Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The unmarried speak... (Score 1) 571

It's only a problem if you decide that her feedback about your property is important to you.

I don't know, you can still take their input and consider it important, but just ignore it because it goes against what you want to do with your things. I think it's a bit heavy handed to say it shouldn't be important. I'd still ask my wife out of courtesy and to get her perspective if I was going to do something drastic, she might have some useful insight. If she flat out said no or didn't have any useful input such as, "why just one? Two horns would be louder.", I'd likely take her protest into consideration, but would do what I wanted anyway.

I'm also married (only the one time over 8 years to a women I've known for a total of 15). The dynamics of anyone's relationship is really their own business and if it's working for them no one should judge.

We keep our finances separate and divided the bills up more or less evenly so whatever is left over is our individual spending money. I bought myself a car, outside of the regular bills, almost 10 years ago and I let her use it. She's only complained to me once because she wanted to take it to her parents place for the weekend, which would have left me stranded on a weekend where I had a ton of things to do. She told me I could take the metro bus around town, which I wasn't particularly happy with, and a little angry she even made the suggestion. It would have required two days to do an afternoon's running around. Not to mention the difficulty of transporting things, including lumber, or having to run out on the spot if I was missing something. There was some discussion about it that got heated and nearly ended with her losing all driving privileges. We "compromised" and she got a two-way bus ticket so she could go to her parents and I'd have the car. The compromise was I'd let her keep using the car if I didn't need it.

Every now and then I remind her the car is getting up in age and we'll have to get another one. I've been saving knowing it's coming and don't need her help to pay for it, but I give her the option so she'd have more of a say in how it's used. She's happy enough with the arrangement and knows unless she pitches in for it there's no expectation she'll just get to take off with it whenever she likes. I know it sounds like a harsh arrangement or that I don't respect my wife, but that's not the case. We get along great, real couples know marriage is a team effort, but that doesn't mean you have to let your spouse call all the plays all the time and you shouldn't just let them walk all over you. She gets to win her share of the battles too.

most women I've been with would rather take your shitty stuff for free than have to buy their own.

This part I agree with, but it's not exclusive to women. Friends do it too, mine (including my father) are quite happy to come over and drink my shitty beer without even offering to pay for another kit or bring any with them. But I'm compensated with the company and entertainment, which is really the same thing with marriage, except there's sex too.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 239

You know what?

I'm perfectly ok with just feminism. In my mind there's no reason to be against people who think they advocate for equality and there's no reason to say, "if you believe in equality then you must do XXX", everyone has their own idea of what that is. A lot of people will call themselves feminist because they believe in the dictionary definition, but it's not a central part of their lives and they wouldn't support the crazies if they were in the same room with them. What I do have an issue with is, like you, "3rd wave". People that believe in stupid shit like, women can't be sexists, people of colour can't be racists, it's ok to discriminate against whites or males (they fucking deserve it). Those people to me aren't feminist, they're calling themselves feminist because it's the politically correct thing to do and makes it seem like they have a whole movement behind them, but they don't. It lets them get away with all kinds of other bigotry because they've fooled themselves into thinking they're a majority and certain people or people who share a certain ideology can't be wrong and they can't be sexists or racists or bigots or bad in anyway.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 239

What she is saying is that simply noticing and pointing stuff out isn't helpful and is actually just annoying. You have to transcend that and see it as a bunch of systems all interacting. So it's less about individuals or individual examples, and more about the systems that produce them.

That's why she does videos that cover the history of video games and how tropes came to exist, and how game mechanics evolved to perpetuate them. In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her, is that often it's just these cultural tropes that are the problem and you can make your game better by avoiding them. It's not that some evil misogynist sat in front of his computer, rubbing his hands in glee as he designed another Ms. Male Character trope to keep the women down, it's just that they are a thing, part of a system.

Some people refer this this type of claim as "conspiracy theory"

In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her

"love" is an interesting word to used instead of "fear". Devs that do speak out against here are often attacked, smeared, shamed and blacklisted.

I know far more game devs that despise or ignore her, or won't comment her for fear of being attacked, than those that "love" her. Also "some devs", would have been accurate, "many" is intentionally misleading. You can't even get "many' slashdotters to agree with you, but you can speak for game devs now?

Comment Re:Regulating Games was Never About Violence (Score 1) 239

It's not just politicians looking for the go ahead here. There's a whole industry of leches, "academics", "critics" and "journalists" who need this to be true so they can continue pushing their personal "research", "critiques" and clickbait. Getting politicians to recognize it is just the first step in getting government funding and expanding their reach / credibility.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 239

I highly recommend everyone watch the whole video, because if that 6 second clip wasn't enough to make you thinks she's batshit insane:

Unfortunately many contemporary discourses in and around feminism tend to emphasize a form of hyper individualism which is informed by the neoliberal worldview. More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act, this attitude is often referred to as ‘choice feminism’. Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger, fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women with a very narrow, individual notion of empowerment. It erases the reality that some choices that women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.

So basically, women shouldn't make choices for their own benefit, they should make choices that only "benefit" women as a collective. Benefit here being entirely dependent who is making that decision, which in this case is "feminist" or Anita specifically. So tell me. What's the purpose of "equality" if you're "equality" is entirely dependent on making choices someone else decides you can make based on what's good for them? She basically wants women to cast of the chains of "patriarchy" and voluntarily lock themselves up with the chains of "feminism"

And I'm not putting "feminist" and "feminism" in quotes because I disagree with it, I'm putting it in quotes because I disagree with people who are clearly using a well intended ideology for their own personal gain.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 239

So let's think about this for a moment. Say you're "profile" is entirely dependent on how much harassment you get. If you didn't get any then you're a nobody everyone ignores, but if you get harassed it means talk shows, donations, UN hearings, etc.

IF that was the case, would you not play up the harassment you get? Keep in mind Anita was "being harassed" long before GamerGate was even a thing. GamerGate, made popular by the media it accused of being corrupt, simply gave her something, besides rando internet trolls we all deal with, to point a finger at. The only reason GamerGate keeps going is because people can't just let it go. It's gotten to a point where some people financially depend on it harassing them in order to keep patron donations coming in.

If you'd like to see it go away, then stop blaming everything on in.

And Anita isn't a critic, she's not a consumer of the medium and has no interest in improving it. She's not on the side of "gamers", she's an outside party that doesn't like people doing things she disapproves of. Ok, well she doesn't like people doing things Jonathan McIntosh disapproves of, she's just the mouth piece because no one would take McIntosh seriously as a feminist without a female to use as a shield for ACTUAL criticism of his ideas.

With her it's easy to shift the focus of, "Man, that guy's an idiot" to "STOP ATTACKING WOMEN!!", seriously go see how well his "25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male" was received. The response videos are hilarious, and note all of the response videos I linked are from actual female gamers.

Comment Re:Kinda dissagree (Score 1) 239

What a horrible strawman.

It was the same dumb argument when Jack Thompson made it, it's the same dumb argument now, whether it's feminist supporting it or not.

I'm not even anti-feminist, but being a feminist doesn't automatically make you a good person, or right. Jack was proven wrong and mocked, Anita is proven wrong and, oh wait can't mock her because feminism. You're not doing anyone on the line about feminism any favors. From a neutral perspective, on feminism, I'd rather be called a misogynist and a "GamerGate type" then to associate with people who illogically strawman and demonize anyone that doesn't agree with them 100%.

Comment Re:Kinda dissagree (Score 1) 239

This is just the new claim, video games are addictive and ruin lives.

First they claimed games lead to satanism, then they claimed games caused people to be violent, lately it's been games cause people to be sexists, and they've been proven wrong over and over again. "Games are addictive" is just the latest iteration for busy bodies that have too much time on their hands and have a need to butt into other people's business. I'm sure when people start looking into it they'll find that, if it wasn't games, people with addictive personalities would just become addicted to something else. Then these people will probably move on to claiming games cause you to hate puppies.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 668

One of those, "speak of the devil" moments. I just stumbled on to this medium post.

Apparently at the end of last month people started asking to remove Yukihiro Matsumoto (creator of Ruby) from the "community management" side of it's development. And guess who's involved? Coraline Ada Ehmke, the same person that pushed for the CoC to be included in the Opal project. And her friend Kurtis, who was the troll that started the transphobic accusation with Elia Schito (Opal Maintainer).

No one can seriously tell me these aren't dubious circumstances.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 668

no one has the right to force others to hear their speech

There's a difference between forcing others to hear your speech and others actively seeking out speech the don't want to hear. You can find people who will be, literally (not in the figurative sense), be offended by everything. You can't protect everyone, all the time and creating a "safe space" for them, literally, means creating a hostile environment for others. Again if you look at the Opal incident, the original complaint accused the dev of being transphobic. If you trace that back to where it started he was having a twitter conversation with a friend and some random troll turned it into a conversation about hating trans people. The dev was like, "wut?", and that was all it took.

In other news, people in charge of a project/community set the rules. The...

This isn't the case, again going back to the Opal incident non-community members attacked a dev, then went to twitter to drum up others to join in. No one even had an opportunity to discuss and if they had there were so many trolls and gender worriers jumping in there was no way to even have a reasonable discussion before someone just merged the proposed CoC in. What's worse is the CoC didn't originally have anything in it to handle the incident anyway, it was modified after the fact.

Even without ill intent, people often don't even realise that something they're used to doing is, in fact, un-excellent.

So tell them, but even still some people consider using the word "guys" to be "un-excellent" so there's a point where you just start nitpicking. I'm sure you can take just about anyone and find someone that doesn't like something they say. It shouldn't be left up to individual people to decided what's offensive to them is offensive to everyone and therefor boot people with no actual ill intent.

TL;DR - People on both sides, overly offensive and overly offended, are a menaces and justify then feed each others existence.

Yeah, neither overly offensive nor overly offended are good.

I'm glad we can at least agree on this much, and I hope you realize my ire isn't aimed at people in between those extremes. If someone is intentionally being an asshole, they deserve what they get, but the flip side of that are the people who are specifically looking to bully and police others by using things most reasonable people wouldn't find offensive, and they tend to not even be parts of the communities they're string shit up in.

Comment Re: Obligatory (Score 1) 668

Words are one thing, but any form of intended unwanted physical contact should be taken seriously. And that goes just as much for women touching men as men touching women. I don't like being touched, especially by strangers. You have a right to say what you want in a public place, you don't have a right to purposely invade anyone else's personal physical space. That said, yes equating someone pinching your bum to rape is also an extreme and shouldn't be taken lightly. Rape is a very serious crime and I hate the fact that it gets watered down by people that use it to describe any unwanted action.

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 3, Insightful) 668

I fully support equal air time. For starters, the best way to out bigots is to just let them speak. The other major reason is it seems to me people only advocate for no-platforming when one side might make a better argument and sway more people.

Otherwise, If someone wants to claim we lived with dinosaurs or the earth is flat, let them, we'll all have a good laugh. If someone wants to be racists and go around screaming the N word at black people or how dumb they think women are, let them, they'll be the ones unemployable. The only thing to be afraid if is they'll actually make a good argument and convince people they're not wrong, or they'll completely crash and burn their own cause and no one will take them seriously.

But not giving equal air time to all sides of an issue, it's just too easy to no-platform someone with a "controversial" (re: different or not politically correct, but not hateful) view. All you have to do is call them sexists, racists, homophobic, say they associate with stormfront, the KKK or random internet trolls, petition venues where they're suppose to speak and post continually about how ignorant they are while pointing to things that specific person has never actually said or supported. No one will ever hear their side, or at least won't admit to it, for fear of being lumped in with all the evils of the world. By the time anyone is will to speak on their behalf the damage is done.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 668

The problem is actually two fold, I agree with you that people confuse free speech with it being ok to be intentionally offensive. But the other side of the coin is people feel they have a right to a "safe space" and should never have to see/hear anything that's only offensive to them personally, then going after people that fall somewhere in between for not complying 100%.

The issue with the CoCs that have been being forced lately is a result of people wanting tools in place to go after those that disagree ideologically and/or politically with issues that aren't even part of a dev project. See the Opal disaster the AC below linked. It's incredibly underhanded because the communities don't even get a chance to have a say. The CoC is introduced, discussed and merged into a project in less than a day before anyone, that doesn't know it's being talked about, can have any input.

This plays into fears the "SJWs" are coming, which fuels the the freeze peachers into asserting they still have support. Us moderates in the middle are just like, "why do I have to pick one or the other?"

I fully support people's right to say what they want, but also agree that needs to be tempered with some common sense. If you act like an asshole people aren't going to want to deal with you, and you can't force them too.

I have no issue with a CoC, but why are they even necessary? Can't we just look at someone that's being an ass on a project and all agree they're being an ass and we don't want to work with them? Or if you're an individual that doesn't get along with someone, just don't work with them? It feels like people are only pushing CoCs so they, as an individual, can personally decide who to oust. Even if no one else sees an issue with the person being attacked. The CoC just puts tools on the table so the first one to accuse wins, that's kind of the opposite of a safe space. What's worse is when you look at the people proposing the CoCs THEY ARE THE ABUSERS! They're the worse people to be arguing for tools to hold people responsible for actions outside of dev projects. Hell just look up "Coraline Ada" who after pushing the CoC for the Opal project went to twitter to drum up a mob of people to attack the project to force them into accepting her CoC or "Randi Harper" (FreeBSD) who harassed Roberto Rosario out his board position with the IGDA and then proceeded to harass members of the FreeBSD community after pushing to have a CoC along with many other people. She harasses ANNE QUEEN OF VAMPIRES RICE for god's sake.

TL;DR - People on both sides, overly offensive and overly offended, are a menaces and justify then feed each others existence.

Comment Re:You must be new here (Score 1) 1838

I have no obligation to apologize for made up offenses I wouldn't be responsible for even if they were true. And this response is why people down mod you so hard.

No one is responsible for internet trolls who were around looooooooong before GamerGate. You gave them a free pass no one else. You hold up some of the worst people as "victims" when they're some of the most abusive deceptive people on the internet, then dismiss anyone with relevant criticism while holding up the actions of individual trolls and blaming anyone with legitimate issues for the actions of those trolls.

Instead of allowing people to discuss actual issues with the press you forced in your own pet issues and insist everyone must talk about them or they're misogynists, then you wonder why people down mod you and act like you're not doing anything wrong.

On top of very few people actually agreeing with you on your GamerGate stance, you've sabotaged your own cause by tossing away any credibility you have on easily debunked claims and strawmen. And you still obsess over it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Because he's a character who's looking for his own identity, [He-Man is] an interesting role for an actor." -- Dolph Lundgren, "actor"

Working...