Problem Machine

Also, even if it does work, it's hardly the only thing they could put there that would work. They could just as easily have used a sweet robot or something.

Not only do I find the discussion interesting even knowing nothing about the game, but I loathe the mindset that, as a player of the game, you should either enjoy it uncritically or stop playing it. While discussions that happen here won't change DOTA2, a thousand discussions happening on different forums may -- moreover, as our understanding of what worked and/or didn't work at TI4 grows, so does our understanding of what makes a good and interesting 'e-sport'. I think that's valuable, even if none of us works at Valve.

Good intentions are no excuse for bad implications. I'm not telling you what you mean by these statements, but I am telling you how they read to an outside observer, and rather than engaging with how that implication might be problematic, you're just telling me "well, that's just your reading of it." Perhaps, but that's also the literal meaning of the words you've put on the page, and if that's how I'm reading it then that's how other people are probably going to read it. If that doesn't matter to you... well, then I don't see the point. Exactly! It's based off of their analysis of what sexism is! They take their experience, interpret it, and communicate it to you, and that's fantastic. That's the way it's supposed to work. However, if every conversation you had ever had had ended when you asked why something was sexist, if you'd never gotten an actual answer, what would that mental model look like? Your entire perception of sexism would be "something that makes one of these women I know upset." And that's the extent of the definition you proffer to people who ask how to know whether something is sexist or not! I'm all for listening to women's experiences! I do believe that's how an understanding of sexism is built! But it's not just one woman, and it's not just how she felt at one moment, but an understanding built across different lifetimes of different women, vast and nuanced, and I think it's really shitty to turn that into a yes/no answer from one woman. And if that's not what you meant by what you said, then maybe try saying it in a different way, a way that doesn't literally mean just that.

That's not what you're saying now, explicitly, but my contention is that glibly tossing off "ask a woman if it's sexist; if she says it is, it is" implies exactly that. It might be a narrow difference, but big problems are built on small misunderstandings, and I think the underlying message, whether intended or not, is harmful. If we're on the same page in the greater sense of things, then that's wonderful, but then maybe it's worth elaborating a little more on this one-step-approach to understanding what is and isn't sexist when it comes up.

I don't believe anyone was saying that outright, but in saying that all that men need to do to understand if something's sexist or not is ask a woman that implicitly reduces our understanding to that binary state -- and moreover asks a woman to represent all women, which I don't think I need to explain the problems with. This is to some degree a semantic difference, yes, but semantic doesn't mean unimportant: While the experiences of women are what drive our understanding of sexism, the deeper explanations, painstakingly researched and explained (usually, apparently I have to explicitly mention, also by women), are what actually map that territory. Saying something is or isn't sexist on a person-by-person basis is logically consistent, but if we say that's what sexism is we've eliminated any common ground for debate, since each person's perception is a realm unto itself. I think it's important to make a distinction between something that 'feels sexist to me' and something that 'is sexist', even if we may never know for sure where that boundary lies, because that opens us up for understanding. And yes, I know, shitty men use that conversation to devalue women's experiences and gaslight them, but that means that those men are shitty -- not that it's a bad conversation! I suggest that, instead of focusing on the experience of perceiving discrimination as defining that which is sexist, we focus on the discrimination that that experience perceives and focus in on that, what it is, what it means, where it comes from -- because the shape defined, however hazily, there, that's sexism, and it's our duty to actually try to understand it, rather than just asking women and dropping the burden back on them whenever we're in doubt. No one should have the authority to tell anyone that their lived experience is wrong. I agree with that. Their experience is their experience, and is neither wrong nor right but simply is. What's relevant is that we A) acknowledge and respect that experience and the impact it had on them, and interpret that experience in an intelligent way into a greater understanding of the systemic problem. My problem with just saying "that's what sexism is" is, when you make that your definition, you stop at A and never get to B.

My point is more that if we identify sexism solely as the experience of being discriminated against, rather than the discrimination itself, the only thing you can apologize for is the negative effect you're having on a person, rather than the behavior that creates that negative effect. I'm displeased with the way the conversation has gone overall, though, and don't feel that a lot of what I'm saying has been interpreted in good faith. I'll gladly accept some of the blame in being a poor communicator, but I have no idea how Gormongous is parsing me saying "erasing research, reason, and critical thought from the discussion of what sexism is is an insult to the scholars who dedicate themselves to understanding its boundaries and effects" as me saying "What we need is some men in here to agree with these women!" That interpretation only makes sense if you buy into the idea that only men do research. I specifically stated that most of the work done that we should be paying attention to is done by women, and yet twice he's thrown that interpretation at me. It feels insulting to have feminism 101 thrown at me when I'm trying to drill down on why I believe that one very specific tenet of some branches of feminism is problematic. It's like... inverse derailing? Anyway, sorry to bring it back up since it probably would have been better left lying down, but... but. I think I seized on JonCole's post as a reason to respond, but I probably shouldn't have anyway. Oh well.

Argh I am frustrated. You keep on telling me things that I know and accept. I am not saying there isn't room for both ideas to exist, but I am saying that they are different, if related ideas, and saying that one of them defines sexism is reductionist. I'm not saying women can't speak out about their victimhood or that it should be in any way disregarded, as I have said many many times and am beginning to become peeved at having to repeat, but I am saying that saying that's the extent of what sexism is or what our understanding of it has to be is lazy, and does a disservice to those who have actually put in the research to find boundaries of the problem beyond the solely experiential. I'm going to have to stop and take a nap and by the time I get back this thread is going to have 12 more pages and I won't be able to keep up. I'm angry at the implicit idea that trying to pull things into the realm of shared reality has a necessary, rather than created, gender bias. That idea seems super insulting to both women and to scientists to my perception. The idea that because some people's lazy formalism gives them an excuse to dismiss women's voices is a good reason to avoid reasoned thought altogether-- WHAT. People complain a lot about the non-apology of 'I'm sorry you're upset', but without a greater understanding of what we are doing wrong and how we are hurting each other that is literally the only kind of apology we can make. We will never understand how we hurt each other, or how we can make things better, or why we acted that way, the entire extent of our understanding will be that one person was hurt by the actions of another. In a person-to-person interaction, perhaps that is all that is needed -- but for making things better tomorrow? For making things better for everyone? It's not enough.

I'm not prepared to cede the very territory of conversation itself to sexism. Surely we'd be better off seeking to correct for bias rather than presume that conversation is impossible.

You don't understand a distinction between the feeling that you are discriminated against and the action describing how that is so? It's the difference between saying that women face harassment and actually showing what that harassment looks like, as in the post above. It's the difference between a single person's experience and a common thread that goes through a million people's experience. On the end of people less understanding of feminism, that difference is the difference between beginning to perceive an ancient systemic discrimination and handwaving a 'few bad eggs because boys will be boys'. The reason for the strenuousness of my objection is because if it's all just a matter of how people feel, rather than the circumstances that engender those feelings, there's nothing actionable there. Put bluntly, at that point if person A thinks person B is sexist, there's nothing that person A can say to convince person B that that's the case beyond 'that's how I feel' and nothing person B can say to convince person A they're innocent. If that's the end of the conversation, no conversation took place. No meaningful progress can be made. It erodes the very ground that conversation takes place on. Everyone's personal experience is important, but it's not the be-all-end-all. As I said, it's where the conversation begins, not where it ends.

Well, first: I didn't say men need to be involved in determining what sexism is, but I do think there are many women doing great work in discovering what the boundaries of sexism are, where it comes from and what it does. As is the nature of emotion, the feeling of being discriminated against is something that can lead to this kind of understanding, but the feeling itself is not a replacement for the understanding. We need to hear and respect what women say their experience is -- but that isn't the end of the process, it's the beginning! I don't think we know, or ever will know, the exact size and shape and scope of sexism -- but, bit by bit, as the emotional experience of sexism informs the systemic understanding of its processes, we can get closer. In other words, I agree that we need to hear what women say sexism is, and respect their understanding of it, but no one should be content with leaving it at that. There's more to understand. edit: And, as that understanding grows, it may grow to contradict some of what we thought we experienced before. Going back to TerrySchiavosGhost's example of the two uncles, if the niece then gets to know her uncle better and her understanding of the circumstances shifts, she could stop perceiving his behavior as sexism -- knowledge and understanding change our experience of the world, and though in overwhelming majority I expect that improved understanding will increase the amount of sexist behavior we find, I suspect that some situations that seemed discriminatory will turn out to be innocuous as well.

Because it's a longer, therefore funnier word. But also because it presumes the natural state of all human beings is empowerment!

Yes! We should seek not to empower, but to reundisempower! Reundisempowerment for all!

To me, though, saying that is a lot like saying that something seems orange to them. That is their experience and it's not invalid, but there's a difference between one person's perception of an event being orange and whether that actually matches up with the facts. Now, a lot of people have their experiences trivialized and gaslighted, which sucks, don't get me wrong -- but I think some line needs to be drawn between 'sexism' as systemic discrimination and 'sexism' as personal experience.

Okay -- there's a huge difference between assuming that if someone says there's sexism going on there's probably sexism going on, which I agree with, and then taking that extra leap to declare that therefore sexism is defined solely by when a woman feels she is being discriminated against! It's hugely problematic to conflate the two! Note the change of language here: From it being sexist or not-sexist based on her say-so to being not perceived by sexist as her despite being perceived as such by you. If we're putting things entirely into the realm of perception, then yes I agree everyone perceives discrimination (or not) in their own way, and that must be respected -- which is why I said: It's shitty to devalue someone's experiences because they don't match up with your idea of what sexism or feminism encompasses. I agree with that. The problem happens when we define sexism based solely off of that perception. What then of the work of the women who tirelessly analyze and describe the systemic effects of and meaning of sexism in our culture? Doesn't it devalue their work to just then define sexism as "a woman perceiving she is being discriminated against"? Ehh. In other words, I think you guys have the best of intentions, but your beliefs as you've expressed them seem super problematic to me, and your defense doesn't address my criticism.

Someone brought up this interpretation earlier, and it bothered me then and it bothers me now. Does this mean that an interaction can be sexist even if the perpetrator has no idea they're speaking to a woman? Does that mean an automated response can be sexist? I understand the intent of the approach, but I think it's possible to say everyone's experience of feeling discriminated against is valid and important and meaningful without then making the leap that it must, therefore, be informed. Moreover, if that's how we define sexism, does that mean that any blatant discrimination not recognized by the victim is therefore not sexist? If that were the case then surely the best cure for sexism would be to make it invisible. I don't feel that's a helpful understanding of sexism, I guess, is my point.

Well just like men also get death threats from randos for daring to have an opinion, men also get condescended to by blowhards. It's just, I believe, a more overwhelmingly common and notably awful experience for women in both cases. Not being a woman, I can't say that with authority, but I take their word for it.

It's mainly that I never liked the way they took the art direction after the second MI game and this draws pretty directly from that. It always irritates me when a character changes in an interesting way and it gets rolled back for whatever reason. I liked Guybrush's development from 1 to 2 from a scrawny rookie into a relatively capable and famed adventurer with a sweet coat and beard, and was disappointed at his character in MI3 being basically his character from MI1, ignoring the game in between (which I still think is the best of the series). Basically I am grouchy and can't enjoy anything.

Hmm. I don't particularly care for that interpretation of the characters (particularly Guybrush), though I do have to admire the execution

Something that I've heard a number of times is the idea that "I was on the fence, until I realized how shitty Max Temkin's response was and now he looks pretty bad to me." The thing is, that response was the first thing I read about this situation, and though a couple of bits in there made me slightly uncomfortable (the libel section, mostly), for the most part I thought it was a pretty decent response. It wasn't until the critiques came out the next day and pointed out the many problematic parts of it that I realized it was full of shittiness. This is why I want to see him respond to these criticisms: I've been made aware, through my woefully insufficient reading of his response, that I might not do any better under the same circumstances. In writing, as in life, it is hard to avoid being an accidentally shitty person.

Which is why I certainly expect better of him and hope he will do better now that the inadequacies of what he wrote have been brought to his attention. I just would like people to, as much as is possible, approach this from a place of empathy, rather than a place of "fuck this rapist and his shitty game" or "fuck this girl and her tarring of a cool guy". Neither of those are humane approaches. Honestly, I kind of wonder if getting legal consultation might not have made the end message worse. Saying things like 'complete fabrication' is really shitty person-to-person, but also potentially the sort of thing a legal expert might well advise.

"This guy's apology wasn't good enough so he's probably a rapist"? Ugh. There's not a need to 'take sides' here. There's not a need to decide that one or the other of these two human beings are definitely wrong and therefore evil. It's entirely possible to hurt someone without meaning to, so then jumping to the position that he's definitely person A, THE RAPIST, based on one apology written right after being told that he might be everything that he stands against might be a bit fucking hasty! Max Temkin probably doesn't need more defenders. He probably has plenty. But I'm sick of the mindset of good and evil, wrong and right, of taking sides. To me it stinks of being afraid to face the real lesson here -- it's entirely too easy for lines of consent to blur and to BECOME the guy in the position Max is in now. Even in a perfectly egalitarian society, communication will never be perfect, and humans will continue to ACCIDENTALLY rape each other. The question is what happens then, and how and how well the victims can heal. I would like it if he wrote another post addressing criticisms leveled at his first post. I think doing so may make him a better and more ethical figure in the here and now -- but no matter what, it's not possible to rectify the mistakes of the past, and whether he's a well-spoken feminist now or not has NO BEARING on whether or not he violated someone's person in the past. Pretending otherwise is... let's just go with insulting.

I'm saved from the trouble of having to order my thoughts on this topic by Patricia Hernandez writing all this out better than I could have possibly hoped to. http://kotaku.com/cards-against-humanitys-creator-said-the-wrong-things-1605542083 I guess the only thing I have to add to that is, um, maybe it's a good thing to think sometimes about the ways we can hurt people we care about terribly without ever noticing. This is a topic that goes beyond sex, but obviously due to the level of intimacy involved the exposure of the participants makes the hurt created last longer, but even without that ... You know, sometimes I wonder if it's possible to be a person without hurting other people. All we can do is try to not make it worse where we can.

I really like it. I have a hard time categorizing music too, but I think I'll try to put this into the rotation of things to listen to when I am programming. Thanks!

Yeah but it will be easier to not worry about it when fewer people are getting actively fucked over by that bias.

It's actually almost always trilbys I think that are referred to, but people call them fedoras anyway. I didn't know that was the history of the thing though. I thought it was just the sort of thing that horrible nerds think is cool without actually thinking about how they'll look in one with no other changes to their appearance.