What happened? He lasted two hours. Then he deleted the account, because he couldn't take it. The women I've talked to report that what he encountered is normal for them.
They're not even close to the same frequency. I know people of both genders in the game industry. The guys regard death threats as an exceptional event, and might not see one in any given five-year period. The women, if they're at all visible, get them pretty much constantly.
I've been seeing how men treat other men for a very long time now, and it is in general not even remotely similar to the kinds of abuse that the women I know take for granted in gaming communities. Like, for instance, I can post about how I like a game someone else dislikes, or dislike a game they like, and no one who thinks I'm male will threaten to rape me for it.
No, see. The concept of "rape culture" doesn't trivialize rape. But I think it's reasonable to refer to cultural norms and behaviors which do in fact seem to promote the idea that rape is an expected or normal thing as "rape culture".
I admit, I was pretty skeptical of this notion for a long time, because it seemed unreasonably extreme. Then I saw news coverage about some people being tried for rape talking about how it was going to be bad for their careers if they got convicted. Then I saw high school athletic coaches saying they were going to educate their boys on, get this, the importance of not filming or talking about it if they sexually assaulted girls.
Now I concede that, yes, there really is a larger-scale problem that is going to have to be addressed. Yes, personal responsibility is a thing, but the fact is, statistics are also a thing, and if doing one thing at a societal level increases the number of rapes, and doing something else lowers the number, doing the former thing and then complaining that it should be all about personal responsibility seems pretty, well, irresponsible.
And while, yes, we can totally continue to meaningfully blame people for their own choices, I think it's pretty reasonable to think that adults going out of their way to tell boys how important it is to avoid getting caught, rather than how important it is not to sexually assault people in the first place, could create in boys the impression that such choices were accepted and respected.
A non-zero number of rapists do not realize that what they did is actually rape. Because they've been told that it's okay for girls to cry, or that girls owe them sex and it's legitimate to push the issue, or whatever else. And yes, people really get told that.
Maybe I'm just not inventing the radical motivations from whole cloth so I don't have to think the world needs improving?
It's not at all the case that lumping together disparate severities of things in statistics is saying they're "just as bad". It's just saying that they share a common characteristic which makes it useful to study them together. Since "harassment" as a legal category is a usefully studyable thing, that seems like a reasonable way to frame questions when studying the topic. You could also ask different questions, but I suspect that if the questions were sensical at all, you'd end up with overall similar results regardless of which questions you picked.
I don't think they think the "trifling" transgressions are "just as bad". I've never heard anyone say, or even suggest, that they are "just as bad".
On the other hand, I've seen very good evidence presented that the "trifling" transgressions tend to correlate strongly with environments in which people are a lot more comfortable pushing things a lot harder. which means that there is at least some reason to believe that they may contribute to an environment where people will think they can get away with rape. That, and "trifling" transgressions can have a significant cumulative effect over time.
You're failing to distinguish between anonymity and pseudonymity.
You could argue that "seebs" isn't my "real name", although it's the only name I reliably answer to. But I've got ~30 years of history using this name, and nowhere near as much visible history under the name on my government ID, so this is the one I care about.
How do you know whether those were their "real name"? I knew a guy who once got interviewed for a newspaper, and they reported his name exactly as written; Tsu Dho Nimh.
What they really banned wasn't "names which aren't yours" but "names which don't look like they are real names". There was no effort at all to enforce the accuracy of names unless they thought you were impersonating someone. But if you had a not-very-Western name, well, that was a possible problem. And once you got into the "we don't think that looks like a name" thing, they wanted real documentation of some sort.
I never did find a way to make that happen, but eventually I talked to someone who knew someone who could put me in touch with a guy who could fix my account.
Someone I know had that happen to her even though she had never intentionally signed up for any part of google+. Something caused her account to get tied to it, then they nuked her stuff.
Seriously, try to imagine describing a lot of the things people do professionally now to someone 30 years ago. Some of them are genuinely incomprehensible. Quite a lot, even.
You can't have a future-proof job. You will have to adapt as the world changes.
Don't try to use super-low-power things for software development. Get something that will run things quickly and efficiently, and turn it off when you're not using it.
But never with T-mobile. AT&T did indeed allow third parties to start charging us without permission, then made it a fair amount of hassle (from my point of view, anyway) to cancel the services which we never requested. Never had a problem on any of our t-mobile lines.
Glad to see that things I was hearing about back in college, and used to experiment with Unix ports of in the early 90s, and which were also found in the pre-OSX Mac dev environment, are being reinvented as though they were new.
The big flaw here is your assumption that the justification for the "higher paying job" should be "entirely practical skills".
It's the general education and study that are most useful in making you able to eventually be significantly more productive and effective than someone without an education... Except of course that there's lots of ways of getting an education that don't happen to come with a diploma. But employers are not totally insane to prefer people who have a broader educational background, because those people will be more able to do a good job of lots of things.
I think you're assuming that the original connection between degrees and salaries was more direct than it really ever was.
I think it's very much that, in this particular case. The anon didn't say that women should be in some way responsible for choices like "walking alone in dangerous neighborhoods at night", but for how they look or dress. That's... actually not at all justifiable. I am okay with suggesting that people ought to lock their houses, learn self defense, and so on, because in practice they ought to. I'm less okay with saying that if they fail to do so, that makes it their fault if they get mugged, raped, or otherwise attacked.
The blame-the-victim thing comes from the just world fallacy. People don't want to think that bad things happen to innocent people, so they declare the people non-innocent.
You can reproduce this beautifully in lab conditions. Play people a recording of someone being tortured and they will start disliking the person and thinking badly of them.
Good job shifting the goalposts, but that's pretty much totally unrelated. See, the lions are generally not considered to be moral actors. Humans usually are.
Of course she's responsible for how she looks and dresses, it's just that neither of those can ever be, in any way, a justification for rape. They're totally irrelevant. She's also responsible for what she has for breakfast, and that's every bit as relevant to your decision as to whether or not you want to be a rapist. Which, given that you're playing apologetics for it, presumably you do.
That's not obvious at all. I am pretty sure I could make more money doing other things, but I enjoy the things I do now more. Your best interest isn't necessarily what makes you the most money.
Well, apart from the complete lack of citations, etcetera:
Who cares what someone did in 1944? And what does 9/11 have to do with anything? You're making a moral argument that something is disgusting or immoral, but that's not a rebuttal to the claim that it has a particular effect.
It's also a little weird to see you talking about the "post 9/11 vaccine" for a disease that we haven't generally vaccinated for since 1972 or so.
People were concerned about them, but since they were inevitable, you couldn't do anything but not worry too much and hope for the best.
We knew that mumps and measles were one-time diseases, and that it was best to get them early because then you were immune, some of them are much more dangerous in adults (especially mumps, which sterilzes adult males), and anyway the sooner you get it the less of an investment we lose if it kills you.
People were a lot more casual about kids dying in the past.
The Wakefield paper may not have been retracted, but there were plenty of things demonstrating that it was wrong. I blame her because she's clearly highly influential.
I'd be interested in seeing citations. I have been told by someone whose credibility and sources I trust that there was no throttling as such, just a configuration of routes and bandwidth such that the traffic would go through heavily congested gateways which never seemed to get upgraded. But nothing like an actual QoS filter limiting traffic. Still easy to fix immediately upon wanting to, but also a thing that even a fairly strict net neutrality law wouldn't really prevent...
It's worth distinguishing between neutrality between actors, and neutrality between protocols.
It makes perfect sense to use QoS features to guarantee reliable availability of a small amount of bandwidth with very high priority (thus lower latency) for VOIP, while allowing downloads to consume a ton of bandwidth but get delayed slightly to get the VOIP traffic where it wants to be. We do stuff like this all the time at many levels and it's good engineering.
The concern about net neutrality is more at the level of, say, choosing to throttle companies you are trying to compete with. Although apparently, the real issue with Comcast and the like has mostly been not actively throttling, but merely failing to upgrade feeds enough to handle the load.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually really easy to check this out, because you can use whatever name you want on the Internet.
Someone decided to prove that women were just whining, recently.
What happened? He lasted two hours. Then he deleted the account, because he couldn't take it. The women I've talked to report that what he encountered is normal for them.
They're not even close to the same frequency. I know people of both genders in the game industry. The guys regard death threats as an exceptional event, and might not see one in any given five-year period. The women, if they're at all visible, get them pretty much constantly.
I've been seeing how men treat other men for a very long time now, and it is in general not even remotely similar to the kinds of abuse that the women I know take for granted in gaming communities. Like, for instance, I can post about how I like a game someone else dislikes, or dislike a game they like, and no one who thinks I'm male will threaten to rape me for it.
No, see. The concept of "rape culture" doesn't trivialize rape. But I think it's reasonable to refer to cultural norms and behaviors which do in fact seem to promote the idea that rape is an expected or normal thing as "rape culture".
I admit, I was pretty skeptical of this notion for a long time, because it seemed unreasonably extreme. Then I saw news coverage about some people being tried for rape talking about how it was going to be bad for their careers if they got convicted. Then I saw high school athletic coaches saying they were going to educate their boys on, get this, the importance of not filming or talking about it if they sexually assaulted girls.
Now I concede that, yes, there really is a larger-scale problem that is going to have to be addressed. Yes, personal responsibility is a thing, but the fact is, statistics are also a thing, and if doing one thing at a societal level increases the number of rapes, and doing something else lowers the number, doing the former thing and then complaining that it should be all about personal responsibility seems pretty, well, irresponsible.
And while, yes, we can totally continue to meaningfully blame people for their own choices, I think it's pretty reasonable to think that adults going out of their way to tell boys how important it is to avoid getting caught, rather than how important it is not to sexually assault people in the first place, could create in boys the impression that such choices were accepted and respected.
A non-zero number of rapists do not realize that what they did is actually rape. Because they've been told that it's okay for girls to cry, or that girls owe them sex and it's legitimate to push the issue, or whatever else. And yes, people really get told that.
Maybe I'm just not inventing the radical motivations from whole cloth so I don't have to think the world needs improving?
It's not at all the case that lumping together disparate severities of things in statistics is saying they're "just as bad". It's just saying that they share a common characteristic which makes it useful to study them together. Since "harassment" as a legal category is a usefully studyable thing, that seems like a reasonable way to frame questions when studying the topic. You could also ask different questions, but I suspect that if the questions were sensical at all, you'd end up with overall similar results regardless of which questions you picked.
I don't think they think the "trifling" transgressions are "just as bad". I've never heard anyone say, or even suggest, that they are "just as bad".
On the other hand, I've seen very good evidence presented that the "trifling" transgressions tend to correlate strongly with environments in which people are a lot more comfortable pushing things a lot harder. which means that there is at least some reason to believe that they may contribute to an environment where people will think they can get away with rape. That, and "trifling" transgressions can have a significant cumulative effect over time.
You're failing to distinguish between anonymity and pseudonymity.
You could argue that "seebs" isn't my "real name", although it's the only name I reliably answer to. But I've got ~30 years of history using this name, and nowhere near as much visible history under the name on my government ID, so this is the one I care about.
How do you know whether those were their "real name"? I knew a guy who once got interviewed for a newspaper, and they reported his name exactly as written; Tsu Dho Nimh.
What they really banned wasn't "names which aren't yours" but "names which don't look like they are real names". There was no effort at all to enforce the accuracy of names unless they thought you were impersonating someone. But if you had a not-very-Western name, well, that was a possible problem. And once you got into the "we don't think that looks like a name" thing, they wanted real documentation of some sort.
I never did find a way to make that happen, but eventually I talked to someone who knew someone who could put me in touch with a guy who could fix my account.
Someone I know had that happen to her even though she had never intentionally signed up for any part of google+. Something caused her account to get tied to it, then they nuked her stuff.
Seriously, try to imagine describing a lot of the things people do professionally now to someone 30 years ago. Some of them are genuinely incomprehensible. Quite a lot, even.
You can't have a future-proof job. You will have to adapt as the world changes.
Don't try to use super-low-power things for software development. Get something that will run things quickly and efficiently, and turn it off when you're not using it.
But never with T-mobile. AT&T did indeed allow third parties to start charging us without permission, then made it a fair amount of hassle (from my point of view, anyway) to cancel the services which we never requested. Never had a problem on any of our t-mobile lines.
Glad to see that things I was hearing about back in college, and used to experiment with Unix ports of in the early 90s, and which were also found in the pre-OSX Mac dev environment, are being reinvented as though they were new.
The big flaw here is your assumption that the justification for the "higher paying job" should be "entirely practical skills".
It's the general education and study that are most useful in making you able to eventually be significantly more productive and effective than someone without an education... Except of course that there's lots of ways of getting an education that don't happen to come with a diploma. But employers are not totally insane to prefer people who have a broader educational background, because those people will be more able to do a good job of lots of things.
I think you're assuming that the original connection between degrees and salaries was more direct than it really ever was.
I think it's very much that, in this particular case. The anon didn't say that women should be in some way responsible for choices like "walking alone in dangerous neighborhoods at night", but for how they look or dress. That's... actually not at all justifiable. I am okay with suggesting that people ought to lock their houses, learn self defense, and so on, because in practice they ought to. I'm less okay with saying that if they fail to do so, that makes it their fault if they get mugged, raped, or otherwise attacked.
The blame-the-victim thing comes from the just world fallacy. People don't want to think that bad things happen to innocent people, so they declare the people non-innocent.
You can reproduce this beautifully in lab conditions. Play people a recording of someone being tortured and they will start disliking the person and thinking badly of them.
Good job shifting the goalposts, but that's pretty much totally unrelated. See, the lions are generally not considered to be moral actors. Humans usually are.
Of course she's responsible for how she looks and dresses, it's just that neither of those can ever be, in any way, a justification for rape. They're totally irrelevant. She's also responsible for what she has for breakfast, and that's every bit as relevant to your decision as to whether or not you want to be a rapist. Which, given that you're playing apologetics for it, presumably you do.
That's not obvious at all. I am pretty sure I could make more money doing other things, but I enjoy the things I do now more. Your best interest isn't necessarily what makes you the most money.
Well, apart from the complete lack of citations, etcetera:
Who cares what someone did in 1944? And what does 9/11 have to do with anything? You're making a moral argument that something is disgusting or immoral, but that's not a rebuttal to the claim that it has a particular effect.
It's also a little weird to see you talking about the "post 9/11 vaccine" for a disease that we haven't generally vaccinated for since 1972 or so.
People were concerned about them, but since they were inevitable, you couldn't do anything but not worry too much and hope for the best.
We knew that mumps and measles were one-time diseases, and that it was best to get them early because then you were immune, some of them are much more dangerous in adults (especially mumps, which sterilzes adult males), and anyway the sooner you get it the less of an investment we lose if it kills you.
People were a lot more casual about kids dying in the past.
The Wakefield paper may not have been retracted, but there were plenty of things demonstrating that it was wrong. I blame her because she's clearly highly influential.
I'd be interested in seeing citations. I have been told by someone whose credibility and sources I trust that there was no throttling as such, just a configuration of routes and bandwidth such that the traffic would go through heavily congested gateways which never seemed to get upgraded. But nothing like an actual QoS filter limiting traffic. Still easy to fix immediately upon wanting to, but also a thing that even a fairly strict net neutrality law wouldn't really prevent...
It's worth distinguishing between neutrality between actors, and neutrality between protocols.
It makes perfect sense to use QoS features to guarantee reliable availability of a small amount of bandwidth with very high priority (thus lower latency) for VOIP, while allowing downloads to consume a ton of bandwidth but get delayed slightly to get the VOIP traffic where it wants to be. We do stuff like this all the time at many levels and it's good engineering.
The concern about net neutrality is more at the level of, say, choosing to throttle companies you are trying to compete with. Although apparently, the real issue with Comcast and the like has mostly been not actively throttling, but merely failing to upgrade feeds enough to handle the load.