A few words on how people shift their views

Comments

  • edited
    This is actually why I have not suggested simply removing the content without asking - it allows for some discussion and no one feels like they were attacked. Every person is given opportunity to correct there mistakes because - as I've said - we're all human and fallible.

    Cool, I only saw this now, but I get it.
    Thanked by 1dammit
  • Just adding my very slightly different way of looking at things (not really furthering the discussion):

    I would rather be a member of a forum where even slightly sexist comments are called out, than be in a situation where sexism is allowed to normalize to any degree. If I am making small (or large!) sexist mistakes in my comments and therefore my thinking, I would love it if someone corrected me, cause that's the only way I will get better at this. In fact, as someone that is (hopefully) making creations that other people engage with (kinda the focus of these forums), in a world dominated by sexism, I think this is absolutely essential.

    I would also just like to repeat this part of @Nandrew's comment that I think needs more focus:
    Nandrew said:
    I agree with the general notion that our membership could do with fewer bad faith assumptions among people who are trying to do positive work.
    Thanked by 2Squidcor dammit
  • So far, the evidence in this thread does not support your (positive) assertion. Anecdotal evidence does not support your assertion. The study that started this thread has been retracted and no longer supports your assertion.
    I don't have anything on hand to prove this specifically in the forum context, but there is evidence for the persuasive power of group discussion and debate. I would argue that forums are a sub-category of group discussion. They have certain weaknesses, yes (lack of body language cues, for example), but also certain strengths (giving people time to think and phrase their responses as best they can, maybe being easier for shy people to engage with).

    Link

    Now your turn.
    Proving a negative
    When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false"
    Burden of Proof - Proving a negative
    Thanked by 1Trimpiece
  • Cool, @garethf you win at the internet and all other things. Well done.

    Now, can we move on? It seems the majority are in support of the list I've posted unless there are any more people who would like to assert a suggestion?
  • @garethf Though I find myself suggesting that MGSA is ill-equipped for an empathic approach, I do find the general concept worthy.

    In particular, it would reduce so many misunderstandings and problems if we all took more responsibility for how we expressed ourselves -- focusing on empathic expression is generally a pro-social move (because in short, it means that we're accepting a burden in the conversation instead of asking others to adjust to us), and though it can be hard work, I've definitely seen it do beautiful things.

    I would be quite surprised, actually, if a large portion of the socially-conscious people here got to where they are without benefitting from their fair share of patient, compassionate (and *carefully worded!*) conversations from friends (or even strangers) who reached beyond weaknesses instead of treating them like something to bludgeon.

    But I think that in a large group setting, particularly one as uncontrolled as a forum, our hopes for rational arguments and all of their benefits start to diminish for the general case I outlined (for it to work, the majority would have to be successfully rational and in unison, something which generally cannot be expected to happen beyond a critical mass of individuals). And while my number one piece of advice would typically be "let's be more patient, understanding, and critically aware of the situation" (thanks for the quote pull, Francois! ;) ), I still feel that this is actually a bit pie-in-the-sky for what we have right now.

    I really, really hope that it will happen, and I'd feel sad if people's general takeaway is that it ought not be attempted (I don't want to be on the side of the fence that says "no empathy!", even unintentionally) but I think that mass empathy is very, very difficult to achieve effectively.

    My solution would be to encourage pro-social steps that may be easier in a group setting (the current idea being "deference") to help people codify more accessible behaviours. With enough of these in place, we could see broad empathy emerge more organically, because we'll encourage lots of little rituals which contribute *towards* empathy: listening more, talking less. Slowing down. Actively seeking opinions. Recognising one's own limits. Etc etc.

    If we can get enough of these things in place for the long term, we may one day find ourselves with a community that makes @theFuntastic look trollish in comparison, and get him kicked off the forums for abrasive and antisocial behaviour. <3
  • image

    <3 XKCD
    Thanked by 1Karuji
  • Nandrew said:
    @garethf Though I find myself suggesting that MGSA is ill-equipped for an empathic approach, I do find the general concept worthy.

    In particular, it would reduce so many misunderstandings and problems if we all took more responsibility for how we expressed ourselves -- focusing on empathic expression is generally a pro-social move (because in short, it means that we're accepting a burden in the conversation instead of asking others to adjust to us), and though it can be hard work, I've definitely seen it do beautiful things.

    I would be quite surprised, actually, if a large portion of the socially-conscious people here got to where they are without benefitting from their fair share of patient, compassionate (and *carefully worded!*) conversations from friends (or even strangers) who reached beyond weaknesses instead of treating them like something to bludgeon.

    But I think that in a large group setting, particularly one as uncontrolled as a forum, our hopes for rational arguments and all of their benefits start to diminish for the general case I outlined (for it to work, the majority would have to be successfully rational and in unison, something which generally cannot be expected to happen beyond a critical mass of individuals). And while my number one piece of advice would typically be "let's be more patient, understanding, and critically aware of the situation" (thanks for the quote pull, Francois! ;) ), I still feel that this is actually a bit pie-in-the-sky for what we have right now.

    I really, really hope that it will happen, and I'd feel sad if people's general takeaway is that it ought not be attempted (I don't want to be on the side of the fence that says "no empathy!", even unintentionally) but I think that mass empathy is very, very difficult to achieve effectively.

    My solution would be to encourage pro-social steps that may be easier in a group setting (the current idea being "deference") to help people codify more accessible behaviours. With enough of these in place, we could see broad empathy emerge more organically, because we'll encourage lots of little rituals which contribute *towards* empathy: listening more, talking less. Slowing down. Actively seeking opinions. Recognising one's own limits. Etc etc.

    If we can get enough of these things in place for the long term, we may one day find ourselves with a community that makes @theFuntastic look trollish in comparison, and get him kicked off the forums for abrasive and antisocial behaviour. <3
    Who are you empathising with, btw? You're choosing to empathise with the person who has - after countless attempts to correct his/her incorrectly held sexist beliefs - chooses to continue holding a problematic attitude? Or are you empathising with the population group that is victimised by such behaviours? It seems to me you're leaning towards the former and - in the process - ostracising the latter.

    Also, again, I'm pointing towards a much more likely to be successful kind of solution, which is based on the social norms approach. This involves people speaking up against sexism (racism etc) - or any problematic behaviour - to show what is actually acceptable.

    If you're interested in learning how this actually works, a really great read is: http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/norms_applications.pdf

    Quick excerpt:

    image
  • Oh, did not see this earlier, sorry.

    I think we have vastly different ideas of what empathy entails, and what sort of actions follow from it. The bystander problem and the matter of empathy are two separate things, even if they tend to get mixed up.

    People who loosely believe that they are being "empathetic" often end up reinforcing norms unintentionally and embody the bystander problem. Its common misuse is exactly why we're given to believing that empathy = encouragement, and makes it a poor solution for a public debate space like MGSA.

    Given this weakness, I have advocated a policy of deference and backing up women's voices instead. Whether this model has its own problems does not seem to be a matter which is confirmed or refuted by your essay, but I think the keystone is that it *will* encourage callouts just the same (albeit via a different process, with female focus).

    If we ever go into a discussion of why empathy in allies is important (and why I do NOT trust an ally who doesn't exercise it), we'd be having a different conversation. ;)
    Thanked by 2dammit damousey
  • .Why can I not heart this more than once?


  • I would recommend watching to the end of part 6.
  • @dammit Holy shit. That was great thanks.
  • edited
    @dammit Holy shit. That was great thanks.
    Be sure to get a balanced view on this woman, here is an equally compelling exposé:

    -Admin voice-
    The linked video has been removed for sexist content and hate speech.
    -dislekcia
  • @rc_collins Welcome to the forums BTW! :)

    So this thread isn't actually about Anita Sarkeesian, it's about discussion how to talk to people on these forums, and sharing thoughts on how to shift views in a positive manner.

    The playlist @dammit above shared goes into great detail of a theory of how the minds of anti-sarkeesians and gamergaters work, which fits into the thread generally. :)

    Your video is just a bit off topic, is what I'm saying :).

    We shouldn't discuss it more here, but I did think the above video was pretty lacking in self awareness and full of irony. It criticizes Sarkeesian for cherry picking examples from games to make her points, which is a fair enough criticism. But it makes this criticism by cherry picking 2 examples from a multiple video series :P. Also I think "thunderf00t" kinda misses the point a little bit. Those examples Sarkeesian uses may not be forced onto players, but they are still there and players are enabled to do that stuff. Why does sex trafficiking and a strip club need to be in those games? Even if they do need to be, why are the women represented so overtly sexualised? Both of those situations can and should have women presented with a lot more respect (a 'realism' card here would be silly considering Watch Dogs is about a hacker who can control a city, and Hitman is about a man who is cloned a few dozen times to find the perfect assassin, but then again, the realism card rarely works). :)

    But yeah, let's not derail this thread :).
  • Firstly, I am a coloured male. I am giving you notice that unless you want a situation on your hands you will remove the tag of hate speech on my post. I also received a ban warning. I came here from the carte blanch tv show and this is how I am welcomed? Is this how you treat differing views to that feminist drivel. Hate speech?

    Benso - thanks, understood.
  • Of all the times to come back to the forum :P

    @rc_collins, this is a conversation we've had over and over again here at MGSA. Use the search bar to look up 'sarkeesian' or 'feminism' or 'sexism' or anything along those lines and you'll find a ton of threads about these topics. It's been done to death and it's frustrating for people to have to argue against the same set of absurd points over and over again. In doing that, you'll probably also find that most of the more active members here (I could be misjudging the numbers, but I'm quite confident about it) are pretty much on board with feminism. You clearly aren't, and that's fine, even though many of us are going to disagree with you on that; there's room for disagreement here, and there's room for debate and discussion. However, it's important to be able to tell the difference between debate and discussion, and some angry dude shouting obscenities at a strawman argument he has no real investment in, because he's really just doing it to yell at feminists. Nobody wants to ban anyone for having differing opinions, but when voicing those differing opinions, we all need to uphold basic standards of social interaction.

    Now, a couple of questions for the mods/admins:

    1. How are the new forum rules coming along? It seems like it's been a while since we received an update on that front.
    2. Would it be worthwhile to start a sort of Q&A thread about feminism and various other social issues? It could be helpful to centralise 101 discussion instead of having it derail every other thread that tries to deal with intermediate/advanced level social stuff.
  • edited
    -Admin voice-
    brondin said:
    1. How are the new forum rules coming along? It seems like it's been a while since we received an update on that front.
    In the spirit of MGSA, the rules are currently being prototyped ;) I am applying a warning system similar to the one outlined here and here (except in the case of the latter, without the initial kid gloves approach, given the understanding of punishment reactions put forward in this very thread). Do something unacceptable = receive a warning and be told why + how not to get more warnings. 3 active warnings or 6 warnings in 6 months = month ban. Warnings expire 2 weeks after being given.
    brondin said:
    2. Would it be worthwhile to start a sort of Q&A thread about feminism and various other social issues? It could be helpful to centralise 101 discussion instead of having it derail every other thread that tries to deal with intermediate/advanced level social stuff.
    Yes. I think it would. I also think any such thread should contain links to the Angry Jack videos (and this discussion about the engagement it suggests) in the OP. Such a thread would be heavily moderated in order to keep questions positive and the thread constructive.

    I am seriously considering closing this thread at the moment.
    Firstly, I am a coloured male. I am giving you notice that unless you want a situation on your hands you will remove the tag of hate speech on my post. I also received a ban warning. I came here from the carte blanch tv show and this is how I am welcomed? Is this how you treat differing views to that feminist drivel. Hate speech?
    @rc_collins has received a second warning for this post. The initial content warning expressly outlined that defending sexist content or engaging in further sexist argument was also unacceptable behavior.

    @rc_collins: Being part of one marginalised group does not absolve you of responsibility when posting problematic content that targets marginalised groups, that's not how constructive communities work. Your post has not been "tagged" with a thing that says "hate speech", instead external content that you linked to was removed because it contained sexist bigotry and hate speech. The content was judged, not you. Similarly, your post above contains sexist arguments and defends sexist content, these actions are not acceptable here - the actions are being judged, not you personally. Yes, this is how we treat sexist arguments here on this forum.

    @rc_collins: Should you wish to challenge or talk about any of these warnings or responses, please feel free to do so via PM with me directly. Further derailing of this thread is to be avoided :)
  • Great! Thanks for the update, @dislekcia. I can get an 'Ask a Social Justice Warrior' (title pending) thread started by the end of the weekend, unless anyone else would like to do it? :) In the meantime, if anyone has great basic-level social justice/media criticism resources that they think should appear in the OP, please share them! (Perhaps via PM, so that this thread doesn't come even further off the rails).
    Thanked by 2damousey francoisvn
  • The maker of the 6 videos posted an update on Tumblr following a conversation he had with Zoe and Anita after his videos went up. Some very interesting points, so I'll quote them here, but worth going to the original post to link to the Storify for more context.

    Based on their advice, I suggest asking the following questions if you want to engage with Jack:

    Are you trying to convince him? If so, you need to be someone he’s willing to be convinced by. Zoe mentions you’d either have to be a friend he has some investment in or an authority figure he respects. If you’re a rando on the internet, it likely won’t happen.

    Are you trying to reach proto-Jack before this rhetoric takes hold? Then perhaps Jack need not be part of the equation. Maybe write something on a different platform, try to reach that audience on your own turf, and perhaps offer them links to what you write. Siphon them away from Jack. Cultivate your own space and your own audience.

    Where is the conversation taking place? If you’re on a forum with good moderation that will clamp down on anything that starts to get threatening, then maybe engaging can yield a fruitful discussion. But, then, that’s not using Jack to reach his audience, that’s once again talking to someone who might still be salvageable - if he were beyond reason he’d already be banned. If people are going full-on Angry Jack and no authority is intervening, maybe that community is already lost. Either volunteer as a mod, advocate for a change in policy, or invite people to a different community.
    *Underlining is my own emphasis.

    Full link: http://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/124664414232/talking-to-jack-it-turns-out-is-complicated

    Storify: https://storify.com/garaden/debunking-misinformation
    Thanked by 1dislekcia
  • edited
    That video series is really excellent, I recommend everyone watch it.

    That being said, and at the risk of being pilloried, while I think the videos do a great job of illustrating what I believe to be the core dynamic of GamerGate, I would caution that real life is never neat.

    GamerGate will not be composed solely of two types of people, 4chan trolls and Angry Jacks (or proto Angry Jacks). We must be careful, when encountering a GGer or someone undecided on the issues surrounding GG, not to leap to the conclusion that "aha, this is Angry Jack!" and then treat them as an immature, incorrigible, defensive, petulant manchild*.

    Even if we're frustrated, and it can be extremely satisfying to do so.


    *Until such time as they prove that they are one, of course. ;)
  • dammit said:
    The maker of the 6 videos posted an update on Tumblr following a conversation he had with Zoe and Anita after his videos went up.
    ...
    Storify: https://storify.com/garaden/debunking-misinformation
    Do you mean Lindsay Ellis? I can't find any dialogue between Innuendo Studios and Anita Sarkeesian in either the Tumblr post or the Storify.
  • Asbestos said:
    dammit said:
    The maker of the 6 videos posted an update on Tumblr following a conversation he had with Zoe and Anita after his videos went up.
    ...
    Storify: https://storify.com/garaden/debunking-misinformation
    Do you mean Lindsay Ellis? I can't find any dialogue between Innuendo Studios and Anita Sarkeesian in either the Tumblr post or the Storify.
    Apologies. I actually saw Anita tweet this so I must have just swapped names for sources. Thanks!
    Thanked by 1Asbestos
Sign In or Register to comment.