Censorship?

I get the greater point but I feel I should make the point that as much of the negative enforcement of gender roles comes from a person's own gender segregating classes may not be enough.

Does this apply to other forms of discrimination as well, such as racism?

Certainly, without knowing what other discriminated races go through on a daily basis it gets really hard to change any negative attitudes towards them.

For the life of me, I don't get it, like I get the idea of poc safe zones you guys are expositing here but it makes me feel really off, but then my only mental description of "majority presence inhibits discussion" goes right into failure mode:"we discuss how the other inhibits our self-actualization" which raises a lot of flags.

Again. It is not as if the content and the subject being spoken about or discussed in these safe zones and classes are a restricted, close guarded secret. We know and I can tell you what sort of things they discuss, how they teach it what is learned and how this goes on to the "real" world to be taken into action, whereas you seem to be imagining that what is being thaught here is a self pity polarizing circlejerk that's all about sticking it to the white man for the sake of sticking it to the white man.

It's not about BLACK POWAH MELANIN POWAH BLACKS BLACK PRIDE #1 WHITES GENOCIDES sort of discussions, they are far, far, far from that. They seek to better understand the treatment they can be subjected to how to deal with it in a way that allows better, not worse, integration.

Blanked

Edited by FlowingCotton on Oct 11th 2020 at 1:45:43 AM

Some snipping involved:

Why is sexual violence being defined as if only women are victims? Ever heard of a male character getting raped? When males are the victims of sexual violence, it's not even considered sexual violence. I believe the Harem Genre shows this. It's very troubling that the topic is about sexual violence and everyone instantly assumes all sexual victims are female.

Not advocating that sexual violence gets banned, because I believe media with sexual violence should get higher ratings, not outright banned (which would completely shut down discussion of sexual violence, while higher ratings lets the audience choose when to deal with the issues of sexual violence). But we need to recognize female-on-male sexual violence as, well, sexual violence (currently it's treated as comedy! Not even Black Comedy Rape, just light harmless comedy!). Are there games (or other media) that get lower ratings than a different game because it's female-on-male sexual violence instead of male-on-female sexual violence?

How are the two related to each other?

edited 1st Mar '16 10:22:06 PM by hellomoto

I am too tired to type the wall of text so I'll drop the rationale behind people trying to ban medias they call subjective: Monkey see, monkey do.

edited 1st Mar '16 10:24:36 PM by AngelusNox

The link I provided didn't snip the whole thing, Here's the full text.

Addressing in particular the violence toward men part:

There is no reason to ban manga with sexual violence towards either gender any more than it is reasonable to ban movies or books with sexual violence.

On the subject of censorship, what do you think about the subject of online harassment?

I think there's ample evidence that the virtually complete lack of accountability online is the biggest factor. Legally we're trying to catch up there but it's difficult.

It's not helped by the fact that being a dick is practically an accepted part of internet culture. You see a lot of people who see that as a thing of pride.

Despite the fact that it's a concern which has spilled far past the borders of the anonymous online trolls, internet culture has largely ignored calls for self-policing.

Perhaps something like David Brin's Transparent Society would bring back accountability, but I hope that we can retain (or well, get) a vibrant liberal democratic culture which respects freedom, equality, and diversity rather than becoming a hyper-conformist dystopia like China and their planned universal citizen score which "gamifies" obedience and peer pressure.

I do think the lack of accountability for the stuff you do on the internet is a big problem, but i'm not really sure what an adequate solution would be. The internet just seems like a tricky thing to legislate in general.

Britain seems to be trying to do that, though.

There is a difference between trying to regulate illegal activity on the internet (Death threats, doxing, personal information invasion, hacking) and trying to regulate free speech (Calling you a dick, an idiot, or something like that)

Thing is, politicians are idiots, water is wet, and the sky is blue, so they have a hard time trying to get both separated from the other

Rather, regulating illegal activity depends on strong community norms, and the realm of cultural regulations of behavior is not necessarily equivalent to the legal issue of free speech though they do intersect. Wanting cultural standards of conduct online beyond the merely legalistic is not at all the same thing as "being against free speech", although it can also become a matter of legal importance depending.

As we see in online culture today, communities and individuals without accountability can become toxic, "free" mobbing behavior and GIFT very much intersects with what you call "illegal activity" though they're obviously not equivalent. This is not to say all speech should be legally regulated, but rather that culture should self-regulate and it is very much not doing so because online culture today is very much adrift from any sense of accountability.

As for the negative effects of verbal aggressiveness, they're very well documented. Wanting to mitigate these effects through culture is not the same thing as being against free speech. Problem is our culture at present sees great value in verbal aggression and likes to victim blame people, and people are hypervigilant about "people telling them what to do". That's not all bad, all things in moderation including moderation, but the list of the problems verbal hostility causes is much longer than what they solve, and people are either willfully ignorant about that or champion it as a victory.

Diversity in perspectives is good, freedom of expression is good, but a culture of hostility and mistrust adrift from any sense of responsibility is extremely bad for health, the economy, and sustainable culture.

The saying "everyone should grow a thicker skin" is catchy, but not actually based on facts.

That's not to say I agree with political correctness, I think it causes more harm than good, but the backlash against political correctness is just misinformed and harmful. The best thing for understanding isn't shouting people down, whether you're motivated by political correctness or you feel you're crusader against PC culture.

edited 4th Mar '16 11:29:31 AM by CassidyTheDevil

I'm going to jump in to say that the "grow thicker skin" argument exists for an reason. Although the moderation can be great, you can't reverse the memories or an successful suicide. Which is why I just ignore the occassional abusive comments and use them as cheap entertainment.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but I'm not talking about forum moderation, but personal moderation and informed community moderation. Which forum moderation is a part of online, obviously.

I agree the saying exists for reason, but I think it rests on mistaken assumptions about human nature. We are extremely social animals and "words can never hurt me" is at best only a false mantra we tell ourselves for comfort, and cannot be used as a guiding principle of conduct without negative consequences.

edited 4th Mar '16 11:42:20 AM by CassidyTheDevil

Considering that I've been told to kill myself in reaction to an fail thread that I've made, the saying does have some weight in forum trolling. Said remark was so heinous that even my usual critics called him out while I kept poking the guy for more "suicide OP" comments since I was bored at the time...And said thread was scrubbed and we were both RO'd for my shitpoasting reactions and his trolling.

edited 4th Mar '16 12:05:22 PM by RabidTanker

What is less fun is when haters (that is, trolls who are actually serious) with mobs of anonymous followers heap abuse on a single person. That's depressingly common herd behavior online.

And the conversation took a tangent faster and wilder than a chimpanzee fleeing with my underwear in the hot, humid jungles of the copacabana

Like the monkey and my dignity, I fail to grasp it

I think telling people to grow a thicker skin might be viable as pragmatic advice but it tends to ignore that people shouldn't be dicks to each other in the first place and that it isn't ok that they're doing this.

There is also the fact that this is often told by the user of abusive language, often sarcastically. And people who are friends with them. This may sometimes be well-intentioned, but anyone with half a brain can see the victim blaming subtext.

Not only it is pretty hard to force accountability on the internet but mostly doing so is prone to abuse both by third parties and governments.

There is also the global aspect of harassment. It isn't confined to a single country. You may have an Filipino kid throwing insults towards an Australian blogger, what do you do? Trial him on a Philippine court? Extradite him to an Australian court? Do either courts have laws ruling on online harassment?

Also hat can constitute as harassment differs from person to person and there is no effective measure to gauge the amounts of distress caused by online harassment. Some people might take offense and others may ignore it or even find it funny.

What should be considered harassment is also difficult to define. Someone calling you a faggot or telling you to kill yourself after you kill them seven times in a row in a Call of Duty match should count as much as an angry comment calling someone a "dumb cun who should fuck off and diet" on a Youtube comment because a vlogger was making a video about why X game is bad?

Does criticism count as harassment? Can harassment lawsuits or complaints be used to censor critical content towards a group or person? Like the copy rights enforcement is used to censor other vloggers on Youtube with phony copy right violation accusations?

If there is more than a single harasser do you prosecute just one or bring all of them to trial?

Can the harassed be also the harasser? In a way they adopt a behavior with the intent of getting negative views or stir a reaction that will result in harassment. If they call the harassers a bunch of "sorry virgin losers" and "small dick haters" can they be prosecuted with harassment as well?

Online harassment isn't something that is easy to make laws over and I think it isn't something that should involve government and law enforcement directly as it opens a lot of room for abuse.

Besides unlike someone showing up at your door with signs or following you, it is relatively easy to avoid online harassment, specially given the nature of the internet, where the lack of response or simply ignoring the for a while usually results on the harassers getting bored and simply leaving.

I agree with you that law is unlikely to be a very effective tool here, but I find it odd that no matter hard you specify you're not talking about and don't want censorship, you agree with freedom of expression, and you don't want to bully people into PC conformism, any talk about how there ought be standards in behavior leads a subset of people foaming at the mouth about being oppressed.

Which, I did specify very explicitly, but I guess you skimmed and you have your goggles on. Which is fine, but that's part of the issue.

But that said, it's actually not that hard for investigators to figure out what happened in cases of cyberbullying. Privacy is a myth, but getting people who work in surveillance to work on these cases, instead of say copyright violation or whatever, is somewhat difficult. Even if they're in another country, there's nothing stopping them from looking at their data, they're already doing so with millions of people.

Doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to pursue these things legally, just means our already existing framework needs some slight adjustment. Which hopefully we will.

Turkey's being Turkey