seatdrummer

>That means statements like “black people are monkeys” and “Koreans are the scum of the earth” are subject to removal. But then, so is “men are trash.”

>See the problem? If you remove dehumanizing attacks against gender, you may block speech designed to draw attention to a social movement like #MeToo. If you allow dehumanizing attacks against gender, well, you’re allowing dehumanizing attacks against gender. And if you do that, how do you defend other “protected” groups from similar attacks?

I'm not sure if the author is taking a pretty objective approach to the problem and therefore considering all possibilities, or if they really unironically believe what's stated in the second paragraph, but in any case, especially the latter, I am shocked about this line of thinking.

The dissonance between how you would like to treat men, and how you would like to treat women and how you believe all genders should be treated the same versus the second paragraph should be the end of the argument.

The fact that a conversation like this even takes place is absurd. It's lawyering a way apply restrictions on one group while making another group exempt from the rule. The motivations are clear, how can a company even entertain these ideas, let alone implement them.

As an aside, at what point do we stop an interesting discussion due to a limit of studies or data.

If something hasn't been measured, or hasn't been measured since 2016, can we really just give in.

If the question is about media being sympathetic, in recent years, toward the oppression that every black person in the u.s. experiences every day. Does data from the 90s really trump no data at all? Isn't the question about recent times for which nobody might have evidence for ordering either case.

And if there is no study, can a sound and valid argument still be made.

You are really on the offensive here. The concerns you've raised here remind me of a time when I let news and social media pull me into that disgusting culture war on oppression, equality, collectivism, and individuality.

I still have my stance but I've found that people that get sucked in, on both sides, will get hypersensitive about detecting their opposition, and then they project all of the ideas they dislike the most onto the person in real life who exhibits a hint of it.

You might find that you are trying to find things to be angry about. You might feel very strongly that masculinity is toxic but you don't really have any examples in your life except for the two and a half times you got cat called. The "gamers" that hate minorities and women might be on the forefront of your mind, but only because you spend too much time consuming narratives online.

Genuinely how many people would be concerned about toxic masculinity if the internet didn't exist. How many people would be concerned about the culture war at all if outrage couldn't be shared.

As much as you might like to blame it on a particular skin color or gender, your happiness and peace of mind is your responsibility. If you are frustrated, angry, or sad about gamers, the gamers aren't the problem, you are losing control of your mind.

The criticism is something like Twitter enables the worst in humans, it's a platform that can unjustly destroy one's character and career. From a product perspective, its working. Yet it is still a net negative, at least that's the claim.

When someone is being doxxed, and mobs are forming, it's usually happening on that platform.

You are also able to come out of it with a different perspective you'd never otherwise gain due to up and down voting being missing.

A merit of 4chan is that you get exposed to content you don't like.

It may be a malware vector, but if it's tied to the service, you should not use the service and demand the ads be fixed before you will remove the ad blocker.

In other words you use the service when you are satisfied with it's cost, instead of using the service and then negotiating the transaction posthoc.

I think you are experiencing the same gene pool concerns a racist would experience.

In the end the only thing one can really do it have your own kids.

Humans have always had to stay home/work in order to take care of kids. In my opinion every person is born with instinct to be useful and fullfil some purpose beyond hedonism.

If nobody thought like this you wouldn't have people building sky scrapers and collecting garbage in the winter

Do you think the person you replied to would really think their world view is based off the two paths you've listed? Also deferring to a video game for philosophical discussion....

Life is hard and it will demand hard people.

As an individual, its difficult to bear responsibility for racism (whether it be calling out that homeless guy saying the n word, fighting for legislation, having empathy for every story you read on the internet). Its detrimental to a person's mental health and it seems like when someone (most people) is having a hard time reducing life stress, figuring out how to live a good life, build a family, succeed at work, etc. Its exhausting.

And its not just racism, its sexism, classism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, child soldiers in Africa, terrorism abroad, FGM, corruption, homelessness, child abuse, cartel violence, drug epidemics... Seriously impossible to grasp. And moreover, the vast majority of people do not publicly observe offenses at the same rate as people who receive offenses so most of the time its just concerns that one reads off the internet or hears second hand. All this stress and empathy over things that don't even exist in your sights... I know many people will think this is a gross argument, that I am saying to remain ignorant or inactive while people are being oppressed, but at some point you have to just throw your hands up, resolve to do the right thing when you encounter a problem and live your own life.

This problem is something that ted kaczynski wrote about in detail and I think its an even more important problem now with information spreading so quickly, so much call to activism, and even dramatization of issues.

Look, I am speaking from personal and anecdotal experience, however its so blindly obvious for myself and coworkers. The amount of dissonance between my beliefs and my actions at work feels like a micro scale version of what life would be like under a surveillance state. The difference in openness between the two large groups of people that have opposing views at work are massive. Both groups have smart people, both groups have good intentions, the ones that are silent are not silent because they hold chauvinist views, they are silent because the other side is actually bigoted.

I wish you could do a study on it, but you can't right now.

>so as not to make women literally uncomfortable around you, how outrageous that you should have to do this.

One could make a similar argument for not calling out racism to avoid making people uncomfortable.

Honestly don't see the problem with that line. I can't imagine how many times a woman has referred to her husband as another one of the kids to take care of.

Its not shitty, its insanely normal (and its a joke) and youre just being dramatic.