[ SECRET POST #4016 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4016 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Intelligence, The Romeo Section]


__________________________________________________



03.
[American Vandal, Sara Pearson/Mr. Kraz]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Winona Ryder]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Bring It On]


__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #575.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[thewakokid]

Also, Given the OP you are responding to, I think I would also like to take issue at the implication that this is coming from male's as well.

Let's change "Female gamers are treated like shit because male gamers are sexist assholes" to "Female gamers are treated like shit because some male gamers are sexist assholes"

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, no need to go all #notallgamers. If you don't do that, then AYRT wasn't talking about you. Getting all defensive about it smacks of protesting too much.

[thewakokid]

You think I could get away with making a statement about how "Feminists be like..." without qualifying it with "Some"?

You think feminist who don't be like would be fine with that? Think they might be a tad offended that their group is being unfairly maligned? Think they might have a point?

Think that logic translates to my group?

[(Anonymous)]

well, my reaction would depend on what you were actually saying about feminists, and whether I thought it was justifiable as a generalization.

(and being justifiable as a generalization doesn't mean that something is true in all cases. for instance, I could say that Americans like beer more than British people do. and that's true as a generalization - the United States drinks more beer per capita than the UK does. but that doesn't necessarily mean that every individual American likes beer more than every individual Brit.)

and it would also depend on the context of the conversation, and the point that you were driving towards, and whether i thought you were making a blanket personal criticism of feminists as people, or making some kind of point about ideology, or what have you. so it comes down to cases.

[thewakokid]

Well, ok. let me put it this way:

"Female gamers are treated like shit because male gamers are sexist assholes"

"Men are right to dislike feminism because feminists post shit like #KillAllMen"

Now you telling me both of those statements are not unfair generalisations that would be vastly improved, and possibly made factual by the inclusions of some qualifiers?

"Female gamers are treated like shit because SOME gamers are sexist assholes"

"Men MIGHT HAVE A REASON to dislike feminism because SOME feminists post shit like #KillAllMen"

[(Anonymous)]

I think the difference is that these statements are superficially similar but have a different meaning.

The first one is a simple assertion claiming that female gamers are treated poorly because of sexism. The second statement has an element of justification, claiming that men are correct and justified in disliking feminism because of a hashtag. I think the sentences would only be really comparable if your example sentence began with "Men dislike feminism because..." rather than "Men are right to dislike feminism because..."

[(Anonymous)]

SA

Should have mentioned I'm NAYRT.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're still ignoring the context of those statements. The first one is being made in the context of explaining why women aren't taken seriously in gaming. And I think that the context of what conversation is going on has to impact how you understand the statement - in this instance, it's not a baldfaced declarative statement, it's a statement about sexism, advancing the idea that sexism, rather than Felicia Day, is the reason that female gamers don't get taken seriously. But what you did is pull it out of that context to make an unrelated point.

And I think the same would be true, mutatis mutandis, of the statement about feminism - there are contexts (and phrasings) where that sentiment could make sense and be a reasonable point, and contexts where the sentiment would be a personal attack.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you have your priorities.

[thewakokid]

Well, yeah, I kinda do want people to stop shitting on all male gamers. At least the innocent ones.

[(Anonymous)]

And that's the most important thing in the entire affair to you.

[thewakokid]

Maybe not the most important - Yeah maybe the most important on a subjective personal level since it's the only thing that affects me directly - but it's certainly the most important thing I have any sort of scope to correct right here in relation to this comment. The only thing I have any need to correct in AIRT's comment in fact.

Like... If someone was being a shit to women in games here, I'd be doing both correcting them, and correcting the people who are maligning male gamers.

Actually... People are being shitty to a particular woman in games in this thread. And I've been countering that as well, so... Fuck you, I guess? Since I am backing myself by correcting people who make sweeping statements about my group, AND backing a woman who is being called a fake geek by pointing out that she is no less geeky than I am.