We're pretty far removed from the thread topic, and the debate feels aimless and circular, so I'm not invested in continuing for much longer.
Originally posted by One-PunchWell I think we're basically not going to agree, but for what it's worth:
Except she spoke out against campuses sweeping sexual assault under the rug, and advocated for increased awareness, along with the self-defense.The suggestion of self-defense at the end was merely a harmless precaution, she didn't present it as the end-all be-all solution to rape. Hence why I thought it was benign.
I don't see the absurdity and I certainly don't see how her statements support rape culture like some people think.
She said that campuses shouldn't sweep awareness under the rug so that females know to get trained in self-defense.
It's like her thinking takes a sharp left turn halfway through a good sentence. Self-defense was not tacked on at the end as a harmless precaution, it was her conclusion for raising awareness, and it's the wrong conclusion to draw.
Do you have evidence or research showing that self-defense training has zero effect on the incidents of rape and resulting injuries? I'm open, but I find it hard to believe.David Lisak, a psychologist from University of Massachusetts, studied 2,000 college men over a 20-year period. He found that serial rapists account for 9/10 rapes on campus, and he's quoted in this article saying:
"The basic weapon is alcohol," the psychologist says. "If you can get a victim intoxicated to the point where she's coming in and out of consciousness, or she's unconscious — and that is a very, very common scenario — then why would you need a weapon? Why would you need a knife or a gun?"
College campuses need to be responsible for fostering a greater understanding of consent among freshmen, and they need to be held accountable to respond ethically to incidents and reports of campus rape.
That's where the responsibility must be placed, not on females to better train themselves to respond to rape. Further, training in hand to hand combat would not equip them to defend themselves against rape while they're passed out at a kegger.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , the majority (57% for students and 67% for non-students) of college-aged victims of sexual assault reported injuries from their encounters.I spent some time looking through this article and I don't see the numbers that you're getting, can you help me narrow down where I should be looking? There is a stat listing 58% of sexual violence cases involving injuries, but I don't see what separates students from non-students.
More broadly speaking, 80% of rape victims reported the use of force, and the rest report the use of weapons. Even half (50%) of victims of spousal rape report injuries from their incident.This was published in 1997, and I think is too broad to give context for judging the appropriateness of Miss America's answer.
I think it's clear that regardless of the relationship between the victim and rapist, force is almost always used, and injury as a result is highly likely.
Given these stats, do you really think self-defense won't help victims even a little?
I never said it wouldn't help.
I said women shouldn't be responsible to learn self defense in order to be safe at college.
In other words, you chose answer (a)...
lol, in other words, you offered a false dichotomy and I did not choose (a) or (b).
Originally posted by One-Punch
Source:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdfPage 7:
"The majority of student (57%) and nonstudent (63%) victims suffered an injury (e.g, cuts, bruises, internal injuries, broken bones, gunshot wounds, or rape-related injuries) during the victimization"---------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDFPage 12:
"About 12% of rapes involved the use of a gun (5%) or knife (7%), and 80% involved the use of physical force only."
Originally posted by One-Punch
A review of the research shows that education programs or attitude change programs aren't effective:Edit: A direct link didn't work, but it's the 3rd PDF link you'll see, titled "Sexual Assault of Women: Prevention Efforts and Risk Factors"
"Most North American universities offer sexual assault prevention programs focusing on attitude change. However, the few program outcome evaluations suggest that these programs may not be effective. This review summarizes the research on sexual assault program evaluation. It is apparent that the most promising avenue for sexual assault prevention may be self-defense training, which is presently not an integral component of typical prevention programs."
“The shortage of effective strategies for sexual violence prevention reflects, in part, a lack of rigorous evaluation research examining sexual violence behaviors instead of only attitudes. “
The CDC is currently researching programs targeted at behavior (and bystander engagement) rather than attitudes. These things are gaining traction, for good reason, and they don't use self-defense. Most of these have been tested on middle school students, but demonstrate positive results(page 5-7). The Safe Dates program showed positive results even four years after its administration, indicating that maybe we need to teach kids earlier rather than waiting until college to address problematic behaviors. There are also some promising programs tested on college students recently (as recent as 2012), although they admit they need more research there.
https://www.notalone.gov/assets/evidence-based-strategies-for-the-prevention-of-sv-perpetration.pdf
The problem with attitude programs is that they are very brief, general info sessions(page 8). As the last study I posted highlights, this won't affect the people who already agree that rape/assault is bad, but don't associate their own actions with rape/assault. I still have hope for newer approach.
Originally posted by One-Punch
Male heroes aren't victimized they said... never shown crying and scared they said...
Originally posted by Q99Wow, you are woefully uniformed there.
Gamergate is misogynist racists.
Tell me, aren't you a straight white male? Because if you are you yourself was just misogynistic and racist. Because apparently you don't know that there are plenty of women and "persons of color" in gamergate.
You basically just said you know what's better for women and persons of color then they do.
There's a subdivision called notyourshield for women and persons of color who are sick and tired of being used as shields against criticism, in the manner you just did.
GemerGate was also critical of male "journalists". Like Sam Biddle who said that nerds should be bullied and humiliated into submission.
They went after Gawker hard because people like him are what comprises the journalists.
I was agreeing with most of the points you were making up until you said this. It's clear you haven't ever really looked into gamergate and are just believing what the media is telling you. the very same media that gamergate is accusing of corruption and bad journalism.
Originally posted by Q99
Gamergate is misogynist racists.
This is exactly what you just did.
Gamergate is accused of racism and misogyny.
Gamergate points out that its comprised of thousands of people all across the globe and includes women and people who are not white.
Gamergate is accused of having sockpuppets.
Gamergate people start posting videos and photos of themselves to prove that they actually exist.
Next up they were accused of "internal misogyny" and "Weaponized minorities."
Which is really stupid and arrogant. The SJW side at that point shows that they're not caring about the message. They don't care about the women and "minorities" they claim to. They're in effect telling them to shut up, that they don't know what's best for them. Ironically these SJWs tend to be Straight White Men. Who are telling the very women and minorities they claim to be defending to shut up. That they're too stupid to know what's going on.
These very same SJWs all tend to have ties or to be connected to the gaming journalism world or have friends in the business. There's some very obvious bias there.
There's been pictures of reviewers giving games high scores.. and they just happen to have "gift packages" from the companies that made the games they're reviewing.
http://i.imgur.com/coce4Ig.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1DaiblIIAEMsmP.jpg
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Screen-Shot-2014-09-08-at-3.38.09-PM.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0kgqOoIUAE5O4-.png
http://www.onehundredyearhorizons.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Sock_Puppet_2_980x520.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxFca5aCcAABp79.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxSQe8LCYAAO9as.jpg:large
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_UKKjxVEAEwFSw.jpg
http://www.gamergategems.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/516-300x152.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bNgDPBuArpA/hqdefault.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0pfBxGIMAAhnSO.jpg:large
so this:
Originally posted by Q99
Gamergate is misogynist racists.
Is the battle cry of someone who knows NOTHING about what's going on and has been swallowing the lies the media has been telling them.
The media is against media reform, because it means they'd have to clean up their damned act. They'd have to disclose their biases. Life would be harder for them.
Yet somehow its all about racism (Despite Gamergate being full of persons of color)
and misogyny (Despite GamerGate being full of women who are also for ethics reforms in journalism.
Yeah, next time do the slightest bit of actual research before discrediting yourself like that..
I'll still agree that it was the artist of the cover who felt that the cover wasn't a right fit for the tone and direction of the batgirl comics rather than just "rabid feminists" that got it pulled. But that's because I bothered to do the slightest bit of research before making claims in any direction.
but as far as gamergate vs Journalism goes here:
Originally posted by Endless Mike
That sounds a lot like the "some of my best friends are X" defense, which is hardly reputable. I believe he was specifically commenting on the most widely publicized acts and statements of the people in the movement which are known for harassment.
It was mainly somethingawful goonsquad.
Even FBI's research into gamergate came up with nothing, except illegal blacklisting run by anti-gamergate.
Aaand there's the fact that Gawker, in example, swore in front of a judge that gamergate had nothing to do with harrassing women...
Originally posted by Endless MikeI don't even know those people. And its hardly the same.
That sounds a lot like the "some of my best friends are X" defense, which is hardly reputable. I believe he was specifically commenting on the most widely publicized acts and statements of the people in the movement which are known for harassment.
What you're using however is a hasty generalization. For example, saying that all Feminists are evil because one of them proposed a tax on all men.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/externalities-and-swedish-man-tax
or are outright liars
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/5595444
Just because a few exist, and are the most outspoken and well known.
Which we already know is blatently untrue. Not all feminsts are liars or tyrants, just because those two people exist.
Yet the same isn't true the other way around? That everyone in gamergate is a misogynistic racist because a few are?
So please don't tell me you're belittling what real people in the links in my previous post think and feel just because you WANT gamergate to be about misogyny and racism, rather that corruption in gaming journalism.
You'd serious devalue and dehumanize people because you believe that the game journalists are telling you that game journalists are not corrupt or dishonest?
Or that you know what those women and people of colour should think and feel better than they do? And why are they not allowed to think those things? Because they themselves are women or minorities?
The women HAVE to think its about misogyny, because they're women. Because they're women they don't get a choice in what to think?
Is that what you and Q99 are saying? Because it sounds like that's what you two are saying. I'm relaying THEIR words. But women and minorities aren't allowed to think other than how you and q99 say they should think?
Originally posted by Endless MikeWhat makes you think they don't?
Well you know the phenomenon that the loudest people are the ones who draw the most attention to themselves. If that's really a minority they should publicly denounce them.
By that same token one could claim "If feminists were really for equality then they should support men's rights as well."
Which again should be met with a rhetoric of "What makes you think they don't"?
Is it because you have a form of myopia where the only things that exist in your world are things you've personally felt and experienced?
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Well you know the phenomenon that the loudest people are the ones who draw the most attention to themselves. If that's really a minority they should publicly denounce them.
Gamergate created the harrassment-catching bot and were the ones who led the FBI to the brazilian journalist who was behind the majority of those death-threats...
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Because from what I've heard pretty much every woman in games journalism who posts about this thing gets harassed and threatened.
Of course they do. They just get harassed by both sides depending on their position on the matter. It isn't a one-way thing.
And the men get it just as bad. It's not a sexism thing as much as it is a "why don't you agree with me" thing.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Because from what I've heard pretty much every woman in games journalism who posts about this thing gets harassed and threatened.
Like anyone who's ever reported anything on a gaming website.
This has nothing to do with gamergate though.
Being a woman or a man does not excuse you from being corrupt.
Originally posted by Endless MikeDoes that include the pro-Gamer Gate women reporting on the situation?
Because from what I've heard pretty much every woman in games journalism who posts about this thing gets harassed and threatened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjdiC2ednok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVlCvBd21w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflBPs49vok
Well yeah I guess some of them are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O0JvjKEuF4
Female game journalist nearly quit due to Anita Sarkeesean and her fans.
Funny, huh? The GG side is also being harassed.
Without reading anything else, I must say....
Holy shit! It's Creshosk. What's up man? I thought you died.
Edit: Man, I really had no clue about this Gamergate/SJW business. I heard the name "Gamergate" once but never bothered looking into it. I still don't even know wtf SJW is even an abbreviation for. I feel like a war went on that I completely missed.
Originally posted by StyleTimeIt means Social Justice Warrior. Sometimes used in a derogatory context.
Without reading anything else, I must say....Holy shit! It's Creshosk. What's up man? I thought you died.
Edit: Man, I really had no clue about this Gamergate/SJW business. I heard the name "Gamergate" once but never bothered looking into it. I still don't even know wtf SJW is even an abbreviation for. I feel like a war went on that I completely missed.
GamerGate is a movement by Gamers that are tired of corruption and collusion in gaming journalism. The point in time when it really became a thing was when a whole bunch of different gaming sites all decided to announce that "Gamers/gaming is dead"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VuFdfJzKJxg/VMl25d3QhgI/AAAAAAAAE5o/eNaAZWmEoM4/s1600/dead.png
Which gamers saw as an attack on them.
So the gamers started fighting with the game journalists, and they kept switching up tactics. The longest standing one is just simply calling gamers misogynists or racists. Which as I showed before is ridiculous because there are plenty of female gamers and gamers who are not-white.
Which the game journalists and SJWs keep trying to pick apart whenever its pointed out that they exist.
Eventually it got into mainstream media because the game journalists go to the same places as the mainstream media, so the mainstream media picked it up and repeated the same lies about how Gamers hate women.
Turns out one of the sources behind the threats being sent to one of the popular media critics was a Brazilian journalist who was using the chaos to generate traffic on his site. Wasn't the other journalists that found that out, but you couldn't exactly expect investigation from them when its easier to just call the other side misogynists and call it a day than do you damned job...
I'm still around as it turns out. Despite computer problems occurring.
Originally posted by cdtmPersonally I don't care about the "Zoe Quinn thing".
What do you think of the Zoe Quinn thing?Accusations that has (A lot of) sex for favors, bragged about stabbing a man, got a guy fired....
To me she falls under the "Nobody should be harassed or receive death threats." Beyond that I don't really care.
