted to an entire race of people, that's pretty much textbook racism. It's just a really really common and really really deep seated type that's held by a lot of people who don't consider themselves racists and sometimes aren't except for that.
Quote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is that people can get a real sense that they've been wronged when they're denied friendship, romance or sex. And maybe that should be acknowledged a little more often as being potentially a valid feeling even when it's a straight white male who's being rejected.
That's true, but I think people do acknowledge that and sympathize with that, as long as they're not all vindictive and entitled about it and blaming literally everyone but themselves.
But a lot of men have such a deep sense of entitlement that they actually get hostile and even violent when they're rejected, so if women seem not interested in hearing about it, it might be because they've already heard enough.
Or, one that I've seen many times, if a gay white guy says "Sorry, I don't date/have sex with black guys, I'm just not attracted to them" the reaction would tend to be that the guy is a racist. I've seen that brought up as evidence of the (white) gay community's racism many, many times.
What I don't see is people saying "Black gay guys are not owed sexual relationships with white gay guys" and leaving it at that.
Now, there are more nuanced reactions, such as saying your sexual desires are probably shaped by the racism permeating society, and you should make an effort to try to question your attitudes and so forth rather than seeing them as completely unproblematic, but you're not obligated to have sex with anyone you don't want to. That position, however, would seem to necessitate not denouncing any white gay man who doesn't want to have sex with black men as an unrepentant racist. But I don't see much pushback against that.
That is racist, though. It is totally a legitimate personal choice that people have every right to make for themselves, but if you are not attracted to an entire race of people, that's pretty much textbook racism. It's just a really really common and really really deep seated type that's held by a lot of people who don't consider themselves racists and sometimes aren't except for that.
Well, this is why I said "unrepentant racist." I agree that it is likely due to racism. I think there's some room for variation there that's not due to racism - e.g. I would be reluctant to say that someone who really has a thing for redheads or people with light skin and dark hair (or vice versa) only feels that way because of racism.
It's also not really clear to people how to address that (if you're not attracted to a certain race, what do you do about that?), which makes it an accusation particularly likely to be counterproductive.
(Although I definitely think people putting that in their profiles like it's no big deal is problematic.)
Quote:
That's true, but I think people do acknowledge that and sympathize with that, as long as they're not all vindictive and entitled about it and blaming literally everyone but themselves.
But a lot of men have such a deep sense of entitlement that they actually get hostile and even violent when they're rejected, so if women seem not interested in hearing about it, it might be because they've already heard enough.
Yeah, that's why I was saying it wasn't in response to that particular article because she wasn't talking about guys who are potentially sympathetic.
But I do think, for example, that mocking the gamergaters as basement dwelling virgins maybe is not particularly productive...
You know what people put in their profiles all the damn time?
"No fat chicks"
And you know what? Not a single damn one of them owes me sex. Ever. Period.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
At first I was thinking, OK those guys are low-level programmers who are reporting to her, because that's who usually does the programming and testing and stuff, but this turns out to not be the case.
I did like the super-realistic touch with all the binary, though.
Marenco, who wrote the Barbie book for Mattel, protests that she’s a feminist. She’s also a technology professional. She specialises in usability, and for a while worked at Microsoft’s usability labs in Copenhagen, where she lived for twenty years.
“I have seen the sexism in the computer industry and in a Silicon Valley totally dominated by men. It’s a boy’s game,” says the writer, who now lives in California.
She says that she tries to be politically aware in her work. “As a writer, when I write, I think about this and I try to replace the professional white males with Asian females. I try and I’m conscious of this, because it’s part of my political upbringing,” she says. “You have to have this on the forefront of your mind or you slip back into that mindset of the traditional Barbie.”
None of which explains why computer engineer Barbie can’t code.
Marenco confirmed to KTN that those parts of the book described above are indeed her original text. Nevertheless, Mattel exacts a lot of control over the final product, she argues, and guides writers heavily along the way, she argues.
“They can’t get out of that groove of ‘she’s nice, she doesn’t show anger, she doesn’t show frustration’,” says Marenco, who has written 40-50 Barbie books. “They need a wakeup call. When I write something, I had many editor’s comments like ‘she has to be more polite’.”
“Barbie is from another era, and they can’t bring her up to date,” she continues. “They can’t make her lose that terminal sweetness that she has.”
Marenco won’t be the first writer to forego some principles for a lucrative gig, by writing stories for a traditionally sexist brand that goes against her values. She protests that this whole thing took her by surprise, and muses that she’s unlikely to get another gig with the toy giant again.
“They’re directing their wrath at the wrong target. Mattell is the target,” she insists.
Mattel is doing backpedalling equally quickly, though:
“The Barbie I Can Be A Computer Engineer book was published in 2010. Since that time we have reworked our Barbie books. The portrayal of Barbie in this specific story doesn’t reflect the Brand’s vision for what Barbie stands for,” the company said in a statement this morning.
“We believe girls should be empowered to understand that anything is possible and believe they live in a world without limits. We apologize that this book didn’t reflect that belief. All Barbie titles moving forward will be written to inspire girls imaginations and portray an empowered Barbie character.”
The speech by Rebecca Watson I got to see.
If you go to the actual youtube link you will see a massive downvote because it got linked at an MRA forum and their followers were sent to downvote and troll the video, because ya know MRA is all about Men's rights and ethics in journalism and not at all about attacking women!
Wikipedia has always had a woman problem, but even considering sanctions like this is way beyond the pale.
The people who think they're the most logical and objective are almost always just the most intractably biased, and Wikipedia is a perfect example of that.
BTW, that link to Mark Bernstein's blog in that story is worth following, I think, if you're interested in the details. I haven't gotten all the way through it yet, so I can't guarantee it doesn't devolve into turtle porn or something, but the parts I've read so far are good.
Anyway, it's becoming pretty apparent that we're going to have to fork Wikipedia and build a better version ourselves. It should just be a small matter of programming and I'll be happy to Paypal the $5 to cover it myself, so I'm sure one of you people can bang that out over the weekend.
Oh he also happens to be the CEO of Microsoft speaking at a Women in tech conference.
Isn't that where Ensign Steve is? The Women in Tech conference, not MS.
Indeed I am!
The first day they said we should come early on the second day for a "surprise speaker" and I guessed it was Megan Smith and I was totally right cuz I'm fucking smart as hell. I had skipped breakfast and coffee to get there on time, so after she spoke I checked the program to see if the scheduled speaker was someone I could take a pass on and go take care of my empty tummy and impending caffeine withdrawal. I saw it was some dude from Microsoft and I was like peace out. OMG MISANDRY!
I went and got a bagel with pumpkin shmear and it was divine.
Later in the morning I was reading the live twitter streams of my colleagues at the conference, and yeah, nobody was impressed with MS dude. I was very happy with my pumpkiny choice. Also Megan Smith is a fucking rock star.
MOTHER FUCKER! You know who else was there and I totally missed her? Gillian Jacobs.
Gillian Jacobs might be best known for her inspiring laughs on NBC's Community, but for the past few months the actress has been zig-zagging across the west coast to find out more about female computer science pioneer Grace Hopper for a new documentary.
...
She used her off days to conduct interviews in the Bay Area and once flew to Phoenix to attend the Grace Hopper Celebration for young women interested in computer sciences.
Starfucker fail! (I was too busy creaming myself over Megan Smith, apparently.)
Wikipedia has always had a woman problem, but even considering sanctions like this is way beyond the pale. The people who think they're the most logical and objective are almost always just the most intractably biased, and Wikipedia is a perfect example of that.
I realise you are being engagingly hyperbolic, Lisarea, but the hidden premise in your criticism is that a more logical and/or objective action would be, what? ... not to bar anyone and let the edit-war continue?
Wikipedia has always had a woman problem, but even considering sanctions like this is way beyond the pale. The people who think they're the most logical and objective are almost always just the most intractably biased, and Wikipedia is a perfect example of that.
I realise you are being engagingly hyperbolic, Lisarea, but the hidden premise in your criticism is that a more logical and/or objective action would be, what? ... not to bar anyone and let the edit-war continue?
No, I'm not really being hyperbolic. I mean, maybe I guess we could find some population that was more biased or something, but people who believe that their perceptions are grounded in objective truths are necessarily blinded to their own cultural and personal biases. Someone who fully embraces scientism as a worldview is not likely to question their own perceptions or acknowledge their biases, which only serves to solidify those biases and inoculate them from criticism, nuance, and any level of complexity that they can't fully tangle out on their own.
I don't have a solution to the Wikipedia issue, but I don't think that it's necessary to have a ready solution when you point out a problem. Maybe they could just not have an entry, or just a short, dispassionate, dictionary style definition, or just leave it at this.
So I don't know what the solution to that specific issue is, but I do know that their solution went well beyond the scope of the problem by proposing to ban those editors from any gender-related entries.
... not to bar anyone and let the edit-war continue?
Yes, or well lock the page, setup a group of editors that all must agree before a change goes live... like wikipedia has done for virtually every other controversial article and edit war they've had over their run. It's not like edit wars are new or anything.
Having a clearly biased group ban one side of a debate because they chose to play fair is pretty much the exact opposite of Wiki's tenants. (remember these women were only banned because they chose to follow the rules and use their real accounts instead of break them and use throw away accounts like the Gamergate side did).
... I don't think that it's necessary to have a ready solution when you point out a problem.
When the problem you've identified is an error of judgement you perceive behind someone else's chosen solution then, yes, I think you do have to have a better solution ready, and to be willing and able to make a case for it without whining.
Maybe they could just not have an entry, ...
I imagine that would be seen as an admission of complete failure to do what they have set out to do.
... or just a short, dispassionate, dictionary style definition, ...
I imagine there could be as much conflict over the choice of the author for such an entry as there has been over the current page and the attempts to quell it.
... but I do know that their solution went well beyond the scope of the problem by proposing to ban those editors from any gender-related entries.
Apparently, what passed for their solution when you made that knowledge claim, was not their actual solution. LOL irony!
... but people who believe that their perceptions are grounded in objective truths are necessarily blinded to their own cultural and personal biases. Someone who fully embraces scientism as a worldview ...
I think "people who believe that their perceptions are grounded in objective truths" is a switch from the people you started out talking about, "who think they're the most logical and objective". I think one can take pride in one's logical faculties without committing to any kind of objective knowledge, and I would expect many of the Wiki-elders to do just that.
Someone who fully embraces scientism ...
Are you implying that the leadership of wikipedia are card-carrying scientismists, or is this another switch?
... I don't think that it's necessary to have a ready solution when you point out a problem.
When the problem you've identified is an error of judgement you perceive behind someone else's chosen solution then, yes, I think you do have to have a better solution ready, and to be willing and able to make a case for it without whining.
I'm not whining, and it's not my job to provide Wikipedia with a solution to their problems that maintains their vision or charter or whatever. They've built a framework where they use largely free labor to create their product, and they've been very successful with that. But there are problems that will arise with that model, and this is a pretty obvious one.
Sometimes I 'whine' about buggy software or lost packages or dangerous intersections without proposing a detailed solution to those problems either. If someone wants me to fix their business' issues, they need to pay me for that.
Quote:
Apparently, what passed for their solution when you made that knowledge claim, was not their actual solution. LOL irony!
I'm pretty sure I knew at the time I wrote that that they hadn't finalized that, which is why I said 'proposing,' and earlier than that, 'considering.' I make a conscious effort not to use waffle words, so if I have a modifier somewhere, it's very likely that I mean it. (This isn't just directed at you. It's just a really common thing people do that really bugs me.)
And yes, even proposing to ban all those editors from any gender related entries is way over the top.
Quote:
I think "people who believe that their perceptions are grounded in objective truths" is a switch from the people you started out talking about, "who think they're the most logical and objective". I think one can take pride in one's logical faculties without committing to any kind of objective knowledge, and I would expect many of the Wiki-elders to do just that.
I don't think it's a switch. And yes, people can value their logical skills, but everyone has biases, and the only way to minimize your own is to acknowledge and try to correct for them. You can't really value logic without acknowledging the role of bias. (It's almost like some people think they're logical in the sense of formal logic or something.)
Quote:
Are you implying that the leadership of wikipedia are card-carrying scientismists, or is this another switch?
No. I wouldn't eat my hat if they turned out to have a disproportionate number of them, but when talking about a generalized abstract thing like that, I think it's helpful to look at a range of different situations to see if it applies. And I have noticed what I think is a rise in people who seem heavily emotionally invested in perspectives rooted in scientism. (Yes, that word is awkward and really hard to modify clearly.)
How many gamergaters does it take to make a single piece of armor? Fifty. One to do the modeling, one to do the materials, and forty-eight to tweet that it’s not your shield.
Naturally, certain segments of the internets went apeshit. Does anyone have any recommendations for Tim Schafer games to play? I sort of feel like I should support him after this I guess I should probably start with the Monkey Island games but other recommendations would also be appreciated.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
Re: Springtime for Geek Girls?
Starfucker fail! (I was too busy creaming myself over Megan Smith, apparently.)
I guess I should probably start with the Monkey Island games but other recommendations would also be appreciated.
Linear Mode
