Censorship? There is no censorship!

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by cronicler, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. Gnarles Bronson

    Gnarles Bronson regular mutant

    373
    Oct 30, 2011
    I think there is something wrong with it from a variety of moral perspectives. A website such as this which only exists because of the freedoms of expression afforded to it, which courts participants almost entirely from societies in which they are afforded freedoms of self expression, has a moral obligation to treat those rights and freedoms with respect. I don't see any perspective in which interfering with a human being's right to self expression, barring extenuating circumstances, is anything but immoral -- especially when that expression is the foundation of your enterprise.

    Legally, of course, they're under no obligation to do anything they don't want to do. Still doesn't mean it's right for them to do so.
     
  2. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    Then there must be shit in your eyes.

    "Your novel is banned and will no longer be sold in bookshops. But here's a new notebook full of empty pages for you to fill. Go ahead: express yourself. Feel free to say whatever you want."

    Huh.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2014
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
  3. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    Censors are so strange...

    Take these for instance:



     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
  4. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    I'll answer this sort of reasoning generally, and then address the specific example you posit. The problem with stories like this is that they're just that: stories. We can think of stories that plausibly explain any situation in an evolutionary way. For instance, if we lived in a world where women earned more than men, we'd probably tell ourselves that that's a biological result of the fact that women need more money because they often take care of the kids. If we lived in a world where men were the primary caregivers, we'd probably tell ourselves that's the natural way of things to bind men closer to women and enforce monogamy, which would be beneficial for the later success of children. We tell ourselves stories like that all the time -- probably as a way to feel comfortable about the world as it is.

    And yes, we have plenty of historical examples of this sort of thing. For instance, people used to think that women's brains weren't suited for politics. They evolved to take care of children, and that made them biologically unsuited for politics, which is why they shouldn't have the vote. That sounded very natural and persuasive to people during the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, even though it's a load of bollocks. It sounded so natural because it reinforced their worldview with a neat narrative, and people like things that reinforce their world views. Similarly, every male-dominated profession has stories of why women aren't biologically suited for work there -- in IT, it's because women are bad at science/not interested in computers, because biology. In banking, it's because women are risk-averse, because biology. It's all nonsense.

    But these narratives aren't actually supported by science. We know very little about the pressures under which we evolved, we know even less about the ways in which those pressures would interact with the current environment. We keep finding out that lots and lots of things we used to think were biological truths, are actually culturally-determined (or at least heavily influenced and/or overridden by culture). Including the drive to have children -- there's a reason why the birth rate drops dramatically with access to reliable birth control. We don't know which genes do what, how our hormones work exactly, how all of this interacts with the environment, how all of the micro-organisms in our bodies influence all of this -- human beings are extremely complex both biologically and culturally, and we are nowhere close to being able to state anything about our biological impulses with any degree of certainty.

    So that's why we should be very, very skeptical of any narrative evolutionary explanation of the status quo. We need lots and lots of quality research before we start believing those truths -- and even then, there's no reason to assume that culture can't override biological "truths". In fact, you could argue that our ability to not be slaves to biological impulses is a key part of what makes us human in the first place.

    As for your specific example, there's no reason why biologically, we'd associate making more money with having fewer children -- we didn't evolve in a situation where money was even a thing, and the few thousand years for which we've had currency aren't enough to biologically enforce these sorts of things. Nor did we evolve in a situation where being educated or being a professional were things that one could do. In fact, the situation where increased individual prosperity leads to a lower birth rate is mostly the result of the demographic transition -- something that's only occurred the past two centuries. Furthermore, it's not entirely clear why that more-money-fewer-children thing happened (culture probably has a lot to do with it), nor that it's even true at the highest levels of socio-economic development. There's also no evidence to suggest that women (or men!) as a whole are actually driven by having-as-many-children-as-possible. In fact, it's pretty clear that we're not: we'd have birth rates in the teens instead of birth rates in the ones (in most of the 'Western' world), if that were true. Finally, the whole jobs-and-money-as-status for men is also culturally driven: there are plenty of societies where social status has very little to do with your job, and in fact having a job in the first place was often seen as a low-status situation. There's also no real reason why women wouldn't want to increase their status in the same way to attract (better) mates.

    @TheWesDude: Still incapable of seeing the difference between a society-wide issue and an individualized accusation, I see. Also, the study I linked does not say what you think it does, but I'm sure you're used to that.
    @Akratus: Your willingness to just accept whatever TheWesDude states as fact is a pretty good example of that blindly-accepting-worldview-reinforcing-narratives thing I talked about.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  5. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    @Sander I've disagreed with TheWesDude quite a bit in the past, but apparently disagreeing with you and agreeing with someone else who disagrees with you is totally crazy!

    That is indeed what you talk about.
     
  6. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    956
    Dec 24, 2012
    Alright, I do want to add my own two cents to this topic, but not on the exact discussion at hand but with something that was bugging me a while back. The story will be long so if you want to get to the point, skip down to the last part.

    Most of you know I go to a clinic for Substance Abuse treatment. Well by law it's mandatory you see a psychiatrist there, only they don't like to call them psychiatrists, they like to call them "counselors". Anyway I have a new counselor now because my old one went to Germany to counsel US Soldiers who got addicted to drugs over there and are having a hard time dealing with their addictions. Anyway, she specialized in family problems. Now we're getting to the point here;

    I remember a lot of you saying that children being raised in a household could grow up just fine with a single parent, or two parents of the same gender. Well... I grew up with my father who was single/a bachelor and shit was always tough, especially for me because I didn't have a mother around. When I was a child, I never experienced abandonment issues (my mother never actually abandoned me, she just suffered from PTSD and we never saw her). As any other child I was a happy little kid, whether me and my dad were poor or not living in North Las Vegas (look up the crime rates there on Google if you don't believe me about how bad the neighborhood is. Some years it gets worse than Detroit) he always strived to not only put food on the table, pay the bills, but also get me the stupid little toys I wanted and games and shit. Around the time I was growing up (90's - that's my era) the Gameboy Color was out and the Pokemon games were a huge fucking fad. Kids were buying the trading cards and everything. My dad would sometimes go without eating so I could get a stupid little Pokemon game and be happy (wish he told me that shit then, but then I never would have asked for the game if I knew...). So yeah, I was a happy ass child. All the other kids in the neighborhood used to come to my house because I was the only kid whose parents ever bought them anything. Everything I could ever want, so why be sad, right? Well...

    Eventually as the years went on me and my dad grew extremely close. I hear a lot of people tell others how they love someone so much that "they would die for them", well I loved my father so much that I lived for him. He's dead now, rest in peace, but anyways. We grew extremely close because he was the only family I ever had. My brother was a dickhead and a gangbanger, and by now we moved completely away from Las Vegas Nevada to get away from the fucked up neighborhood (and a fucked up mother, forgive me because she's actually doing pretty good now). But around my early teenage years my father had met someone. They got together, planned on getting married, had a kid, the whole deal. This chick, Annie, comes to me (I'm 13 at the time) and tells me that we're going to be a family and everything's good. Cool. Well she treats me like her son and everything's all good, but fuck if by the time I'm 16 everything turns upside down, which it does. She's pregnant with my brother, and starts treating me like complete shit. Telling me shit like "I'm not your fucking mom, don't call me that!" or "No wonder your mom didn't want you!". Anyway to skip ahead a bunch so we don't carry this story on longer than it has to be, that brought up some fucked up emotions that I guess I was just bottling in, and my whole life starts to turn around. Drugs, hanging around gangs, the whole deal. But Kate leaving my life also had a lot to do with that, most of you know that story.

    Anyways, they eventually broke up, Annie and my dad, however I was left fucked up emotionally. So when I got into counseling for my methadone clinic I asked my counselor about all kinds of things, including why I was like that because of Annie, and here's the important part, she said (not word for word, but close):

    When a child grows up without a mother or father because they passed away or abandoned the child slowly over time the child receives emotional distress because of it, even if the child is unaware it is secretly burrowing itself into the child's mentality. There are three different specific times a person will actually experience the emotional trauma of abandonment, death, or the general absence of a parent. First, it could be when they are past the toddler age, around ages 6 to 10. Here the child will act out, often throw fits, and generally be rebellious to their parents. Most children lose these traits after the pass the toddler threshold into late childhood. Second, and most common, they will experience emotional stress during their teenage years. The reason for this is because those "bottled up" feelings of abandonment are now colliding with a new foe; puberty. During puberty a teenager's emotions are being thrown around, and they can often show emotions which give similar signs to bi-polar disorder or even PMS (for men), however, it is just puberty. But when puberty comes in it sometimes brings out anything the teenager had previously repressed, one of those issues possibly being parental absence. Thus, the teenager can be more aggressive than usual, and have more severe mood shifts, and even thoughts of suicide. This is the most common time for a person to experience the trauma left by parental abandonment. The third possible time however, could be when a person is between the ages of 35-45. Between these ages most males and females often experience something dubbed in laymen's terms as a "mid-life crisis". What is actually happening is, due to the maturing and aging of the brain, emotions are, again, being shifted around. Again, this could possible bring up emotional stress left by parental absence.

    Here's where it gets interesting:

    We now know that when a child is being raised, it is best for them to have a masculine and feminine presence in their lives, thus a mother and father. With a mother and father, a child can receive aspects from both and allow he or she to develop into a stable adult, with a perfect balance between masculinity and femininity. However, when one parent is gone, the child can receive what I like to call a "double dose", which can be unhealthy for a developing mind. Parents are the most important aspects in a child's life because not only does a child look to them as the nurturers, the providers, but they also look to them as their teachers, the ones who are to teach them of the world, as their guardians who are to protect them from the big bad outside world, and finally, and their companions, who will love and stick by the child's side constantly. And for the most part unless a child is orphaned or raised by parents with an emotionally distant relationship, this is true. A child will learn the most about the world, and society not from school, or their friends, or even their other family members, but their parents. They will look to their parents to see how to act, how to talk, and what to do in certain moments, even if the parents don't realize it. In a sense, the child is constantly observing the parents who are the most influential people in his or her life. For example, if a child sees his or her dad acts in an angry or mean manner around a different race of people, the child will take that in and absorb it into his or her's mind.

    Thus, we come back to a feminine and masculine presence. When one is taken out of the equation, the child only has one to look up to. Therefore instead of receiving an equal dose of both, they are "double dosing" themselves on masculinity or femininity. This is bad. Their mind is developing and soaking in everything. What they see and hear now will influence who they become in their later life. Thus no matter hard one tries, a mother could never provide the masculine presence a child needs, and a father could never provide the feminine presence a child needs. The natural order of things has always been that a child needs a mother and father.
     
  7. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Actually, research suggests that having same-sex parents is not at all detrimental to children. See, for instance, this study of lesbian couples' children, which found that the absence of fathers was no detriment to their children's development. Or this one, that notes that childern of same-sex couples seem to lead more healthy lives. There are many, many studies that consistently show that being raised by same-sex couples is not a problem -- directly contradicting the idea that children need a male and female parent. Even if the presence of a specifically masculine or feminine role model were important (and it's not at all clear that it is, rather than just adult attention and affection in general), there's no reason why that has to be bound up with the presence of specifically a mother or father. The "double dose" thing you talk about isn't supported by any research I can find, and flatly contradicted by most of it.

    There are other issues here, bound up with the whole concept of masculinity and femininity. For instance, our entire culture is gendered: everything we learn from the start as kids reinforces the concept that women and men are fundamentally different, and you're right that children learn those concepts by observing -- but not just by observing their parents, by observing everything they see in society -- people, media, stories, language, etc. That's how a culture reinforces itself. But this isn't part of the solution: it's part of the problem. The fact that it's more difficult to function in society if you don't adhere to strictly masculine or feminine roles is not a good thing.


    Also, historically and cross-culturally, this is complete nonsense:
    The invention of the nuclear family as a core organizing principle is only relatively recent, not cross-cultural (group parenting and other institutions all occur frequently), and not a historical constant. The notion that this is the natural order of things is, basically, unfounded. But it's another narrative that reinforces the status quo as the "biological truth", which is why when people present it, other people go "huh that makes sense must be true". Which is exactly what I noted above.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  8. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    i would not make the claim that women are bad at science/computers due to biology

    i would say that women avoid science and computers due to cultural and societal pressure. i would also say that it is becoming more "acceptable" for women in science and technology which in turn will increase their participation. i also say that the only way it will change is either by forcing women into these fields, or letting time run its course and their participation will increase on its own. if you know of other solutions, then be sure to share them. there are many programs that try to encourage women into these fields. it will take time though.

    i would not make the claim that women are risk-averse due to biology

    through studies we have found that the most successful people in the field of finance and market trading and such is how psychopathic a person is and a diminished capacity for empathy. a person that cares about that 65 year old couple living on their life savings wont take their money and invest it in a bio-tech startup with a chance for them to lose it all for the possibility of huge gains turning them into millionaires if it succeeds.

    really?

    shit, i was right :(

    slightly off, their goal is to make the non-GS scale agencies change over to the GS scale. but the GS scale information is available on websites.

    i covered this a bit in #2


    so @Sander

    even with these rigorus controls when compared to same GS rate and length of total employment, they found a 2.9% gap in favor of men.

    women received pay step increases more frequently than men.
    women received promotions more frequently than men.

    yet men still ended up with a 2.9% higher pay. OPM determines promotions. OPM determines step increases. supervisors provide reccomendations.

    so, how do you end up with women getting more step increases and promotions than men, and STILL end up with a 2.9% pay gap? i know the answer, and it is not one they wanted to quantify because of what it implies. my mom would have to submit reports like these to her supervisors and even generals who oversaw her department in the army. they would always ask questions like this and they never liked the answer. even in the private sector they do not like to talk about and admit the issue.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  9. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Amusing, but once again not addressing my point. Let me quote myself so after the fourth time, you get this point. It's not that hard. Maybe reading what I write and addressing it, instead of just clicking a link and for some reason summarizing the findings in that link, would help.
    Note that when I was referring to the study not saying what you think it's saying, I was referring specifically to the idea that this is somehow proof there's no discrimination, because that's the context in which I quoted it. Let me cite, specifically: "This unexplained portion could be attributable to factors that may or may not be discriminatory" and "we are not ruling out the possibility that discriminatory influences played a role in occupational distribution" and "It is important to also note that even if a portion of male-female pay gap is “explained” by factors included in the analysis, it does not mean that all those factors are immune from possible discriminatory influence. To the extent that the explaining factors are subject to employee or employer control, some unknown portion of the explained gap may reflect the effects of discrimination (either societal or employer-specific)".
    But thanks for giving me a summary of its recommendations, I guess?



    No easy solutions and of course it will take time, but altering workplace environments so they're no longer hostile to women, stricter sexual harassment controls, and constant cultural reinforcement of the idea that there's nothing inherently masculine about IT, that women in IT is perfectly natural, are all things that would help.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  10. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    If we're merely looking specifically at whether, for the same job, men and women earn the same or not, isn't it disingenuous to say that because there's no proof it isn't equal, it's therefore (likely) not equal?
    [HR][/HR]

    Holy shit, this is amazing. Those frenchies and their wacky ways.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
  11. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Feel free to drop me a line when someone stops you from expressing your opinions. Note: That means actually stopping you from expressing your opinions. Nobody is stopping you from posting in this thread, which is a continuation of the preceding one. If you want more continuity, ask the original poster to edit a link to the vatted thread into their post, for anyone who wants to wade through 80 pages of posts.
     
  12. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    now you did it. He made you post Tagz.
     
  13. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    1) in what ways is IT hostile to women?

    2) the mere accusation of sexual harassment can get you fired or transferred to somewhere else

    3) IT does not have a "masculine" reputation, but rather its for "geeks/nerds" and that it is not cool

    4) everyone reinforces to everyone that it is not natural to go into IT, not unique to women.


    as i have said previously, due to the low amount of women and minorities in IT, companies fight very hard to not only get but also KEEP women and minorities. they do this by over-compensation, favorable schedules, and things like taking their side in sexual harassment accusations without direct evidence contradicting their claim.


    just look at the case of Adria Richards. it took her company several days before finally terminating her for violations of several of their companies policies.


    if you have something specific, bring it up.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  14. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Akratus asked the exact same thing last week. here's my response from then:
    Finding information on the hostile work environment, sexual harassment in IT and Silicon Valley in particular is trivial. The fact that you work in the industry and don't have a clue how widespread this issue is probably part of the problem.

    Also, if you think IT is not viewed as a specifically masculine profession, you have not been paying attention. Yes, it's also seen as geeky and nerdy (less and less so), but in a specifically masculine way.
     
  15. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    That last one I can answer for though. Encyclopedia Dramatica doesn't do it for any gender based reason, trust me. If there ever was a force of pure trolling, it's them.
    I've seen that Weev guy too, he's pretty funny.



    You see, sometimes boiling things down to mere sexism doesn't really help to do anything but generalize something. In some places, men have it bad too. No reason to generalize that down to a one-word issue. But if and when it comes to mere online comments you either have a thick enough skin to deal with fucking pixels or you go and cry to someone about it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
  16. PlanHex

    PlanHex Legislative Senator oTO Moderator Orderite

    Nov 4, 2007
    Specifically, it's only for gross neckbeard basement-dwelling loser virgins.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2014
  17. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    You're explicitly defending harassment now. And you're still confused about why people think GamerGate enables, condones and creates harassment? Jesus.
     
  18. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    My lone post on this corner of the internet has a direct link with what a disorganized consumer revolt stands for. Up is down. Right is wrong. I reject your reality and substitute my own.

    I'm not defending harassment, I'm denouncing people getting their feelz in a twist about it.

    Maybe sprinkling some holy water over your screen, set to my profile, whilst shouting "The power of christ compells you!!" at the top of your lungs, will make the bad man go away.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  19. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Your attitude toward harassment isn't isolated from GamerGate's general attitude: grow thicker skin, blaming the victim, condoning nearly everything that isn't an explicit death threat (and then writing those off as "not credible"), excusing destructive behavior with "it's legal", etc. That's endemic in GamerGate, and your attitude here is just an example.
    Meanwhile, Gamergate throws hissy fits over articles that they think said their demographic was over with, but in fact said no such thing. But it's just pixels on the internet, right?

    Meanwhile, Jonathan McIntosh and a bunch of other people (including Tim Schafer, didn't recognize anyone else), explain the concept of privilege.


    Original article form: http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/23/56...e-the-invisible-benefits-of-gaming-while-male
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
  20. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    956
    Dec 24, 2012
    But it is a problem. Think of how society would treat that kid. Imagine going to school or work every day, and always being the outcast. Sure more people accept homosexuality than before, but that number is still low. It doesn't matter what polls you show me, the majority of the people I talk to don't want to be anywhere near homosexual men. They can do whatever they want, they're not going to protest them or fight against their rights, but these people just don't want them around them or their children. This is just one of a few of the problems they may face.