Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For the life of me I can't figure out what was going on there but no worries, the comments section provided plenty of lulz.

I like this one



So the next time we see the SJWs on about "the haters".......

Sara Mayhew is a feminist. However, she's not doing feminism the A+/FTBully Approved Way^(tm), which makes her SJW Enemy #1.

 

[Edx]

Of course it is, that's the attraction.

The goal here is to point out just how when and where social justice types are unable to live up to the moral standards they demand from society at large. Under their own rules of engagement a comment like RW makes at the beginning of her charity video would elicit howls of outrage from the SJ crowd were the genders of both the speaker and the butt(s) of the joke reversed.

But of course they've written themselves special rules to allow this sort of behaviour. Rules like women can't be sexist because sexism=prejudice+power so making a bigoted joke against members of a group who are perceived to have power is OK because it's all part of the fight for equality.

Check it out.



SJ writes the rules and it's our job to make sure they stick to those rules. Luckily for us, they can't.

And don't forget about that the video where PZ makes sexual jokes in public at a conference, which would be against his own sexual harassment rules he was so interested in introducing. Its okay if he does it, he's a safe feminist male obviously. He should watch his step though, he wouldnt want to accidentally push it too far or he'll have to do some grovelling about how he didnt mean it and couldnt help himself because he's just a disgusting horrible male and patriarchy and normalised hatred of women made him do it, or something.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Edx, true to form you're still posting as if you've not read what I've actually said, and are instead making up your own narrative. You are seemingly incapable of being rational on this subject and, as such, I should simply have not engaged you in the first place. Doing so is a waste of your time and mine.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

False. Then you rage against people being blocked on Twitter, as Thunderf00t has, then that is exactly what you are defending.

Has he raged against people being blocked on twitter? I've seen him post videos against the Block Bot and be sarcastic about people proclaiming to be sceptics while disallowing comments on YouTube, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Stout]

And don't forget about that the video where PZ makes sexual jokes in public at a conference, which would be against his own sexual harassment rules he was so interested in introducing. Its okay if he does it, he's a safe feminist male obviously. He should watch his step though, he wouldnt want to accidentally push it too far or he'll have to do some grovelling about how he didnt mean it and couldnt help himself because he's just a disgusting horrible male and patriarchy and normalised hatred of women made him do it, or something.

I may be mistaken here but didn't he disown that video and we're dealing with a "new and improved" PZ Meyers here and now.

 

[RayG]

You do understand hyperbolic self referential humour right? She wasn't attacking every male atheist on youtube and she also, and this is just between you and me, wasn't being serious. I know right! She's always super serious and doesn't have a sense of humour so how can she make a joke!

Oh I like a good joke, but I didn't see one presented. But then I would have thought a video entitled 'Help Blood Cancer Research with Light the Night' would be all about raising money for cancer, not her sexism. I guess losing a number of my relatives to cancer, takes the humor out of it for me. Especially hilarious was hearing her insensitive remark about balls shriveling up. One of my last memories of my father was seeing him crying in his hospital bed after they had removed his cancerous testicles. Real funny stuff.

Was it funny to her? Must have been, but I found it inappropriate considering the actual cause she was trying to raise money for.

You didn't answer my question though. If a male skeptic made a youtube video to help raise money for pancreatic cancer, and made disparaging remarks about some female skeptics and their vaginas, then would it just be hyperbolic self referential humor? Because, you know, he's not really being serious.

If you think that was a genuine attempt to denigrate other people you have got to have the thinnest skin around.

Had she left out her opening comment I wouldn't have an issue with her video. In my opinion it was done in poor taste. You see it otherwise, good for you.

RayG

 

[Mumbles]

Has he raged against people being blocked on twitter? I've seen him post videos against the Block Bot and be sarcastic about people proclaiming to be sceptics while disallowing comments on YouTube, but that's not the same thing.

Yeah, I mean the Block Bot, among other examples. In any event, here's Thunderf00t complaining about blocking on Youtube and Twitter.

As for youtube comments, I'll note that when a black host of a podcast I like noticed a woman banning youtube comments, his immediate reply was "I should do that too. At least I wouldn't be called nineteen kinds of <racial slur redacted>." The point is, people like that Feminist Frequency woman don't want to put up with the mob of people screeching slurs, in order to pretend that they're getting responsive feedback, so why should they? Frankly, anyone putting intelligent feedback into that mass is wasting their time anyway, since they likely won't get a reply, so why enable it in the first place?

I'll also note that I have read that people are using the BlockBot list to find people to troll. Those people are also jerks, and I have no problem with them being called out.

 

[Mumbles]

Where did Thunderfoot say or imply that "anyone who blocks you on twitter or disables Youtube comments is some sort of evil villain who is violating your free speech"?

Answered above.

Now what he probably said is that those that block and ban with ease with anyone that disagrees with them shows they don't like criticism. We know that is the case with people like Watson and Sarkeesian because they act like the only criticism they have ever received has been hateful trollish "death and rape threats".

And if a minority is substantial, then so what? Why bother putting up with any of it in the first place? And furthermore, I notice that Anita Saarkasian (or whatever) never promised a debate in her "tropes Vs Women" series in the first place. In fact, she seems very clear that she was offering a one-sided analysis.

Your emotional exaggeration doesn't make it true. Thunderfoot has never defended those who wrote "death and rape threats" to Watson. Although it does need to be said that most of Watsons "rape and death threats" are not actually threats.

He did, plain and simple.

"All speech is free, unless I'm bothered by it!" is a sentiment common to feminists, ironically. Not sure where you keep pulling that out of.

Yes, quite a few feminists ascribe to that mantra as well, as well as quite a few of the "atheism+" folks. What does this have to do with what we're discussing?

Also whats interesting is you say she aimed the joke at HIM, in what way does what she say at all relate to what Thunderfoot has said about Watson? Has Thunderfoot sent Watson a death or rape threat? Has he advocated for people to send her death and rape threats? or has he just said that she won't honestly engage her critics preferring to paint them all as hateful rapists and raving misogynists so she can handwave them?

The relation is simple. Thunderf00t thinks that women and minorities should just put up with slurs being spewed at them, Watson mocked him for this. The end.

Ugh, this is a repeat of that damn elevator thing. "Well, how can you be sure that some guy who followed Watson into a closed elevator and immediately dropped a thinly veiled sex proposition wasn't just some innocent guy?" Same thing. Some guy spewing slurs on Youtube deserves the time of day? Nah.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yeah, I mean the Block Bot, among other examples.

Can you name these other examples, because that's not how you characterised what he's done.

As for youtube comments, I'll note that when a black host of a podcast I like noticed a woman banning youtube comments, his immediate reply was "I should do that too. At least I wouldn't be called nineteen kinds of <racial slur redacted>." The point is, people like that Feminist Frequency woman don't want to put up with the mob of people screeching slurs, in order to pretend that they're getting responsive feedback, so why should they? Frankly, anyone putting intelligent feedback into that mass is wasting their time anyway, since they likely won't get a reply, so why enable it in the first place?

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too. And if you're not interested in honest and open discourse, then you shouldn't proclaim yourself to be a sceptic.

Of course, that's not to say that you need to read the comments. The point is that allowing people to make whatever comments they like and letting the peanut gallery decide for themselves which are valid points and which are just meaningless insults is the option which more closely resembles an open and honest stance. It's not about getting feedback for yourself, it's about allowing counterpoints and discourse.

 

[Mumbles]

Can you name these other examples, because that's not how you characterised what he's done.

No, I won't. The example given is enough for me, and I don't see where I'm mistaken.

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too. And if you're not interested in honest and open discourse, then you shouldn't proclaim yourself to be a sceptic.

Here's the thing - I don't ascribe to the Sarah Palin view of free speech. I take the Elon James White ( NSFW) view instead. You can spew a slur at me, and I'm free to hate you for it.

Of course, that's not to say that you need to read the comments. The point is that allowing people to make whatever comments they like and letting the peanut gallery decide for themselves which are valid points and which are just meaningless insults is the option which more closely resembles an open and honest stance. It's not about getting feedback for yourself, it's about allowing counterpoints and discourse.

Yeah, and there are times where the viewers are just spewing slurs. What's so bad abpout shutting down comments, in that situation?

 

[Stout]

Ugh, this is a repeat of that damn elevator thing. "Well, how can you be sure that some guy who followed Watson into a closed elevator and immediately dropped a thinly veiled sex proposition wasn't just some innocent guy?" Same thing.

You're absolutely positive that elevator guy wasn't gay then ? There's a word they use over on A+ for assuming someone is a member of the dominant sexual orientation, heteronormativity, and it's highly frowned upon

 

[Stout]

Can you name these other examples, because that's not how you characterised what he's done.
.

Tf was a little off in that video. At the beginning he does compare social media to a public space but an argument could be made that, technically, we rent space from the social media companies and pay for it by ( presumably ) paying attention to their advertisers.

Other than that, he was spot on. The minute I see comments are disabled I know I'm in for a lecture on something that is probably going to tell me that I suck.

For instance Anita Sarkeesian is on about how rescuing the damsel is a "thing" in some video games and how that "thing" is supposed to have an effect on my psyche. I can't tell Anita, using the media that she used to tell me about how my double dragon playing in 1988 reinforced misogyny, that I didn't give a rip about the damsel. I just wanted to kick some ass. I figured she just didn't want to hear it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I won't. The example given is enough for me, and I don't see where I'm mistaken.

Your claim was: "you rage against people being blocked on Twitter, as Thunderf00t has". You've not provided any examples of this, instead citing the Block Bot. At best, this is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion of the Block Bot. Especially as you're characterising criticising the Block Bot as defending people who make rape threats.

As I'm a person who has criticised the Block Bot, I don't think that I'm being unreasonable to ask you to either substantiate or retract the claim that I'm defending people who issue rape threats.

Here's the thing - I don't ascribe to the Sarah Palin view of free speech. I take the Elon James White ( NSFW) view instead. You can spew a slur at me, and I'm free to hate you for it.

Okay. That's not relevant to what you were replying to. The quote in question was:

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too. And if you're not interested in honest and open discourse, then you shouldn't proclaim yourself to be a sceptic.

Feel free to respond to that, should you so choose.

Yeah, and there are times where the viewers are just spewing slurs. What's so bad abpout shutting down comments, in that situation?

There's nothing bad about it, per se. But pre-emptively disallowing comments on any and all videos does rather indicate that you're not interested in allowing dissenting opinions to air. Which doesn't say much for your commitment to open and honest debate.

I once watched a Christopher Hitchins video in which he was at some university in the US. It was either a Christian university, or it was a Christian society at the university, or something like that, because everybody in the audience appeared to be a Christian, and the person he was debating was a Christian. The person he was debating introduced Hitchins, and then spoke first. In his introduction, he told the audience to "go easy" on Hitchins. The first thing Hitchins said when it was his turn to speak was to disregard that and to feel free to say anything to or about him.

That's my view of free speech. I don't know what Sarah Palin's view of free speech is, nor do I care.

All of which is rather irrelevant, given that this isn't an issue of free speech, and nobody is claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to prevent people from commenting on YouTube videos.

 

[colander]

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too.

If you're interested in going wilderness camping, then you have to be prepared for bear encounters, too.

Does that mean that it's not acceptable to bear-proof your encampments?

I note that you've chosen to post your argument on the JREF Forum, the moderation policy of which expressly forbids the use of insults and seeks to remove them whenever and wherever they appear. Does your choice to post on a forum where rules against incivility are aggressively enforced mean that you are not interested in honest and open discourse?

I don't think that actively seeking to circumvent the possibility of being subjected to personal insults is an action that is in any way inconsistent with "being prepared" for them.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you're interested in going wilderness camping, then you have to be prepared for bear encounters, too.

Does that mean that it's not acceptable to bear-proof your encampments?

I note that you've chosen to post your argument on the JREF Forum, the moderation policy of which expressly forbids the use of insults and seeks to remove them whenever and wherever they appear. Does your choice to post on a forum where rules against incivility are aggressively enforced mean that you are not interested in honest and open discourse?

I don't think that actively seeking to circumvent the possibility of being subjected to personal insults is an action that is in any way inconsistent with "being prepared" for them.

What a strange collection of arguments. None of them seem to really be relevant to what I've posted.

 

[colander]

What a strange collection of arguments. None of them seem to really be relevant to what I've posted.

I don't think you're trying very hard, here. You've implied that disabling commentary on YouTube videos is an action inconsistent with an interest in "open and honest discourse." I don't see how it is. It does not prevent such discourse from occurring any more than does the President choosing not to permit hecklers to interrupt his state-of-the-union address.

 

[Leftus]

There is a fundamental difference between heckling, a disruptive act during a speech, and responses after the speech. Even it could be granted that it is one and the same, that doesn't explain turning off the voting buttons. The state of the union does allow people to clap after all. The state of the union is also shared in advanced for the out of power party to record a response.

By closing off every possible means of feedback that isn't already in your echo chamber, from video to comments to votes, you don't see how this curtails open and honest debate? They just don't block the hecklers, they block everyone and everything. Can't support, can't defend, can't help those on the fence to a side.

Having everyone just give their own state of the union speech without any consideration to any other viewpoint is the exact opposite to free and open debate. While that might be the starting point for a dialog, they will go no further. And worse, they will allow nobody else to go further anywhere they want their message to be heard.

You shouldn't claim to be a skeptic and refuse to listen to points you aren't already in agreement with. It's fundamentally dishonest. Every claim must be weighed with the evidence and it's dangerous to exclude ideas just because we hold them dear. Most of us wouldn't be here if we all operated that way. It's also doing a disservice to the position you are trying to put forth since it will never be allowed to be explored, expanded or improved because debate has been censured.

They are saying through their actions that their thoughts can't be questioned. That bothers some of us.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I was reading about the book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, which is about the mind control and brainwashing China did to captured US servicemen in the 1950s, and the list of techniques just struck me as alarmingly close to the conduct of FtB/A+ leaders:

In the book, Lifton outlines the "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform":

Milieu Control [e.g blockbot and safe spaces]. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés [e.g. mansplaining, check your privilege], which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.[3]

 

[Edx]

Edx, true to form you're still posting as if you've not read what I've actually said, and are instead making up your own narrative. You are seemingly incapable of being rational on this subject and, as such, I should simply have not engaged you in the first place. Doing so is a waste of your time and mine.

I asked you two very simple questions. Why are they so hard to answer?

• If games can be said to normalise sexism, why doesn't it also normalise violence?
• If games don't actually cause people to be violent in real life, then why will games cause people to treat women any differently in real life?

If you believe you have answered this please copy and paste the exact part/s of your post/s you believe answer this.

 

[Edx]

I may be mistaken here but didn't he disown that video and we're dealing with a "new and improved" PZ Meyers here and now.

haha, I don't know! But I'd love to see where he addressed that.

 

[colander]

There is a fundamental difference between heckling, a disruptive act during a speech, and responses after the speech. Even it could be granted that it is one and the same, that doesn't explain turning off the voting buttons. The state of the union does allow people to clap after all. The state of the union is also shared in advanced for the out of power party to record a response.

By closing off every possible means of feedback that isn't already in your echo chamber, from video to comments to votes, you don't see how this curtails open and honest debate? They just don't block the hecklers, they block everyone and everything. Can't support, can't defend, can't help those on the fence to a side.

You do realize that YouTube comments sections aren't the only place on the internet you can discuss things on, right?

They are saying through their actions that their thoughts can't be questioned.

Really? 'Cause it seems to me like the only thing their actions are saying is "YouTube comments are not enabled for this video" and everything else is just stuff you made up.

 

[Meed]

You know, when people in this continued thread make fun of the FTB/A+ hypersensitivity and magical ability to turn even the most innocuous comment, or obvious bit of self referential silly humour into a terrible example of rampant sexism, it isn't a behaviour to be emulated. Yet here we are with people trying to claim that an obviously not serious joke is so damning that she's denigrating half the people who might want to donate to a worthy charity, and is making serious gendered insults and attacking the genitalia of male sceptics.

Please. I thought they were supposed to be the sad crybaby paranoiacs, not us.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Meed]

There is a fundamental difference between heckling, a disruptive act during a speech, and responses after the speech. Even it could be granted that it is one and the same, that doesn't explain turning off the voting buttons. The state of the union does allow people to clap after all. The state of the union is also shared in advanced for the out of power party to record a response.

By closing off every possible means of feedback that isn't already in your echo chamber, from video to comments to votes, you don't see how this curtails open and honest debate? They just don't block the hecklers, they block everyone and everything. Can't support, can't defend, can't help those on the fence to a side.

It doesn't curtail debate. Anyone interested in debating the subject should be able to find an environment in which to do so pretty easily.

Having everyone just give their own state of the union speech without any consideration to any other viewpoint is the exact opposite to free and open debate. While that might be the starting point for a dialog, they will go no further. And worse, they will allow nobody else to go further anywhere they want their message to be heard.

A youtube video of someone delivering a monologue or solo presentation is not a debate, you are correct. Nor is it supposed to be one. Whether they wish to engage in debate afterward is up to them. Personally, it's something I would generally encourage people to do, although I wouldn't necessarily recommend youtube comments as the best medium.

You shouldn't claim to be a skeptic and refuse to listen to points you aren't already in agreement with.

I'm not sure it's clear that anyone is actually doing this, but I agree. I think (hope) that your point is a noncontroversial one.

They are saying through their actions that their thoughts can't be questioned. That bothers some of us.

Who is saying that?

 

[qwints]

I asked you two very simple questions. Why are they so hard to answer?

• If games can be said to normalise sexism, why doesn't it also normalise violence?
• If games don't actually cause people to be violent in real life, then why will games cause people to treat women any differently in real life?

If you believe you have answered this please copy and paste the exact part/s of your post/s you believe answer this.

Violent video games, along with other media, do normalize violence. Playing violent video games increases aggression.. Ask a hard one.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Violent video games, along with other media, do normalize violence. Playing violent video games increases aggression.. Ask a hard one.

I don't have the first one, so can't speak to that, but I've read a lot of the research into the link between media violence and real-world violence and I've not seen a single paper that wasn't fundamentally flawed. This meta-analysis you've linked is no exception.

The first point is that they often misrepresent what their results mean. One example is a study done in which kids were shown cartoons and were then taken into a room in which there were large dummies and bats. The kids picked up the bats and started to hit the dummies. They did this more when they'd watched violent cartoons than when they hadn't. Proof that consuming violent media leads to violence, right? Well, it's certainly evidence that consuming violent media can create a mood in which someone is more violent, certainly. I think anybody who's ever come out of a kung-fu flick and beat up the air around them while making "yaaarrrrg! OOOOwwwaaah!" noises can attest to that. But are there any long-term effects, or is that just a short-term adrenaline spike? There's no evidence that it's the former, so those studies do not support that conclusion.

The second point is that the studies that attempt to assess long-term effects invariably make unwarranted assumptions about cause and effect, and correlation and effect. You do a study in which you assess, by some metric, how violent a person is (one I read looked at the convictions of young offenders, for example), then you look at their DVD collection or interview them about their favourite films. And you find that the more violent someone is, the more they'll enjoy violent films. Time and time again a correlation is found. The thing is that correlation does not imply that the films are responsible for the violence. Is it not equally likely that people who have a propensity for violence enjoy violent media? That rather than the DVD collection being the cause of the violent nature, the violent nature is the cause of the DVD collection? This is something that these studies do not take into account but instead take the correlation as proof that the media is the cause of the violence. The meta-analysis makes the same mistake.

And you can clearly see the bias of that meta-analysis in the intro, in which they all but explicitly state that they are seeking evidence to confirm their conclusions, rather than reviewing the literature impartially.

 

[Mumbles]

Your claim was: "you rage against people being blocked on Twitter, as Thunderf00t has". You've not provided any examples of this, instead citing the Block Bot. At best, this is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion of the Block Bot. Especially as you're characterising criticising the Block Bot as defending people who make rape threats.

Well, except for that video where he blathers about how awful it is to block people on twitter/youtube/whatever.

As I'm a person who has criticised the Block Bot, I don't think that I'm being unreasonable to ask you to either substantiate or retract the claim that I'm defending people who issue rape threats.

Hm...I don't recall accusing you, in particular, of defending rape threats. But I *do* state that if anyone wants to use Block Bot to decide who they listen to on twitter, that's their right.

Okay. That's not relevant to what you were replying to. The quote in question was:

Feel free to respond to that, should you so choose.

Who cares? As far as I can tell, the "Tropes vs. Women" series was never presented as an open debate to begin with. An neither was that video where Watson complained about the guy hitting on her in an elevator. Yes, people are free to respond, but I see no need to fly off the handle about them.

There's nothing bad about it, per se. But pre-emptively disallowing comments on any and all videos does rather indicate that you're not interested in allowing dissenting opinions to air. Which doesn't say much for your commitment to open and honest debate.

I don't agree. As I said above, the series was never presented as a debate in the first place. However, I've been around long enough to see how people respond to black people, or women, trying to upend things. And the truth is, even if you do have something substantial to say, you'll be drowned out by the people spewing slurs in response to the video/tweet/whatever. And that's the point here. Why should Anita Saarkesian allow comments, and then fish out the rare substantial comment in the sea of people screaming "I hope you get raped!"?

I once watched a Christopher Hitchins video in which he was at some university in the US. It was either a Christian university, or it was a Christian society at the university, or something like that, because everybody in the audience appeared to be a Christian, and the person he was debating was a Christian. The person he was debating introduced Hitchins, and then spoke first. In his introduction, he told the audience to "go easy" on Hitchins. The first thing Hitchins said when it was his turn to speak was to disregard that and to feel free to say anything to or about him.

That's nice for Hitchens.

All of which is rather irrelevant, given that this isn't an issue of free speech, and nobody is claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to prevent people from commenting on YouTube videos.

Again, that actually *is* the argument that Thunderf00t is making - or t least, that doing so means that you're against free speech. Oh, also, you've made the same argument.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, except for that video where he blathers about how awful it is to block people on twitter/youtube/whatever.

The video which doesn't support your claim, yes. I'm asking if you can support your claim.

Hm...I don't recall accusing you, in particular, of defending rape threats.

No, not me in particular. Just people in general who say the things that I have said, a set which includes me. So, again, please either substantiate or retract that.

Who cares?

Well, everybody who is currently discussing it cares to the point of making it a topic of discussion. That, obviously, includes you.

Yes, people are free to respond, but I see no need to fly off the handle about them.

Indeed. You're better off letting people say what they will.

Why should Anita Saarkesian allow comments, and then fish out the rare substantial comment in the sea of people screaming "I hope you get raped!"?

I didn't say she should. Please go back and read what I actually have said on the subject.

Again, that actually *is* the argument that Thunderf00t is making - or t least, that doing so means that you're against free speech. Oh, also, you've made the same argument.

Please quote where I've said that this is an issue of free speech. And please quote where thunderf00t or I have said that people should be disallowed from turning comments on YouTube off.

 

[Leftus]

It's not a discussion if you have to take it somewhere else. Also, they don't discuss it anywhere else. They ban and block. They are not interested in open and honest discussion. Was Tropes vs. Videogames so flawless that it could not, or did not, need to entertain any level of feedback? The site in which it is posted is designed to provide just that feedback in three ways. Video, written and voting responses are all ways to allow an idea to be either improved or discarded. They opted to squelch all of those options.

So why did you respond here and not on twitter, youtube or by skywriting?

Responding where the original comment is so that it can become part of the discussion. Which is why you did it here and not on a tattoo.

And you still haven't addressed the voting buttons. Even if you aren't allowing for debate because you have disdain for the commenters, there is no justification for blocking votes. By doing both you are intentionally trying to squelch feedback.

Tropes vs. Videogames was intended to be educational. To make something designed to be used educationally and to make it immune from criticism is dishonest.

 

[Meed]

It's not a discussion if you have to take it somewhere else.

Are you suggesting that talking about a video such as Tropes vs Women in Video Games on JREF, for example, is "not a discussion" because it's not taking place on the youtube comments section for the video?

Also, they don't discuss it anywhere else. They ban and block. They are not interested in open and honest discussion.

Who is "they"? If we're talking about Sarkeesian, it would be perfectly possible for her to allow ratings and comments and yet refuse to engage in any discussion personally. So if the complaint is that she doesn't engage in debate about her videos then I don't know why allowing youtube comments and ratings would be relevant. It would be possible for her to allow them and still not engage in debate. It would also be possible for her to engage in debate while not allowing them.

Was Tropes vs. Videogames so flawless that it could not, or did not, need to entertain any level of feedback? The site in which it is posted is designed to provide just that feedback in three ways. Video, written and voting responses are all ways to allow an idea to be either improved or discarded. They opted to squelch all of those options.

So why did you respond here and not on twitter, youtube or by skywriting?

Responding where the original comment is so that it can become part of the discussion. Which is why you did it here and not on a tattoo.

And you still haven't addressed the voting buttons. Even if you aren't allowing for debate because you have disdain for the commenters, there is no justification for blocking votes. By doing both you are intentionally trying to squelch feedback.

Tropes vs. Videogames was intended to be educational. To make something designed to be used educationally and to make it immune from criticism is dishonest.

It's news to me that apparently all these great public debates are being held in youtube comments sections. I've debated about plenty of youtube videos, including those that allow comments, and its almost never occurred to me to debate them in the comments section. In fact that seems to be one of the worst avenues for debate. First there's a strict character limit, second, trying to follow discussions on yt comments is confusing and not at all user friendly, third youtube commenters have a reputation for being among the worst and most immature people on the internet.

To me the most obviously appropriate way of responding to a video you disagree with would be to write a critique via blog article or a video of one's own. As plenty of people have done.

Do you really believe that Tropes vs. Women in Videogames did not receive any feedback? Do you think Michael Moore's films did not allow for any discussion? After all when you finish watching them at the theater or on your personal television, there is no "comments section" provided for you so that you can voice your disagreement. When you read a book you disagree with is there a public comment section at the end? Is there a voting button?

Are books and films "immune from criticism"? And what have voting buttons got to do with debate?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you suggesting that talking about a video such as Tropes vs Women in Video Games on JREF, for example, is "not a discussion" because it's not taking place on the youtube comments section for the video?

The point, as I see it isn't that it's not possible to have a discussion anywhere else, it's that a discussion at the JREF or wherever else isn't one that is explicitly connected to the research. If someone watches the video and then wants to look for a counterpoint, then page 12 of the JREF forum "Media" section isn't the obvious place to look, especially if they haven't ever heard of the JREF. The best way to allow such a conversation to be easily accessible to all who are interested is to allow it at the point of dissemination of the original media.

It's news to me that apparently all these great public debates are being held in youtube comments sections. I've debated about plenty of youtube videos, including those that allow comments, and its almost never occurred to me to debate them in the comments section. In fact that seems to be one of the worst avenues for debate. First there's a strict character limit, second, trying to follow discussions on yt comments is confusing and not at all user friendly, third youtube commenters have a reputation for being among the worst and most immature people on the internet.

The comments are also disabled in the relevant entry in her blog. That is where, I'd have thought, would be the best place for such a discussion, especially if such a discussion were to involve things like flawed methodologies or unwarranted assumptions, through which she could revise her research or improve future research.

Do you think Michael Moore's films did not allow for any discussion?

Now that's an interesting example. Moore is an extremely dishonest reporter and there are, indeed, plenty of blogs and websites which point out the numerous factual errors and distortions in his films. And yet, the majority of people still seem to think that he's honest, trustworthy and that his films are factual. Perhaps if those blogs were disseminated along with his films, then people would be better able to make up their minds about the veracity of the content of the films.

After all when you finish watching them at the theater or on your personal television, there is no "comments section" provided for you so that you can voice your disagreement. When you read a book you disagree with is there a public comment section at the end? Is there a voting button?

No. But the cause of scepticism would almost certainly be advanced if there were. So it seems odd for those claiming to be looking to further the cause of scepticism to disable those functions where they do exist.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Oh I like a good joke, but I didn't see one presented. But then I would have thought a video entitled 'Help Blood Cancer Research with Light the Night' would be all about raising money for cancer, not her sexism.

This. As male, I didn't find that 'joke' funny at all, especially considering the topic of the video. It was lame and needlessly vulgar (maybe B.Hicks or G.Carlin could've pulled it off). I'm familiar with RW, and could kinda understand the reference, but what about people who don't know anything about this strange face in the tubes? I guess that's not a problem when you're not trying to reach out and just cater to your inner-circle.

The whole introductory bit was unnecessary, the rest however was was quite good, even the humor. Made me chuckle.

 

[Diogenes]

Violent video games, along with other media, do normalize violence. Playing violent video games increases aggression.. Ask a hard one.

I see this was already addressed very well by Squeegee Beckenheim but I just wanted to add...did you read that paper and look at that box plot? Is that really what passes for causation in psychological research?

And, really, 2001 was the last word on this subject? There's been no further work in 12 years?

I mean I can go back to 2001 and tell you that alternative splicing is impossible as are distal exons....trans-splicing would definitely be off the table.

 

[Humes fork]

Sara Mayhew is a feminist. However, she's not doing feminism the A+/FTBully Approved Way^(tm), which makes her SJW Enemy #1.

Unrelated, but I was a bit put off by her when she in one video related to Darwin Day (about 2 minutes long) spent more than half of it asking people to send her money.

 

[qwints]

And, really, 2001 was the last word on this subject? There's been no further work in 12 years?

A more recent meta-analysis.

To tie this back into the background discussion, popular media influences and is influenced by culture. Recognizing negative trends in media and talking about them to raise awareness is a good thing. That's true of violence in media, that's true of racism in media and it's true of sexism in media.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A more recent meta-analysis.

Which has absolutely no indication that the methodological weaknesses I highlighted earlier have been accounted for. Indeed, it speaks of results that indicate a correlation between the playing of violent video games and aggressive behaviour as leading to the conclusion that playing video games increases violent behaviour over time. No reference whatsoever is made to studies conducted over a long time in which levels of aggression are measured and shown to increase.

There's a couple of more things I'd like to look at a bit closer but I'm just sitting down to tea. I'll just make note, though, that one of the authors of this meta-analysis is one of the two authors of the previous meta-analysis, and the previous meta-analysis was not impartial but was instead clearly and explicitly biased towards a specific conclusion.

 

[Meed]

The point, as I see it isn't that it's not possible to have a discussion anywhere else, it's that a discussion at the JREF or wherever else isn't one that is explicitly connected to the research. If someone watches the video and then wants to look for a counterpoint, then page 12 of the JREF forum "Media" section isn't the obvious place to look, especially if they haven't ever heard of the JREF. The best way to allow such a conversation to be easily accessible to all who are interested is to allow it at the point of dissemination of the original media.

I don't see how it's important whether any of the numerous venues for discussing the video are "explicitly connected" to it. A simple google search for "tropes vs women in video games" brought up several discussions of the video on my first page of results (ign, skepchick, destructoid and themarysue). Why is it relevant whether JREF comes up specifically?

If I change my search to "tropes vs women in video games critique" I can quickly find some articles and videos criticizing the video.

The vast majority of research in the world is not accompanied by built in "explicitly connected" discussion forums. You could argue that it should when possible. However, no one is obligated to enable this on their own personal videos and to give it more than a passing expression of annoyance seems to me to be petty.

The comments are also disabled in the relevant entry in her blog. That is where, I'd have thought, would be the best place for such a discussion, especially if such a discussion were to involve things like flawed methodologies or unwarranted assumptions, through which she could revise her research or improve future research.

Well, she can read criticisms of her work regardless of whether she allows comments on her blog/video. She could also potentially allow comments everywhere and then ignore all criticisms. I agree that allowing blog comments is a convenient way to get feedback and generally speaking, allowing blog comments is a good idea for that reason. I guess the counter-argument would be that if someone has a group of passionate "haters", then they might expect their comment sections to degenerate into a lot of ugly and counter-productive flaming. *shrug*

Now that's an interesting example. Moore is an extremely dishonest reporter and there are, indeed, plenty of blogs and websites which point out the numerous factual errors and distortions in his films. And yet, the majority of people still seem to think that he's honest, trustworthy and that his films are factual. Perhaps if those blogs were disseminated along with his films, then people would be better able to make up their minds about the veracity of the content of the films.

Suppose someone uploaded a Michael Moore film to youtube. Would the best way to check the accuracy of the claims made in the film be to read the youtube comments or would it be to do independent research?

No. But the cause of scepticism would almost certainly be advanced if there were. So it seems odd for those claiming to be looking to further the cause of scepticism to disable those functions where they do exist.

Maybe. Like I said I think the counter-argument would be about avoiding flame-wars. Though I prefer it when ratings and comments aren't disabled, I can understand not wanting a bunch of " F U #%()# feminazi" "F off (#%&^ MRA neckbeard" etc on one's own personal channel/blog.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't see how it's important whether any of the numerous venues for discussing the video are "explicitly connected" to it.

Because it's more likely that people will actually see it if they don't have to go looking for it.

A simple google search for "tropes vs women in video games" brought up several discussions of the video on my first page of results (ign, skepchick, destructoid and themarysue). Why is it relevant whether JREF comes up specifically?

The point is that the JREF discussion loses its relevance for people not affiliated with the JREF in some way, whereas a discussion at the point of dissemination of the video is immediately relevant to everybody who watches the video.

If I change my search to "tropes vs women in video games critique" I can quickly find some articles and videos criticizing the video.

Can you not see how people are more likely to read a discussion in the comments of the video than they are to search google for "tropes vs. women in video games critique"?

Let's say that there's a major methodological flaw with the study, but it's not one that's readily apparent to the layperson. If that methodological flaw is pointed out in the top-voted comment, then there's a fair chance that Layperson A watching the video will read that comment and might think "oh, that's a good point, actually. I didn't think of that." On the other hand, they're unlikely to google for it, because people tend to just accept what's put in front of them, especially if it concurs with what they already believe, or what they would like to be true.

Equally, if they see some criticisms of the video in the comments, then they may be inspired to do the googling you suggest where they otherwise might not have been.

You could argue that it should when possible.

And indeed I do, or at least argue that it's a good idea.

However, no one is obligated to enable this on their own personal videos and to give it more than a passing expression of annoyance seems to me to be petty.

I haven't said anybody is obligated to do anything, and nor have I said that I'm annoyed by anything that anybody has done.

Well, she can read criticisms of her work regardless of whether she allows comments on her blog/video. She could also potentially allow comments everywhere and then ignore all criticisms. I agree that allowing blog comments is a convenient way to get feedback and generally speaking, allowing blog comments is a good idea for that reason. I guess the counter-argument would be that if someone has a group of passionate "haters", then they might expect their comment sections to degenerate into a lot of ugly and counter-productive flaming. *shrug*

Although you can, of course, ban individual commenters on your own blog.

Suppose someone uploaded a Michael Moore film to youtube. Would the best way to check the accuracy of the claims made in the film be to read the youtube comments or would it be to do independent research?

Would a person watching the film be more likely to do independent research if the comments suggested that the film was full of inaccuracies or not?

Maybe. Like I said I think the counter-argument would be about avoiding flame-wars. Though I prefer it when ratings and comments aren't disabled, I can understand not wanting a bunch of " F U #%()# feminazi" "F off (#%&^ MRA neckbeard" etc on one's own personal channel/blog.

I can understand it as well. However, I also think that it gives the impression of not being interested in honest and open debate or, indeed, of furthering the cause of scepticism.

And let's not forget that to the average, non-involved layperson that a slew of comments saying " F U #%()# feminazi" are actually going to speak for themselves, and it's not the author of the video that it's going to be making look bad. If those are the only counter-arguments on offer, then most people are only likely to think that the video has a better case than they otherwise would. So, again, I don't see why they're anything to be afraid of.

 

[Leftus]

Are you suggesting that talking about a video such as Tropes vs Women in Video Games on JREF, for example, is "not a discussion" because it's not taking place on the youtube comments section for the video?

Since the creator of the video series is making an attempt to turn it into something that could be used in an educational situation and not allowing any debate over the content (and purposefully walling herself off from anyone but her echo-chamber), then yes the discussions we have on the periphery isn't really a discussion because the one who made the points and trying to sell the material isn't here.

Who is "they"? If we're talking about Sarkeesian, it would be perfectly possible for her to allow ratings and comments and yet refuse to engage in any discussion personally. So if the complaint is that she doesn't engage in debate about her videos then I don't know why allowing youtube comments and ratings would be relevant. It would be possible for her to allow them and still not engage in debate. It would also be possible for her to engage in debate while not allowing them.

They would be the plural pronoun for the people in the videos that Thunderf00t was addressing.

And no, she can't be engaging in discussion and debate if she has control over both sides of the floor.

To me the most obviously appropriate way of responding to a video you disagree with would be to write a critique via blog article or a video of one's own. As plenty of people have done.

Yet you still posted here and not via telegraph, smoke signal, or messenger pigeon. Why is that? With all sorts of alternative means of communications, why haven't you carved it into a block of ice in the hopes that I might read it. Does it have anything to do with the fact that I am here?

How do you share it with the person making the initial case if they have blocked any methods of communicating with them.

Do you really believe that Tropes vs. Women in Videogames did not receive any feedback?

Can't prove a negative. Prove that she has. Find the revised, improved or expanded argument. Find anywhere that there is criticism that she has refined her message. Given she has refused to permit any discussion or feedback where she posts or expresses her ideas, specifically her youtube and blog, find anything that shows she is responding to any sorts of feedback.

She is following the 6 day literal creationist handbook. Work the facts so they fit your world view, block any feedback, rinse and repeat.

[/QUOTE] Are books and films "immune from criticism"? And what have voting buttons got to do with debate?[/QUOTE]

Books and films aren't normally in the social space. However, if you go to a film festival, or to a convention, or even to a book reading with the author you can engage with the creators of that content. And those things are growing, not shrinking.

Telling someone if they agreed or did not agree with the message is the starting point of the discussion. By stifling even that much feedback it's an indicator that either you or your ideas can't handle even the slightest bit of debate. And, again, when you have said that you are developing a curriculum for this material, the attempt to block all feedback is inexcusable. Education without debate and discussion leaves society weaker. Even if you agree with the ideas being expressed, leaving someone without the experience of defending them does a disservice to all involved.

 

[John Jones]

What a strange collection of arguments. None of them seem to really be relevant to what I've posted.

That seems to happen a lot.

 

[Diogenes]

Which has absolutely no indication that the methodological weaknesses I highlighted earlier have been accounted for....was instead clearly and explicitly biased towards a specific conclusion.

One of the papers used by others as an example of proof included the following definitions:

aggression in a game (which was just a competitive button-pushing exercise) is measured by reaction speed...being faster = more aggressive while being aggressive in RL was measured by self-reports of ever being sent to the principal's office over the course of 1 year and that was correlated through that reaction speed variable to self-reports of types and frequency of video games played.

(If anyone is dying to know what paper that was I can probably retrieve it.)