My experience with game

[Valka D'Ur]

Global sentencing between men and women is very different. More so than race-based differences, despite that it's the race-based ones that get most of the attention.

Whatever interpretations there are to take away from that, it certainly suggests that "equality" isn't the true goal of this narrative.

Just curious... are you suggesting that women don't think bullying someone in a way that convinces him/her to commit suicide/self-harm is a serious thing? If this teenager had done this out of sheer maliciousness rather than as a consequence of mental health issues and medication issues, I would absolutely want her to receive consequences the same as a male offender would receive.

FYI, this forum has rules against advocating suicide/self-harm. You know who originally identified the need for special rules and more serious consequences for this type of behavior?

Me. Back in 2010, when I was a junior moderator who discovered a "kill yourself" post in one of the early serial threads, directed at a specific individual. It was a horrifying thing to see here, as I'd thought CFC was a cut above the rest of the forums I'd ever belonged to. This is something that mere trolling infractions don't begin to cover. I'm pleased to see the rule and recommended consequences have never been rescinded. Counseling people to kill/harm themselves is never okay, although I do understand that the offline justice system has to look at things differently from the way a gaming forum would.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Srs question tho, is male crime the same as female crime? Which one is the "normal" level, degree or frequency of crime.

When a knife is plunged into a body, it cuts. When money is taken from someone, they don't have it anymore. When fraud is committed, the documents are wrong.

And of course in case you weren't aware, people die when they are killed.

Just curious... are you suggesting that women don't think bullying someone in a way that convinces him/her to commit suicide/self-harm is a serious thing? If this teenager had done this out of sheer maliciousness rather than as a consequence of mental health issues and medication issues, I would absolutely want her to receive consequences the same as a male offender would receive.

The problem is how do you pin down "degree of maliciousness" and responsibility to such a large extent on a minor? I greatly dislike bullying and do think there should be at least some legal recourse against consistent/targeted harassment, but that doesn't really fit the situation in question.

I am very wary of creating a scenario of "bad words" where people can be threatened or jailed for random junk. The path UK took is a travesty, not something to be celebrated. Ultimately, the responsibility of something like suicide still rests on the person physically acting. Maybe they had a medical condition where they couldn't control themselves. They should have received help. But I'm not sure this means that a 15 year old who has a bad day and says something mean should go to jail, even if the 15 year old is healthy/mentally stable.

Me. Back in 2010, when I was a junior moderator who discovered a "kill yourself" post in one of the early serial threads, directed at a specific individual. It was a horrifying thing to see here, as I'd thought CFC was a cut above the rest of the forums I'd ever belonged to. This is something that mere trolling infractions don't begin to cover. I'm pleased to see the rule and recommended consequences have never been rescinded. Counseling people to kill/harm themselves is never okay, although I do understand that the offline justice system has to look at things differently from the way a gaming forum would.

There's no reason a forum's standards of conduct should stop only at legal boundaries without exception. What you are referencing sounds like a particularly heinous statement (I've mostly only heard it in the context of being an ass, where someone is saying it jokingly...or on xbox from people likely 10+ years younger than me). Civfanatics sets its standards of conduct much higher than that, generally expecting people to be civil rather than only avoiding being completely awful. Of course that rule stayed. If it allowed for targeted harassment, what WOULDN'T it allow?

All that said, there were so many extenuating factors in the situation as described that even as an anecdote it was a poor example in the context of the discussion.

 

[metatron]

@metatron : yes, many who are called feminists often have views at odds with their stated goals.

Maybe the contradiction is on your end, not theirs.

No, you're never going to convince me that feminism is the #1 threat to civilization and a good excuse to become a reactionary,

It is Anglosphere "feminism", not i, which corporate authoritarianism and the fascist "christian" right in America are - incidentally and rather unomfortably - allied with.

 

[Senethro]

When a knife is plunged into a body, it cuts. When money is taken from someone, they don't have it anymore. When fraud is committed, the documents are wrong.

And of course in case you weren't aware, people die when they are killed.

Yeah, but if custodial sentences have the purpose of punishment, rehabilitation and disincentive for crime then is it not appropriate for male offenders to serve longer sentences? A bigger disincentive required, more time for rehabilitation?

Why are you not curious about the hows and the whys of the situation and instead leap to the conclusion of discrimination?

Why should people support your activism for longer sentences for women?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, but if custodial sentences have the purpose of punishment, rehabilitation and disincentive for crime then is it not appropriate for male offenders to serve longer sentences? A bigger disincentive required, more time for rehabilitation?

Why are you not curious about the hows and the whys of the situation and instead leap to the conclusion of discrimination?

Why should people support your activism for longer sentences for women?

Maybe I was implying shorter sentences for men? You're making as many, if not more assumptions.

Your first line in this quote is pretty silly in context. If it is "appropriate" to sentence one set of people for longer based on their physical anatomy, you've yet to provide a reason for that...and it's dangerous territory since it implies different sentencing based on literally any predictive factor.

 

[Phrossack]

Maybe the contradiction is on your end, not theirs.

It is Anglosphere "feminism", not i, which corporate authoritarianism and the fascist "christian" right in America are - incidentally and rather unomfortably - allied with.

"no u"

See, wasn't that productive and enlightening?

 

[metatron]

"no u"

See, wasn't that productive and enlightening?

Pot called bone china vase black.
Vase retorts.
Pot is upset about vase's debate style.

 

[Phrossack]

Pot called bone china vase black.
Vase retorts.
Pot is upset about vase's debate style.

I mean, I'm dealing with someone who's basically Ezra Pound without the poetry, who's devoted his internet life to complaining about the meanie feminists and filthy Anglo scum DESTROYING CIVILIZATION while cheerfully allying with diehard nationalists and not noticing the irony. Pot claims soap is a menace to society, expects to be taken seriously, isn't, and complains.

I'll play a very tiny violin in sympathy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's no reason a forum's standards of conduct should stop only at legal boundaries without exception. What you are referencing sounds like a particularly heinous statement (I've mostly only heard it in the context of being an ass, where someone is saying it jokingly...or on xbox from people likely 10+ years younger than me). Civfanatics sets its standards of conduct much higher than that, generally expecting people to be civil rather than only avoiding being completely awful. Of course that rule stayed. If it allowed for targeted harassment, what WOULDN'T it allow?

All that said, there were so many extenuating factors in the situation as described that even as an anecdote it was a poor example in the context of the discussion.

If you're referring to my anecdote, how would you know about extenuating factors? You weren't the perpetrator, nor were you the target. You were also not part of the discussion that resulted from my bringing this situation to the attention of my then-colleagues.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you're referring to my anecdote, how would you know about extenuating factors? You weren't the perpetrator, nor were you the target. You were also not part of the discussion that resulted from my bringing this situation to the attention of my then-colleagues.

No, the last line was intended to reference back to the suicide/15 year old question since you were asking about my reasoning if the context of that case were different, not to the situation you referenced. I don't know any details about the latter, it just sounds bad at face value and breaks multiple forum rules based on your description.

 

[metatron]

I mean, I'm dealing with someone who's basically Ezra Pound without the poetry, who's devoted his internet life to complaining about the meanie feminists and filthy Anglo scum DESTROYING CIVILIZATION while cheerfully allying with diehard nationalists and not noticing the irony. Pot claims soap is a menace to society, expects to be taken seriously, isn't, and complains.

I'll play a very tiny violin in sympathy.

Well, the growing impression aside that - once again - you seem to be getting slightly angry...
...we could contrast the conflicting theses, with evidence.

Et voila:

Spoiler :

No, not yet.

Spoiler :

Wait for it.

Spoiler :

Tru...
...no it's too easy.
It's true, but it's really too easy.
Here, let's watch Cathy Newman be Cathy Newman for a bit instead.
Because that's just way more fun.

 

[red_elk]

The "feminists" Metatron was talking about are by no means a threat to anybody, except may be to the reputation of people who actually fight for women's rights. They are vocal minority mostly known for their media scandals.

We've just had one in Russia several days ago, with an ad of one international sports company designed by a "feminist" and urging women to "sit on man's face".
The ad was removed soon after release, made the company HQ publicly distance itself from the campaign.
The athlete who participated in the campaign, also asked not to consider her a feminist.
https://www.rt.com/sport/451050-not-feminist-russian-athlete-reebok-face-sitting-campaign

A fringe minority is making feminism almost a swear word.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

post in response to me

hey, fair enough. leaving the room to take a breath and then coming back in with a different mindset is what people smarter than me do. so kudos to you for sticking w/ what you said.

 

[Phrossack]

Well, the growing impression aside that - once again - you seem to be getting slightly angry...
...we could contrast the conflicting theses, with evidence.

Et voila:

Spoiler :

No, not yet.

Spoiler :

Wait for it.

Spoiler :

Tru...
...no it's too easy.
It's true, but it's really too easy.
Here, let's watch Cathy Newman be Cathy Newman for a bit instead.
Because that's just way more fun.

For the last time--I will not repeat this for you--I am not angry with you, just annoyed with your ceaseless, holier-than-thou lectures on how feminism is the most important crisis in the world while the rising tide of right-wing extremism and murder is good because it opposes this. If you keep saying I'm angry at you, your wish will be granted and I really will be. You can only say, "All you filthy Anglo people who think women are mistreated are SINNERS! Repent! Repent!" so many times before we evil Anglos get very tired of your preaching, and you're the sort of person who will release THREE threads in ONE week with this haranguing.

You know what? I was unfair earlier, comparing you to Ezra Pound.

Mr. Pound turned against democracy and towards open fascism because he blamed capitalism for the worst event in human history up to that point, the Great War. Capitalism really was responsible in large part for the US's entry, at least.

You, on the other hand? The sole thing you care about now, haughtily lecturing everyone about how feminism and those vile Anglos you love to hate are DESTROYING CIVILIZATION, was provoked by--what, exactly? Feminist terror attacks? A feminist world war?

No. Nothing even close.

You're just very easily triggered, is all. It didn't take much to push you towards being an apologist for the far right. At all.

I was also wrong to defend you some time ago, saying that you probably didn't hate women. I shouldn't have been so conciliatory; I don't think anyone who valued the rights of women in any way could go on daily tirades against feminism like you. Defense retracted.

Apologies to the late Mr. Pound.

 

[metatron]

For the last time--I will not repeat this for you--I am not angry with you, just annoyed with your ceaseless, holier-than-thou lectures on how feminism is the most important crisis in the world while the rising tide of right-wing extremism and murder is good because it opposes this. If you keep saying I'm angry at you, your wish will be granted and I really will be. You can only say, "All you filthy Anglo people who think women are mistreated are SINNERS! Repent! Repent!" so many times before we evil Anglos get very tired of your preaching, and you're the sort of person who will release THREE threads in ONE week with this haranguing.

You know what? I was unfair earlier, comparing you to Ezra Pound.

Mr. Pound turned against democracy and towards open fascism because he blamed capitalism for the worst event in human history up to that point, the Great War. Capitalism really was responsible in large part for the US's entry, at least.

You, on the other hand? The sole thing you care about now, haughtily lecturing everyone about how feminism and those vile Anglos you love to hate are DESTROYING CIVILIZATION, was provoked by--what, exactly? Feminist terror attacks? A feminist world war?

No. Nothing even close.

You're just very easily triggered, is all. It didn't take much to push you towards being an apologist for the far right. At all.

I was also wrong to defend you some time ago, saying that you probably didn't hate women. I shouldn't have been so conciliatory; I don't think anyone who valued the rights of women in any way could go on daily tirades against feminism like you. Defense retracted.

Apologies to the late Mr. Pound.

You intend to spin that to gold?

 

[Phrossack]

The "feminists" Metatron was talking about are by no means a threat to anybody, except may be to the reputation of people who actually fight for women's rights. They are vocal minority mostly known for their media scandals.

We've just had one in Russia several days ago, with an ad of one international sports company designed by a "feminist" and urging women to "sit on man's face".
The ad was removed soon after release, made the company HQ publicly distance itself from the campaign.
The athlete who participated in the campaign, also asked not to consider her a feminist.
https://www.rt.com/sport/451050-not-feminist-russian-athlete-reebok-face-sitting-campaign

A fringe minority is making feminism almost a swear word.

That's the key word--fringe. He would have us believe that feminists are a dominant force and are so oppressive that far-right extremism becomes unworthy of notice, or should be a welcome ally in the crusade against feminism.

Which is nonsense.

I've been bullied by feminists almost certainly more than he has. Like you, I butt heads with them often enough when I think they're trending towards generalized man-hate and double standard--see this thread!--and I wouldn't call myself a "feminist" because that term causes more confusion than it clarifies, and because I'd feel unwelcome and unwanted in such a group.

But I have a sense of proportion. If "feminists" bear blame for "bullying" people into Trumpism, then who bullied them into feminism? Discrimination against and abuse of women for being women is vastly more common and harmful than hatred of men. While feminists have little power, misogynists and misogynistic tendencies are extremely entrenched and widespread around the world. And there are issues in this world much, much more important than hatred of men. So I don't allow myself to be completely consumed by fear of man-hatred, or ally with right-wing extremism and dismiss all right-wing wrongdoing like he does.

 

[red_elk]

That's the key word--fringe. He would have us believe that feminists are a dominant force and are so oppressive that far-right extremism becomes unworthy of notice, or should be a welcome ally in the crusade against feminism.

Agree, far-right extremism and in general, political and religious extremism are much bigger problems.

I've been bullied by feminists almost certainly more than he has. Like you, I butt heads with them often enough when I think they're trending towards generalized man-hate and double standard--see this thread!--and I wouldn't call myself a "feminist" because that term causes more confusion than it clarifies, and because I'd feel unwelcome and unwanted in such a group.

Well, for me this was unusual experience. I usually don't engage in these types of discussions, because most women I know in real life are nice people and would never make some of the statements I encountered in this thread. To be honest, I participated in discussion so actively because I felt offended.

 

[MaryKB]

Oh yes, men love women being sweet and agreeable, that's what we're supposed to be and all's good when I'm living my assigned gender role. Men like me too and call me "nice" when I'm being cute and pretty and not causing trouble. But when I speak my mind about something important to me, about issues facing women and challenge men's power structure, I'm a "horrible person" and even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me, because men defend men's interests, which include continual suppression of women and our voices.

And it's much easier for me speaking here, in real life I'm very quiet, and in situations like this I'd just try to get out of it, because you also have a physical intimidation factor to worry about. But as long as women you know don't challenge you, and keep in their place like you feel they should, you like them - and this is what misogyny is all about.

And it's not like I don't care about men's pain, I know you have issues, it's just you try to drown out women's voices, who frankly right now have much bigger concerns you'd rather totally ignore.

Imagine a man and a woman in a room: her arm has just been broken, and he stubbed his toe. She's in great pain and needs medical attention, but all he cares about is talking about how much pain he's in. Her attitude is "I know you're hurting, but I'm afraid I really don't care at this moment because frankly your injury isn't nearly severe as mine, but after you help me get my arm fixed and I'm healed I'll be happy to comfort you, but not before my pain is treated. Especially since you're the one who broke my arm."

 

[red_elk]

And it's much easier for me speaking here, in real life I'm very quiet, and in situations like this I'd just try to get out of it, because you also have a physical intimidation factor to worry about. But as long as women you know don't challenge you, and keep in their place like you feel they should, you like them - and this is what misogyny is all about.

No, the women I'm talking about are good people not out of fear. I'm not bothered about "keeping them in their place", they are perfectly capable of choosing where they belong to without anyone's help. Many of them are happily married, have children and would laugh if someone said them that marriage exists to enforce man's ownership of woman.

 

[Senethro]

Oh yes, men love women being sweet and agreeable, that's what we're supposed to be and all's good when I'm living my assigned gender role. Men like me too and call me "nice" when I'm being cute and pretty and not causing trouble. But when I speak my mind about something important to me, about issues facing women and challenge men's power structure, I'm a "horrible person" and even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me, because men defend men's interests, which include continual suppression of women and our voices.

And it's much easier for me speaking here, in real life I'm very quiet, and in situations like this I'd just try to get out of it, because you also have a physical intimidation factor to worry about. But as long as women you know don't challenge you, and keep in their place like you feel they should, you like them - and this is what misogyny is all about.

And it's not like I don't care about men's pain, I know you have issues, it's just you try to drown out women's voices, who frankly right now have much bigger concerns you'd rather totally ignore.

Imagine a man and a woman in a room: her arm has just been broken, and he stubbed his toe. She's in great pain and needs medical attention, but all he cares about is talking about how much pain he's in. Her attitude is "I know you're hurting, but I'm afraid I really don't care at this moment because frankly your injury isn't nearly severe as mine, but after you help me get my arm fixed and I'm healed I'll be happy to comfort you, but not before my pain is treated. Especially since you're the one who broke my arm."

This is an actual thing with women receiving less painkillers in ERs than men do. (Various studies linked from here https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...ies-in-experience-and-treatment-2017100912562 )

Pain in women is culturally devalued.