Censorship? There is no censorship!

then explain it, because I have no clue why you came up with free spech or "changing" thoughts. Also, it doesnt mater where you are from, you could still missunderstand the stuff you are talking about. No offense.
 
Here's the actual paper, for those who hate YouTube explanations as much as I do and want some better context: http://psi.sagepub.com/content/15/3/75.abstract

The meta-analysis that there's no bias against women in the sciences is interesting. I'm curious to see how that tracks with earlier studies explicitly tracking bias in science -- one explanation might be that affirmative action policies successfully correct for these biases.
 
Sander said:
Here's the actual paper, for those who hate YouTube explanations as much as I do and want some better context: http://psi.sagepub.com/content/15/3/75.abstract

The meta-analysis that there's no bias against women in the sciences is interesting. I'm curious to see how that tracks with earlier studies explicitly tracking bias in science -- one explanation might be that affirmative action policies successfully correct for these biases.
Click to expand...

or maybe the cause was never SEXISM! DISCRIMINATION! in the first place but rather used as an easy out.
 
I don't know, never say never. It's just hard to know what goes on in someone's mind, let alone their subconscious when they are selecting people for a job.

Still, anyone in a business, especially a technical one, who doesn't choose based on skill is being very silly in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The point of unconscious/implicit biases is that people aren't very good judges of other people's skills, because irrelevant personal characteristics influence people's unconscious reactions. Something confirmed over and over and over again by study after study. That's a well-established fact, really.
 
You've said that already. And it has little to do with what I just said. Knowing that biases exist and can influence people, doesn't mean that you know when they influence people.
 
Ah, right, yet another rationalization to prevent confronting structural issues. After all, we have widespread evidence that these biases affect nearly everyone, we have widespread studies in specific fields and hiring practices showing that they play a role. We have all this research on varied and large populations showing that unconscious biases are near-universal.

But to then conclude that these biases may actually be influencing things in specific industries (not even accusing individuals)? Why, that's a bridge too far!
 
Sander said:
Ah, right, yet another rationalization to prevent confronting structural issues. After all, we have widespread evidence that these biases affect nearly everyone, we have widespread studies in specific fields and hiring practices showing that they play a role. We have all this research on varied and large populations showing that unconscious biases are near-universal.

But to then conclude that these biases may actually be influencing things in specific industries (not even accusing individuals)? Why, that's a bridge too far!
Click to expand...

Akratus said:
I don't know, never say never.
Click to expand...

Reading is hard.

http://gamergate.me/2014/11/war-on-humanism/
Interesting article, this. Gamergate.me is an excellent site.
 
Last edited:
Sander said:
Ah, right, yet another rationalization to prevent confronting structural issues. After all, we have widespread evidence that these biases affect nearly everyone, we have widespread studies in specific fields and hiring practices showing that they play a role. We have all this research on varied and large populations showing that unconscious biases are near-universal.

But to then conclude that these biases may actually be influencing things in specific industries (not even accusing individuals)? Why, that's a bridge too far!
Click to expand...

just thought i would correct this.

we have widespread CONCLUSIONS based on studies.

how accurate those conclusions are we do not know. the problem with large studies is did they account for all possibilities?

such as the majority of your wage/pay gap studies you like to link to. and what my example i posted on page 19 was trying to show you. you can do the math multiple ways to show whatever conclusion you want. either women are making less, or men are making less. which is actually right? they both are, for different reasons.
 
Great point, Akratus. Now I can totally see how GamerGate is about ethics in game journalism and not digging into women's private lives at aaaaaalllllll.

Gee, maybe before trying to incite yet another mob, over something GamerGate supposedly isn't aboutk using a group GamerGate actually hates, we should ask her what's up with that. Or, like, use Google. Hint: she's not actually hiding this anywhere. Those pictures are all over her public Facebook page, too. That's because it's a therapy dog: she's taking the dog to hospitals to cheer up kids. And she's using pet-safe dye, approved by the ASPCA.

But nope. Hate mob go! Just pile on! It's about ethics in games journalism! That's why we're attacking a software developer for painting her dog!
 
Sander said:
Great point, Akratus. Now I can totally see how GamerGate is about ethics in game journalism and not digging into women's private lives at aaaaaalllllll.

Gee, maybe before trying to incite yet another mob, over something GamerGate supposedly isn't aboutk using a group GamerGate actually hates, we should ask her what's up with that. Or, like, use Google. Hint: she's not actually hiding this anywhere. Those pictures are all over her public Facebook page, too. That's because it's a therapy dog: she's taking the dog to hospitals to cheer up kids. And she's using pet-safe dye, approved by the ASPCA.

But nope. Hate mob go! Just pile on! It's about ethics in games journalism! That's why we're attacking a software developer for painting her dog!
Click to expand...

The sanity comment was more in relation to my first link. But at this point your penchant for antagonism is no surprise to me. I'm more surprised that you wouldn't expect people who post things on the internet to recieve inordinate amounts of attention and comments of both a positive and negative nature. Of course mostly negative. People who create online content receive things you perceive as harassment whether or not a hashtag is associated. Your insistance that this could somehow be abated, or isn't a personal action by the individuals, is also very disconnected from the reality of how the internet operates.

I'm also not digging into her private life. What does freebsdgirl even do? I wouldn't know. But of course gamergate is one person.

Coincidentally anti-gamergate digs into the lives of gamergaters just as much, if not more. Anti-gg has a big doxxing problem, according to freebsdgirl herself.

Also I don't think it's more immoral to make jokes or negative comments towards someone who's done this themselves, and in fact incite these comments by their antagonism and generalizing put-downs. I don't think that speaks badly of her moreso than gamergaters who do this, but come the fuck on, if you don't expect this regardless of any hashtags you're critical of/are critical of you, you simply don't know how the internet works. Stamping your feet on a moral high ground sure impacts this, I bet. She also created the block list which caused heaps of trouble for people not involved in gamergate, and trying to block hundreds or thousands of people is in and of itself a rather misguided thing to do in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Stop rationalizing harassment, dude. It's not helping you.

It's not all that difficult to just go "this is not okay", instead of being all evasive, going with the weak-ass "but other people" and doing everything you can to avoid tying it into the hashtag because they're all individuals. Except when something you perceive as something positive happens, it's perfectly fine to credit GamerGate as a movement, right? No, fuck no. You don't get to take credit for 'positives' and then turn around and wipe your hands of the negatives.

This bullshit is exactly why everyone not in GamerGate sees the entire movement as a toxic shitheap.

PS: Anti-gamergate still isn't actually a movement.
 
You can't understand something without understanding the rationalization behind it. This I do without necessarily condoning things.

The advice I would give you in return is to not pretend like someone was murdered every time it turns out it's business as usual on the internet. I realize moral panics can generate excitement, but I would say it's ill advised.

But then again, It's quality entertainment to see you try so desperately to paint me as morally reprehensible. What you just said shows the inherent conflict that is so opposed by critics of social justice on the internet. The lack of refutation also.
 
Holy shit are you seriously incapable of saying "harassment is not okay"? Jesus fucking Christ.

To reiterate, because you probably missed this edit:

It's not all that difficult to just go "this is not okay", instead of being all evasive, going with the weak-ass "but other people" and doing everything you can to avoid tying it into the hashtag because they're all individuals. Except when something you perceive as something positive happens, it's perfectly fine to credit GamerGate as a movement, right? No, fuck no. You don't get to take credit for 'positives' and then turn around and wipe your hands of the negatives.

This bullshit is exactly why everyone not in GamerGate sees the entire movement as a toxic shitheap.

PS: Anti-gamergate still isn't actually a movement.
 
I've already said before that harassment is not okay. I've also said that we disagree on what constitutes harassment. I know that you as an official morality officer of the institution of social justice require an unequivocal absolute statement of moral outrage in every personal message, but please respect the need for other people to not have their head up their own ass.

Regarding point two:
http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/
https://twitter.com/hashtag/stopgamergate2014
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top