Any Gaming sites that aren’t all so left wing? Rowling & Other Catastrophes

[alms]

I don’t think “my freedom is more than your freedom” is or should be a thing. No?

One person’s freedom ends the moment another person’s is being trampled. Hence Rowling being denounced for what she has been saying, is not a problem or an infringement of her freedom of speech.

If Rowling and the likes were to be allowed to air their “nasty”, as you call them, opinions any time they want, uncontested, they would just normalize (again) a climate of hate, that ultimately results in actual harm to LGBTQ people who are …people with the same rights as everybody else (but not the same privileges as the folks sitting at the top, like Rowling), but more problems because they are LGBTQ.

Those who are now using the freedom of speech card to defend her, are actually acting to let Rowling rant on and on about the “terrible” dangers LGBTQ people pose to regular folks – entrenching these ideas into the minds of people who don’t know better.

All the while, they don’t want this freedom of speech to be extended to LGBTQ people; they want them gagged and ridculed. As I was saying above.

If society lets this scare and hate mongering to go on in the name of freedom of speech, you can rest assured that a lot of people will be deprived of their freedom of being alive, and/or their freedom to live an acceptable life.

Speaking of double standards, BTW:

Secondly, “freedom of speech”, the same as “freedom” and “equality”, are concepts that have to apply universally and equally to everyone, regardless of their status, finances, religion, beliefs, color and whatnot.

As if, in the “messy” world we live in, those like JK Rowling (Obama included) didn’t already enjoy a very different, higher degree of freedom than regular folks do, entrusted to them by a pile of money that shields them from almost all consequences.

Firstly, I would like to know exactly which quote (of hers) I should be commenting on.

Have you not read this yet?

An open letter to J.K. Rowling - Mermaids

It contains the quote I was referring to, among many other highly questionable statements from her that have been widely reported in the press.

[Sarfrin]

Secondly, “freedom of speech”, the same as “freedom” and “equality”, are concepts that have to apply universally and equally to everyone, regardless of their status, finances, religion, beliefs, color and whatnot. Otherwise, the terms are completely mislabeled. I don’t think “my freedom is more than your freedom” is or should be a thing. No?

They are free to say the things they say. And other people are free to stop listening to them, buying their books, attending lectures they give and soon on.
There isn’t a big ‘you’re cancelled’ button somewhere in woke HQ or a legal process for cancelling someone. If cancellation exists at all (outside of social media chatter and bigots complaining about it) it’s simply the accumulation of individuals exercising their freedom of choice in response to someone else exercising their freedom of speech.
The right to express one’s views doesn’t include the right the right to dictate how other people respond to them. To take Starkey as an example, I think it’s perfectly reasonable that an institution that has black students or a company with black employees might not want to employ someone who refers to them in public as ‘damn blacks’.

[TheDreamlord]

They are free to say the things they say. And other people are free to stop listening to them, buying their books, attending lectures they give and soon on.

No disagreement there at all. I do disagree however with what I mentioned earlier, the current trend of trying to force others out completely (I used the word publicly ostracize). Because, and I will quote your own comment here

The right to express one’s views doesn’t include the right the right to dictate how other people respond to them.

[TheDreamlord]

As if, in the “messy” world we live in, those like JK Rowling (Obama included) didn’t already enjoy a very different, higher degree of freedom than regular folks do, entrusted to them by a pile of money that shields them from almost all consequences.

I am afraid I disagree with you. My personal view is that “freedom” and “equality” apply equally to everyone or if that is not the case, then they do not apply at all.

One person’s freedom ends the moment another person’s is being trampled

And for this, we have laws.

[Hanimalle]

See? We’re doing the thing I said people do when they talk about economics online.

I usually avoid giving my opinion on most subjects as I don’t have enough self-trust to really argue for what I believe in (not to mention my dislike of conflict) but I’ve seen too many terrible things lately and it’s taken a toll on me as well as on people close to me.

For what it’s worth, I’m no libertarian. I have no problem with pollution regulations, state run education or healthcare in principle.

Good to know, we only have this one planet and what we’re doing with it as well as to it can’t be sustained indefinitely. As for healthcare, I’m glad I live in France where it’s a right not a luxury.

What alternative to capitalism do you subscribe to?

None that currently exists. I do believe that we have to find an alternative to capitalism as the injustice and division it creates can’t and shouldn’t be tolerated in my opinion.

[Skalpadda]

Have you not read this yet?

Thanks for the link, I was only vaguely aware of this thing. Sounds more like she’s wrong than actively malicious but then again I don’t know how she’s acted since. If she’s been doubling down on this crap then yeah, that’s problematic.

I do think (and I’m speaking generally here, not about Rowling) there’s sometimes a tendency towards disproportionality in response to people who are just uncomfortable or wrong on these kinds of subjects. Someone being ignorant or having an emotional reaction to something unfamiliar to them doesn’t necessarily make them monsters to be torn down even if they hold beliefs and stereotypes that can be considered harmful.

For example, I have some deeply religious friends who aren’t thrilled about the idea of gay marriage as for them it has a very specific religious meaning. They don’t object to gay people being allowed to enter a union called marriage and getting the same legal privileges, but they don’t consider gay marriage actual marriage. And I think that’s okay, because I know why they think that way and I’ve never seen them treat other people with anything but kindness and respect.

But I also know that if they were to voice any discomfort about gay marriage on social media I have other friends who would consider it their duty to immediately tear them a new one. Hell, if I saw it from some random person I’d probably just write it off as straight bigotry without a second thought. It’s a problem that exists.

To be clear, I don’t think it’s a problem with the left, or feminism or any specific ideology, but with how we often make uncharitable interpretations by default and rush into “fight fire with fire” mode (and god knows I’ve been guilty of this myself).

[Sarfrin]

No disagreement there at all. I do disagree however with what I mentioned earlier, the current trend of trying to force others out completely (I used the word publicly ostracize). Because, and I will quote your own comment here

But they haven’t been forced out completely, have they? Harry Potter books and merchandise are still on sale. Starkey hasn’t lost every source of income he had. His documentaries are doubtless still available. Expressing the opinion that they should be cancelled is just part of the free exchange of information and ideas they claim to be so keen on. ‘We didn’t think people would be hateful about us!’, wail people who supported the right to be hateful.

[crystal_gaiden]

But they haven’t been forced out completely, have they? Harry Potter books and merchandise are still on sale.

JK Rowling hasn’t - she has enough money and power to be insulated, like people in this thread have said. The problem is that there are plenty of people who are not so insulated, and they do face serious repercussions. I’m not especially on JK Rowling’s side, it seems like people have pointed out genuine flaws in her concerns and she doesn’t seem to have adapted whatsoever. The thing is though, there are real things to talk about regarding trans rights and where they intersect with other people’s rights, and we can’t have an adult conversation about them because people immediately get called hateful. I still don’t believe JK is hateful, she’s just wrong.

[Fart]

So what are you proposing? People aren’t voting with their wallet on Rowlings opinion on biological sex so we should force stores to stop selling Harry Potter books?

I don’t understand why you seem to be against people reinforcing the fact that free speech should be universal and opinions countered with arguments, not deplatforming or the threat of losing your livelihood. Even if the stuff they say is hurtful to others.

We draw the line at calling for violence against others.

[LexW]

I am afraid I disagree with you. My personal view is that “freedom” and “equality” apply equally to everyone or if that is not the case, then they do not apply at all.

Ok, then they demonstrably don’t apply at all. That is a reasonable viewpoint - whilst any man is a slave, none are free. The cold reality is that some people are vastly more free than others, and we are not equals. Capitalism alone ensures that.

And for this, we have laws.

If that’s your honest view, you need to stop complaining and you need to admit Obama etc. are wrong, because if they were genuinely being hurt, laws would be protecting them, but they’re not.

The inverse also applies - if they are being hurt, but laws aren’t protecting them, then the same necessarily applies to others. So you are wrong either way. There’s no way out of that.

The reality is that a bunch of OAPs and nearly-OAPs, pretty much all 55+, have got upset because people under that age, have had enough of their ridiculous bullshit, and have decided to vote with their wallets. Because we live in a capitalist society, and because people below 55 spend way more money than people over 55 (even though people over 55 are vastly richer, they don’t spend it, and apparently they don’t intend to change that behaviour), that means that the incomes of these aging jerks and their buddies are declining (OH NO) and they’re getting very antsy about it

Just look at the ages of the people who signed that letter. Go on, look them up. The vast majority are over 55, and almost none are under 40. Most of them are non-entities, so it can’t be only important people. It’s a generation gap. How old are you I wonder? Upper end of 40? Early 50s? You speak like someone who is at the end of their career, not the start, and was it you who had talked about taking “early retirement”? If so maybe meditate on whether you are simply part of a different generation. The benefit is you get to tell us to “get off your lawn” and complain about “kids today”, so it’s not all bad! The downside is, we can ignore you.

What some people are objecting to is the extreme ostracization that seems to be prevalent lately in some corners.

Screenshot or it didn’t happen.

Seriously, give your examples of “extreme ostracization”, and explain how they’re not just people voting with their wallets, and then companies reacting to people voting with their wallets. This is literally an extreme claim. It requires evidence. You have provided none.

All I’ve seen is a bunch of aging, self-regarding celebs and some rando academics getting sad because people don’t think they’re cool anymore.

I still don’t believe JK is hateful, she’s just wrong.

At what point will you change your mind? When she likes a tweet espousing violence against trans people? Because she’s already done that. I believe the tweet eventually got deleted by the author but…

What about her cutting off Steven King, after praising him for his feminism, and after him helping her to become as successful as she is? She’s complaining about silencing, and she cut him off for just saying “Trans women are women”. At best she’s a complete hypocrit to sign this letter.

I don’t understand why you seem to be against people reinforcing the fact that free speech should be universal and opinions countered with arguments, not deplatforming or the threat of losing your livelihood.

This is all a bunch of nonsense. Deplatforming isn’t real. It’s just a whingy thing snowflake-types complain about when someone decides not to book them, or cancels their university speaking gig. Here’s the thing, buddy, you don’t have a right to be paid money by universities to speak. You don’t have a right to be invited on TV shows, which overrides their desire to invite you. If that was a right, everyone would have it, not just a few smug rich people. If no-one wants to book you, it doesn’t matter if it’s because you’re a bigot, a kiddy-fiddler, a moron, or just boring-as-fuck, you don’t get to demand to be booked.

Likewise, you don’t have a right to make people buy your books. You’re crying about people “losing their livelihood”? Are you opposed to capitalism? You’re calling for some kind of weird communism-capitalism hybrid where we’re forced to buy the books of shit celebrities? If I don’t want to buy shitty books, I shouldn’t have to buy them - this letter essentially says I should have to. It says I shouldn’t be allowed to say “I’m not buying your books because you suck”. You support that? Seriously?

People aren’t voting with their wallet on Rowlings opinion on biological sex

Wake up. That’s what Rowling is complaining about - people not wanting to buy her books. She wants to make it’s not socially acceptable to not buy her books. The problem is voting with our wallets IS WORKING. That’s why these OAPs are so upset. They’re used to being on the gravy-train, or their mates are, and now people under about 55-ish are beginning to want to not buy their shit (it really seems to that the cut-off point is very close to that - look at the letter - almost no-one under 55 signed it - almost no-one over 80 did either - this is mostly a specific generation - Boomers, with some old Gen Xers and underage GGs too).

[Sarfrin]

The problem is that there are plenty of people who are not so insulated, and they do face serious repercussions.

Who?

So what are you proposing? People aren’t voting with their wallet on Rowlings opinion on biological sex so we should force stores to stop selling Harry Potter books?

Not at all. I’m saying people like JKR are hypocritically using a largely fictional ‘cancel culture’ free speech bogeyman to complain about other people saying things they don’t like.

[TheDreamlord]

Who?

Various university lecturers in the past decade, to start with.

[Skalpadda]

The thing is though, there are real things to talk about regarding trans rights and where they intersect with other people’s rights, and we can’t have an adult conversation about them because people immediately get called hateful.

Do you have an example? I can’t think of any except really niche and frankly to my mind not important ones (should trans women be allowed to compete in women’s sports - that sort of thing).

As I tried to stumble at with my previous comment I don’t think we should rush to demonise people who are just uncomfortable with things that are unfamiliar to them, I’m with you that far. Someone perceiving a trans woman as a man can happen and feeling uncomfortable in that situation doesn’t warrant immediate rejection and castigation. When I put someone’s very occasional and brief discomfort due to unfamiliarity against a minority’s right to live a normal life without exclusion I very quickly and firmly land on one side of that argument though, and I think most people who aren’t driven by bigotry will too.

[LexW]

Various university lecturers in the past decade, to start with.

To start with? So continue. University lecturers being fired for being terrible people with outdated views is nothing new. In fact, what’s absolutely shocking is how many university lecturers are allowed to continue to hold tenured positions, whilst expressing deeply and in some cases violently homophobic and racist viewpoints. Especially as in many of these cases (all the ones I’m aware of), their comments directly connected with what they taught.

This wasn’t some geology professor who has a gay-hater on the downlow. This is a philosophy professor who says black people are inherently inferior or the like. I don’t think a geology professor who denies tectonic plates are a thing is fit to keep tenure, why should a philsopher professor who denies the humanity of some humans? They’re both idiots and dinosaurs who can’t do their job.

Hell, the sheer number of university professors who still have their jobs despite demonstrably and repeatedly engaging in sexual harassment of their students and others is staggering too. Up into the mid-2000s it seemed like the usual reaction to a tenured professor sexually harassing a student was to made the student sign an NDA or even throw them out of the university. It still goes on today.

Are you going to provide any actual examples of “extreme ostracization”? I’m fascinated to see “Don’t buy Rowling’s books because she’s a shit” turns into “extreme ostracization”.

[crystal_gaiden]

At what point will you change your mind? When she likes a tweet espousing violence against trans people? Because she’s already done that. I believe the tweet eventually got deleted by the author but…

At that point I imagine, although clicking one button is not an especially strong endorsement of something. And I’d have to see the specific tweet so see if I believe it’s really calling for violence, I’m not convinced just from the description.

What about her cutting off Steven King, after praising him for his feminism, and after him helping her to become as successful as she is? She’s complaining about silencing, and she cut him off for just saying “Trans women are women”. At best she’s a complete hypocrit to sign this letter.

Yes I saw that - but what she did was deleted her own tweet, the only person she silenced was herself. It was a pretty babyish move, but not hypocritical.

Do you have an example? I can’t think of any except really niche and frankly to my mind not important ones (should trans women be allowed to compete in women’s sports - that sort of thing).

I think it’s a reasonably important one, especially with regard to combat sports. And it’s a tricky problem too - I don’t much like the idea of excluding trans people from competition, but I also don’t think it’s fair for someone who grew up as a man, with all the physical advantages that entails, competing against women. I also think there are harms to be had with regard to children and transitioning. Again it’s very difficult stuff - I don’t pretend for a second to have the answers. I want people smarter than me to be able to discuss these things so that we can minimise suffering for everybody, trans or not.

[LexW]

Again it’s very difficult stuff - I don’t pretend for a second to have the answers. I want people smarter than me to be able to discuss these things so that we can minimise suffering for everybody, trans or not.

It’s very clear that being “smart” in the sense of university degrees etc. doesn’t mean you are remotely going to be good at answering questions here, and it’s remarkable how the dialogue on it really strongly has the “anti” side trying to exclude trans people and their experiences. It’s like trying to do women’s rights whilst trying to tell women they can’t have any input.

Yes I saw that - but what she did was deleted her own tweet, the only person she silenced was herself. It was a pretty babyish move, but not hypocritical.

Not just one tweet - she deleted every single positive thing she’s ever said about him (which is quite a few things), and unclicked a lot of her likes on his posts. She also blocks people who disagree with her on this and seems likely to have blocked him (he’d have to say). She’s complaining about people attempting to stifle conversations whilst attempting to stifle communication.

[crystal_gaiden]

To start with? So continue.

What about James Damore? We talked about him in another thread where as it turns out, you completely misrepresented his views. I’m not saying that was intentional by the way, I don’t expect you to know everything about everything. But yeah he was fired from Google for some very mild (and probably correct) suggestions that employment differences in gender could be to some degree attributed to differences between men and women. That does not fit with the worldview that everything is about discrimination and that your workforce would magically become representative if you had absolutely no discrimination, and so he was fired.

What about the guy fired from Netflix for saying the n word in a meeting about offensive content on Netflix?

What about the countless people booted off social media for their views? That’s a difficult one, because private businesses have the right to control what happens on their platforms, I accept that. But the fact remains, it’s literally deplatforming - you can’t say it doesn’t exist. I know those people can still say what they like elsewhere, but every year that goes by, it becomes more and more of a big deal to get booted off twitter, there may well come a time when it’s an unacceptable infringement of people’s freedoms.

[LexW]

None of these people were “cancelled”.

You’re now misrepresenting Damore’s views. His initial letter was only sexist trash with no scientific basis (claiming it was “probably correct” is ignorance of the most extreme kind, btw), but after he got fired he’s been clear about his views, which are vastly more extreme than the letter stated.

He got fired for violating the policies of his employer. Nothing to do with “cancelling”.

“The guy from Netflix” is not something I can look up, is it? If you break your work policies on racism, and racist speech, you can get fired. If you believe he genuinely got fired solely for saying the n-word once in a purely illustrative context, you’re so gullible it’s not worth talking to you. Have you ever had a job? A real job? Nobody gets fired for one thing unless it’s truly astounding. He will have got fired because this was part of a pattern of behaviour - maybe of racist behaviour, maybe just erratic behaviour.

With social media, you follow the rules, or you don’t. If you don’t, you may get chucked off. You’re acting like only right wingers get chucked off, but that’s trash. I literally know lefties who’ve been chucked off or temp-banned, sometimes even for complete nonsense.

Deplatforming doesn’t exist. I can say that. Dumb shits knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules and getting themselves thrown of social media is not possible to claim as “deplatforming”. That’s just lying about what the word means - words aren’t just literal. Don’t pretend you don’t know that as an English speaker. That’s like saying me screaming racist abuse at a policeman during a speech and him arresting me is “deplatforming”.

I know those people can still say what they like elsewhere, but every year that goes by, it becomes more and more of a big deal to get booted off twitter, there may well come a time when it’s an unacceptable infringement of people’s freedoms.

Then fight capitalism. Because you can either have capitalism, and you can deal with the consequences, or you can have something that isn’t capitalism. Until capitalism is dead, private companies will and rightly should be allowed to control who damages them. If Twitter didn’t throw off the shits who break the rules, no-one would be using it now. It’d be just another forgotten social media trash-hole.

There will never be a time when you can acceptably force private companies to lose money, or even go under, because you insist they must host nazis, pedos, gaybashers and so on and let them spew their hate.

[crystal_gaiden]

You’re now misrepresenting Damore’s views. His initial letter was only sexist trash with no scientific basis (claiming it was “probably correct” is ignorance of the most extreme kind, btw)

Have you actually read it? I honestly can’t understand how you would come to that conclusion unless you haven’t read it.

but after he got fired he’s been clear about his views, which are vastly more extreme than the letter stated.

Can you give me an example? It’s somewhat moot I guess because his views are not the issue, but I’d be interested regardless.

He got fired for violating the policies of his employer. Nothing to do with “cancelling”.

You said you wanted examples of ‘extreme ostracism’. Getting fired from your job meets that criteria as far as I’m concerned, you literally cannot go to a place you were spending a large chunk of your life at.

“The guy from Netflix” is not something I can look up, is it? If you break your work policies on racism, and racist speech, you can get fired. If you believe he genuinely got fired solely for saying the n-word once in a purely illustrative context, you’re so gullible it’s not worth talking to you. Have you ever had a job? A real job? Nobody gets fired for one thing unless it’s truly astounding. He will have got fired because this was part of a pattern of behaviour - maybe of racist behaviour, maybe just erratic behaviour.

I didn’t read about this guy before using the example - I just googled it, and looking at the details, it might be a justified firing actually, I’m not sure. Yes I have a job thank you - not in the US where this occurred though. I am under the impression that it’s much easier to fire people over there, am I wrong?

With social media, you follow the rules, or you don’t. If you don’t, you may get chucked off. You’re acting like only right wingers get chucked off, but that’s trash. I literally know lefties who’ve been chucked off or temp-banned, sometimes even for complete nonsense.

I find it very hard to believe that there’s not a left bias at, say, twitter, and probably tech in general. But even if we don’t say that, I wouldn’t advocate for chucking the lefties off either.

Deplatforming doesn’t exist. I can say that. Dumb shits knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules and getting themselves thrown of social media is not possible to claim as “deplatforming”. That’s just lying about what the word means - words aren’t just literal. Don’t pretend you don’t know that as an English speaker.

Right so I just googled ‘deplatforming’, here is the very top result:

“Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a form of political activism or prior restraint by an individual, group, or organization with the goal of shutting down controversial speakers or speech, or denying them access to a venue in which to express their opinion.”

Here’s the third result: “Deplatforming, or the removal of one’s account on social media for breaking platform rules, has recently been on the rise.”

I really don’t feel like I’m lying about what the word means.

Then fight capitalism. Because you can either have capitalism, and you can deal with the consequences, or you can have something that isn’t capitalism. Until capitalism is dead, private companies will and rightly should be allowed to control who damages them.

I already said that I accepted that in the last post. But what I think is that you’ll eventually have a situation where free speech and the (more or less) autonomy of huge businesses like Twitter can’t both exist at the same. As to how to fix that… no idea. Some sort of governmental intervention? I dunno.

If Twitter didn’t throw off the shits who break the rules, no-one would be using it now. It’d be just another forgotten social media trash-hole.

Could be? We can’t possibly state that as fact.

There will never be a time when you can acceptably force private companies to lose money, or even go under, because you insist they must host nazis, pedos, gaybashers and so on and let them spew their hate.

I don’t think I am insisting that. In fact I’m not at all sure where the line should be, I’ve changed my mind on it several times. I believe the law is don’t incite violence and don’t doxx, which seems like a good line for now. ‘Hate’ however, is extremely subjective.

[TheDreamlord]

To start with? So continue.

What about James Damore? We talked about him in another thread where as it turns out, you completely misrepresented his views.

Here you go. If you want more, google. I won’t do that for you.

None of these people were “cancelled”.

Wtf does that mean?