AOC offended Team Mitch gets gropey

[WilliamSeger]

America, then. By your earlier posts I assumed you were in some oppressive theocratic third world country.

Not yet.

We both defined misogyny as a set of beliefs, not behaviours. You're assuming their beliefs.

Swing and a miss. They wrote plenty about their beliefs.

Just to be clear: you think such beliefs or behaviours towards men is ok, but not towards women?

Sorry, a bad edit made that sentence unclear. The intent was to suggest that maybe we should treat men that way and see how they like it. Of course that's a joke, because in the context of our current society and its existing attitudes, that's not really possible. Misandry does exist, and of course we should repudiate all forms of prejudice whenever it surfaces, but it's rare enough that I couldn't remember the term. But as I say, I think we can trust that Rush will sound the alarm.

 

[Belz...]

No, I literally don't.

Oh, ok then. What I'm asking you is whether you'd consider a game where the player kills enemies that look like Trump would be a similar situation to the one in the OP.

You seem to be missing the fact that doing this "to be cool" is the problem in the first place.

I didn't miss it. I disagree with it.

Yes, if I take pictures of me strangling someone that I consider my opposition it should have completely different context than pretending to strangle a friend of mine.

It's not quite the same, but no, it's not completely different. It's similar on the fundamental: pretend vs intent.

The context of something is beside the point? Interesting take.

The reason I posted that is because I DON'T consider it to be context for this incident at all. These teens didn't threaten her. Your contention here is that now that AOC's gotten death threats no one can pretend to wish her harm, or anything of the sort, without declaring their intent to actually do so. That's nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

They wrote plenty about their beliefs.

Just to be clear: who's "they"? Men in general or a particular set of them?

The intent was to suggest that maybe we should treat men that way and see how they like it.

The problem is that most men actually _were_ treated that way for the longest time. Men got the right to vote in the west a short while only before women did. For thousands of years before that power was reserved to the elite, men and women, and even they had to contend with strict norms and expectations. It's a tiny minority who essentially could do anything they wanted. Most were under severed restrictions.

I'm sure we both agree that women were not treated the way we would've liked it, historically. It doesn't follow that your claim as to the source of that difference is as you characterise it.

 

[plague311]

Oh, ok then. What I'm asking you is whether you'd consider a game where the player kills enemies that look like Trump would be a similar situation to the one in the OP.

I would say that a video game that makes it appear you're killing Trump repeatedly would be worse than what happened here.

I didn't miss it. I disagree with it.

Well, I disagree with your disagreement.

It's not quite the same, but no, it's not completely different. It's similar on the fundamental: pretend vs intent.

Fundamentally we're all born so there's no difference at all in anything ever.

It's completely different. One situation has both parties agreeing, and enjoying the mock strangling. The other situation is one group of people mock strangling someone who they view as an enemy, and "enemy" getting offended.

The reason I posted that is because I DON'T consider it to be context for this incident at all. These teens didn't threaten her. Your contention here is that now that AOC's gotten death threats no one can pretend to wish her harm, or anything of the sort, without declaring their intent to actually do so. That's nonsense.

The mock strangling IS declaring their intent. How does she know these kids aren't threatening her? They certainly didn't say they weren't threatening her. They were taking actions that would be considered a threat (unless you're part of the "aw you little rascals" club).

 

[WilliamSeger]

Just to be clear: who's "they"? Men in general or a particular set of them?

You got me there -- yes, I'm assuming that what we see in the written record is characteristic of prevalent beliefs, because it perfectly explains the prevalent behaviors. What's your point? Just that I can't prove it, so neener neener?

The problem is that most men actually _were_ treated that way for the longest time. Men got the right to vote in the west a short while only before women did. For thousands of years before that power was reserved to the elite, men and women, and even they had to contend with strict norms and expectations. It's a tiny minority who essentially could do anything they wanted. Most were under severed restrictions.

I'm sure we both agree that women were not treated the way we would've liked it, historically. It doesn't follow that your claim as to the source of that difference is as you characterise it.

I can't see any reason to continue this.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I can't see any reason to continue this.

It would be such a shame to waste all the progress that has been made over the last two pages.

 

[Belz...]

I would say that a video game that makes it appear you're killing Trump repeatedly would be worse than what happened here.

Well then I can only suggest that perhaps you don't understand that aspect of human behaviour. It's quite common, and you can't draw conclusions about the player's intent from it. As I said earlier, and despite the civilians in said shooter games not representing specific people, by the same logic these games represent the player's desire to kill random people. It just doesn't add up.

It's completely different. One situation has both parties agreeing, and enjoying the mock strangling. The other situation is one group of people mock strangling someone who they view as an enemy, and "enemy" getting offended.

Do you agree that it is a pretend action in both cases? That's a pretty basic aspect of the act, and you can't say they're completely different if they share such a fundamental characteristic.

The mock strangling IS declaring their intent. How does she know these kids aren't threatening her?

She doesn't, but the two sentences here are not related. Her ignorance of their intentions does not inform you as to those intentions.

 

[Belz...]

You got me there -- yes, I'm assuming that what we see in the written record is characteristic of prevalent beliefs, because it perfectly explains the prevalent behaviors. What's your point? Just that I can't prove it, so neener neener?

I don't know why you say this. I asked a simple and honest question to inform my response, because if you're refering to a specific time and place that's quite a bit different than if you're talking generally.

I can't see any reason to continue this.

Is there anything in the part you quoted that you specifically disagree with? I'm sure you're at least somewhat aware of these facts.

 

[plague311]

Well then I can only suggest that perhaps you don't understand that aspect of human behaviour. It's quite common, and you can't draw conclusions about the player's intent from it. As I said earlier, and despite the civilians in said shooter games not representing specific people, by the same logic these games represent the player's desire to kill random people. It just doesn't add up.

I can understand something and still disagree with your interpretation of it. There's a lot in this paragraph I disagree with. First, that you can't draw conclusions from it. Why would you buy a game that shoots Trump lookalikes if you enjoy him? I can then conclude that you don't like Trump, and that would be totally logical. If you like to play Wolfenstein, I can conclude that you like to kill Nazi Zombie's, and that you would do so in real life if a consequence free environment enabled you to do so.

Do you agree that it is a pretend action in both cases? That's a pretty basic aspect of the act, and you can't say they're completely different if they share such a fundamental characteristic.

Yes, I can though, because of how context works. If you see someone punch someone else in the face, and you get upset and ask, "What is going on here?!" Your reaction to the person saying, "If he doesn't get punched in the face every 10 minutes he dies". Might be completely and entirely different than if the person said, "This guy is white, **** him." They share the same characteristic (getting punched in the face) but they are completely different in context...to me anyway.

She doesn't, but the two sentences here are not related. Her ignorance of their intentions does not inform you as to those intentions.

So under no circumstances can she draw conclusions based off of her experiences with these people? They didn't state any intentions, and you seem to be making conclusions without knowing their intentions without issue. What if they really do want to strangle her? They certainly haven't said they don't.

 

[Belz...]

I can understand something and still disagree with your interpretation of it.

Indeed but you seem to be unaware of this very common aspect of human behaviour. That puzzles me but I can't really explain it in more detail.

Why would you buy a game that shoots Trump lookalikes if you enjoy him?

For fun? I used to shoot Nazis and demons in Wolfensetin and Doom. Doesn't mean going around and shooting stuff sounds like a good idea to me. What I pretend to do in fiction and games has little to no relation to what I'd like to do in real life. Do you know that the most common sexual fantasy amongst women is the rape fantasy? I wager that most women don't actually want to get raped; but that's fantasy for you: it allows you to explore stuff you wouldn't do in real life at no risk.

I can then conclude that you don't like Trump, and that would be totally logical.

It's reasonable, but not necessarily true.

If you like to play Wolfenstein, I can conclude that you like to kill Nazi Zombie's, and that you would do so in real life if a consequence free environment enabled you to do so.

First, see above for my discussion on this. Second, you went from concluding from shooting Trump in a game that one doesn't like Trump, to concluding from shooting Nazis that one wants to shoot Nazis. I'm curious as to why the two conclusions, drawn from the exact same action, are different.

Yes, I can though, because of how context works.

Context does not change fundamental characteristics. That's what "fundamental" means.

So under no circumstances can she draw conclusions based off of her experiences with these people?

No, what I said is that YOU cannot draw conclusions of THEIR intent based on HER apprehensions. The three simply do not connect. I fully understand that, in her situation, she might find the event somewhat threatening. What I'm saying is that you, personally, cannot use her state of mind to determine theirs.

Is that clearer?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

False equivalence. Virtual worlds that you log in and out of are not the same as the real one.

...until they are.

Doom

The game again sparked controversy throughout a period of school shootings in the United States when it was found that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who committed the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, were avid players of the game. While planning for the massacre, Harris said in his journal that the killing would be "like playing Doom", and "it'll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, World War II, Vietnam, Duke Nukem and Doom all mixed together", and that his shotgun was "straight out of the game".

It seems a bit hypocritical that Republican politicians can blame "culture" in the form of video games, music, and television when extremely bad things like spree murders happen, yet insist that the actual admitted, documented behavior of their supporters doesn't signify anything and is meaningless and consequence-free. If I shoot an NPC in a video game I'm participating in a culture of violence. If I strangle a cardboard cutout of an actual politician it's meaningless.

I agree. What worse, the "culture" in violent video games is their culture.

Doom was recently ported to my favorite retro computer, so I gave it a go. It was just as I remembered - steeped in machismo, gun fetish and mindless violence against the other, while being realistic enough that you almost forget it's a game. I didn't play for long because constantly killing things is not my idea of fun, and I don't appreciate being forced into that mindset.

Adults may think realistically violent computer games are just a bit of harmless fun, but for children and teenagers they are more than that. The video games themselves may not be a culture, but what's in them is. And while the games may only be 'simulations', they are just as effective at molding behavior as 'real' training. People may think they can separate fantasy from reality, but the brain doesn't work that way. Things you read about in books, watch in movies or on TV, or do in video games do affect how you think. For a small number of vulnerable individuals that could be enough to push them over the edge.

Ditto for assaulting cardboard cutouts. It may seem like harmless fun, but the thoughts behind it may not be. In the right circumstances those thoughts could easily spill over into actions. I fear that the politically motivated violence we have seen so far is just the beginning.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The boys' behavior would have been no big deal IF they hadn't tweeted it. They issue is the public display of sexual aggression whilst seemingly supporting a Republican Senator - this is simply not a private issue. It is intended to send a message of support for someone against someone in an inappropriate manner in any case, but doubly so in the context of Congress, not Housewife of....

Video games in this contest would only matter if someone was showing his Trump-Kill game on Twitch.

 

[Belz...]

The boys' behavior would have been no big deal IF they hadn't tweeted it.

Yeah that crosses over into "don't be a dick" category.

 

[plague311]

For fun? I used to shoot Nazis and demons in Wolfensetin and Doom. Doesn't mean going around and shooting stuff sounds like a good idea to me. What I pretend to do in fiction and games has little to no relation to what I'd like to do in real life. Do you know that the most common sexual fantasy amongst women is the rape fantasy? I wager that most women don't actually want to get raped; but that's fantasy for you: it allows you to explore stuff you wouldn't do in real life at no risk.

To be honest, I'm not even sure how the **** we got here. We were talking about choking a cardboard cutout and now we drifted into video games as if the two are at all related. I give though, this conversation is just nonsensical to me now.

First, see above for my discussion on this. Second, you went from concluding from shooting Trump in a game that one doesn't like Trump, to concluding from shooting Nazis that one wants to shoot Nazis. I'm curious as to why the two conclusions, drawn from the exact same action, are different.

Probably because speaking of causing harm to a POTUS comes with certain possible complications that I really don't feel like getting into. Just uttering the words is something I don't really want to do deal with. Also, it was Nazi Zombies.

Context does not change fundamental characteristics. That's what "fundamental" means.

Duly noted.

No, what I said is that YOU cannot draw conclusions of THEIR intent based on HER apprehensions. The three simply do not connect. I fully understand that, in her situation, she might find the event somewhat threatening. What I'm saying is that you, personally, cannot use her state of mind to determine theirs.

Is that clearer?

Got it.

*snipped for brevity*

I find most of this to be absolute and total ********. For no other reason than there has been one shooting that involved an MLG player (people that play for a living), and that was during a Madden convention. I've played video games for 30 years of all genres. Everything from Call of Duty to Final Fantasy. I've never shot anyone or gone on epic quests in medieval times.

No where in your statement did it say the Columbine shooters were led there by Doom. Doom uses a sawed off double barrel shotgun, they aren't uncommon.

 

[Belz...]

To be honest, I'm not even sure how the **** we got here.

Ok I am: I brought up video games as a parallel, because as far as I'm concerned, unless you can establish a reasonable expectation that a person might act on the fantasy, fiction remains fiction. People have been claiming, and are currently claiming in the wake of the recent shootings, that video games train people to kill. But just because you're engaging in an act, whether it's playing a video game or pretending to strangle someone -- regardless of whether you like that person -- is no indication of your intentions.

I get that you disagree, but I don't know how we'd from here go on to resolve our difference of opinion on the matter. Any ideas?

 

[plague311]

I get that you disagree, but I don't know how we'd from here go on to resolve our difference of opinion on the matter. Any ideas?

Alcohol?

 

[Belz...]

Alcohol?

 

[ArchSas]

unless you can establish a reasonable expectation that a person might act on the fantasy, fiction remains fiction.

I think that's what makes it a bad comparison, though. When playing a video game, you're usually playing as a character, in a made up scenario, and killing fictional characters with no agency, all through the disconnect of doing it through a screen and with a controller. Those kids were strangling an effigy of a real person, in real life, and doing it as themselves. To me, those two scenarios are so completely different, they pretty much have no relation to one another (unless the video game example involves directly simulating killing a real person, like that JFK assassination game everyone thought was in poor taste).

To me, those teens' actions are much more comparable to something like a disgruntled ex-husband going to a gun range and shooting pictures of the ex-wife he hates. It's a symbolic act of violence directed at a person. In the case of the ex-husband, I think most people would find the act disturbing and potentially an indication of further violence. With the teens, (as others have argued), the behavior is a similar indication of how figures on the right are normalizing violence towards their opponents, and I think that's something worth examining due to the recent uptick in right wing terrorism. Obviously, you view it as harmless fun that doesn't mean anything, but not everyone sees a display like that is being fictional in the way a video game is.

 

[Belz...]

I think that's what makes it a bad comparison, though. When playing a video game, you're usually playing as a character, in a made up scenario, and killing fictional characters with no agency, all through the disconnect of doing it through a screen and with a controller. Those kids were strangling an effigy of a real person, in real life, and doing it as themselves.

No, I really think that's a distinction without a difference. It changes nothing of the fact that they were pretending to do something to an inanimate object that represents someone. That's a couple of steps removed from doing the actual thing, same as the video game. The issue of playing a character and having a controller is irrelevant to intent. The only question is whether they can reasonably be expected to translate this pretend action into real life.

To me, those two scenarios are so completely different, they pretty much have no relation to one another

Well, that's the problem with analogies, right? They're intended to draw a parallel between the fundamentals of two things, but the other person will always nitpick details that make them different. Of course they're different, otherwise I wouldn't have made an analogy.

To me, those teens' actions are much more comparable to something like a disgruntled ex-husband going to a gun range and shooting pictures of the ex-wife he hates. It's a symbolic act of violence directed at a person. In the case of the ex-husband, I think most people would find the act disturbing and potentially an indication of further violence.

If I'm angry at someone and I start hitting a punching bag while imagining that someone does that mean I'm one step removed from punching them? No, I don't think so.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, I really think that's a distinction without a difference. It changes nothing of the fact that they were pretending to do something to an inanimate object that represents someone. That's a couple of steps removed from doing the actual thing, same as the video game. The issue of playing a character and having a controller is irrelevant to intent. The only question is whether they can reasonably be expected to translate this pretend action into real life.



Well, that's the problem with analogies, right? They're intended to draw a parallel between the fundamentals of two things, but the other person will always nitpick details that make them different. Of course they're different, otherwise I wouldn't have made an analogy.



If I'm angry at someone and I start hitting a punching bag while imagining that someone does that mean I'm one step removed from punching them? No, I don't think so.

If you tape a photo of that person to the punching bag you're a step closer to punching them than you were before adding the photo, though.