All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are.
Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try.
That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them.
I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss' in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it.
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are.
Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try.
That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them.
I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss'; in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it.
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about.
Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here.
Originally posted by Nailzzz Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by HrimnirOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by HrimnirOriginally posted by jocieBOriginally posted by HrimnirOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Hrimnir <snip>
<snip><snip><snip><snip><snip>./sigh...<snip>All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are.Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try. That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them. I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss' in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about. Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here.
A sexist statement is where one attributes a behavior or an ability/disability to a group of people based on their gender. Generally this is done using a negative statement, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be centered around hate, just on ignorance.
Sociology is centered around observation and testing. An observation is made, then it's tested to see if it's accurate. The idea is to remove ignorance.
The statement "attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are" could be called an observation. How much credit should be given to their looks? What is the control group that sets the standard for how much credit attractive women should attribute their looks? How would someone even measure this? The motivation behind the statement determines whether it's hate, but it's ignorance that makes it sexist.
** edit ** Because I've put it in there in nearly every other post, I have to put it here. Misogynistic @ss. I am not calling you a misogynistic @ss, but as I've explained before, I like the way those words sound, and this is my one chance to use them in a thread where it might be relevant, so I'm going to use it as much as possible.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
./sigh...All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are.Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try.
That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them. I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss'; in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about.
Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here.
A sexist statement is where one attributes a behavior or an ability/disability to a group of people based on their gender. Generally this is done using a negative statement, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be centered around hate, just on ignorance.
Sociology is centered around observation and testing. An observation is made, then it's tested to see if it's accurate. The idea is to remove ignorance.
The statement "attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are" could be called an observation. How much credit should be given to their looks? What is the control group that sets the standard for how much credit attractive women should attribute their looks? How would someone even measure this? The motivation behind the statement determines whether it's hate, but it's ignorance that makes it sexist.
** edit ** Because I've put it in there in nearly every other post, I have to put it here. Misogynistic @ss. I am not calling you a misogynistic @ss, but as I've explained before, I like the way those words sound, and this is my one chance to use them in a thread where it might be relevant, so I'm going to use it as much as possible.
How can it be ignorance if its based on observation of the subject at hand? Also the fact that you and others seem to not be able to help the association between these sorts of observations and the assumption of people being a "mysogonistic @ass"; shows your own bias on the issue.
I happen to agree with the statement that attractive women in western society do not give thier apearance enough credit in terms of thier success. My own observations have born this out more times than i can count. I dont think merely noticing this makes me a hater. It seems like kind of a silly conclusion to jump to. Do i hate everything that has observable properties? Of course not. Do i hate the sky because im able to look up at it and see that it is blue today? That's absurd. Would it change anything if i did hate the sky and made the same observation? Not at all. The observation would be just as correct. Now you could argue in terms of why the sky is blue, but that is being needlessly pedantic. I look up, the sky is blue. The why is important, but changes nothing.
Women as a group do have observable properties but we treat such things with a knee jerk defensive reaction everytime. Why? Is it because not every observation is favorable? Why should that matter? Nothing is perfect. Why do we insist on seeing women as perfect?
Originally posted by Nailzzz Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by NailzzzOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by HrimnirOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by HrimnirOriginally posted by jocieBOriginally posted by HrimnirOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Hrimnir
./sigh...All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are.Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try.That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them. I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss' in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about. Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here. A sexist statement is where one attributes a behavior or an ability/disability to a group of people based on their gender. Generally this is done using a negative statement, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be centered around hate, just on ignorance. Sociology is centered around observation and testing. An observation is made, then it's tested to see if it's accurate. The idea is to remove ignorance. The statement "attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are" could be called an observation. How much credit should be given to their looks? What is the control group that sets the standard for how much credit attractive women should attribute their looks? How would someone even measure this? The motivation behind the statement determines whether it's hate, but it's ignorance that makes it sexist. ** edit ** Because I've put it in there in nearly every other post, I have to put it here. Misogynistic @ss. I am not calling you a misogynistic @ss, but as I've explained before, I like the way those words sound, and this is my one chance to use them in a thread where it might be relevant, so I'm going to use it as much as possible. How can it be ignorance if its based on observation of the subject at hand? Also the fact that you and others seem to not be able to help the association between these sorts of observations and the assumption of people being a "mysogonistic @ass"; shows your own bias on the issue.
I happen to agree with the statement that attractive women in western society do not give thier apearance enough credit in terms of thier success. My own observations have born this out more times than i can count. I dont think merely noticing this makes me a hater. It seems like kind of a silly conclusion to jump to. Do i hate everything that has observable properties? Of course not. Do i hate the sky because im able to look up at it and see that it is blue today? That's absurd. Would it change anything if i did hate the sky and made the same observation? Not at all. The observation would be just as correct. Now you could argue in terms of why the sky is blue, but that is being needlessly pedantic. I look up, the sky is blue. The why is important, but changes nothing.
Women as a group do have observable properties but we treat such things with a knee jerk defensive reaction everytime. Why? Is it because not every observation is favorable? Why should that matter? Nothing is perfect. Why do we insist on seeing women as perfect?
The statement starts with "I feel", which makes it an opinion, not an observation. The statement is sexist because it focuses on women, not people. If the original statement was "attractive people do not give enough credit to their appearance in their success", then it at least wouldn't be sexist. It would still be somewhat ignorant because the statement isn't provable. The the amount of credit people give to their appearance in regards to their success isn't measurable. It doesn't even make sense that all attractive women in western society give credit to their appearance for their success in the same way. They don't all have the same amount of success. It's just an ignorant statement.
Your statements are just as sexist as the post we're discussing. There is no science here, no sociology, just your opinions. You can't measure how much credit people give to their appearance, you just know that attractive women don't give 'enough' credit to their appearance. So...who does give enough credit to their appearance for their success? What is the control group for 'enough' credit given to a person's appearance?
Remember, sexism is about ignorance, not hatred. Your statements are sexist, but I have no idea what the motivation is behind them. I don't even know if you believe what you're saying. You might hate women, you might not. You don't have to hate women to make sexist statements.
My bias towards the words 'misogynistic @ss' is that it turns out I like the way those words sound. It's more fun than calling someone an @sshat, but the usage is really limited. This thread is probably the first and last time I'll ever get to use those words. I started using it to say, "There's no excuse act like a misogynistic @ss on forums, like the guys shown in Pokket's article." Once I used the term, I realized I liked the sound of it. It's like the word gangrene. It sounds cool.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
./sigh...All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are.Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try.
That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them. I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss'; in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about.
Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here.
A sexist statement is where one attributes a behavior or an ability/disability to a group of people based on their gender. Generally this is done using a negative statement, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be centered around hate, just on ignorance. Sociology is centered around observation and testing. An observation is made, then it's tested to see if it's accurate. The idea is to remove ignorance. The statement "attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are" could be called an observation. How much credit should be given to their looks? What is the control group that sets the standard for how much credit attractive women should attribute their looks? How would someone even measure this? The motivation behind the statement determines whether it's hate, but it's ignorance that makes it sexist. ** edit ** Because I've put it in there in nearly every other post, I have to put it here. Misogynistic @ss. I am not calling you a misogynistic @ss, but as I've explained before, I like the way those words sound, and this is my one chance to use them in a thread where it might be relevant, so I'm going to use it as much as possible.
How can it be ignorance if its based on observation of the subject at hand? Also the fact that you and others seem to not be able to help the association between these sorts of observations and the assumption of people being a "mysogonistic @ass"; shows your own bias on the issue.
I happen to agree with the statement that attractive women in western society do not give thier apearance enough credit in terms of thier success. My own observations have born this out more times than i can count. I dont think merely noticing this makes me a hater. It seems like kind of a silly conclusion to jump to. Do i hate everything that has observable properties? Of course not. Do i hate the sky because im able to look up at it and see that it is blue today? That's absurd. Would it change anything if i did hate the sky and made the same observation? Not at all. The observation would be just as correct. Now you could argue in terms of why the sky is blue, but that is being needlessly pedantic. I look up, the sky is blue. The why is important, but changes nothing.
Women as a group do have observable properties but we treat such things with a knee jerk defensive reaction everytime. Why? Is it because not every observation is favorable? Why should that matter? Nothing is perfect. Why do we insist on seeing women as perfect?
The statement starts with "I feel", which makes it an opinion, not an observation. The statement is sexist because it focuses on women, not people. If the original statement was "attractive people do not give enough credit to their appearance in their success", then it at least wouldn't be sexist. It would still be somewhat ignorant because the statement isn't provable. The the amount of credit people give to their appearance in regards to their success isn't measurable. It doesn't even make sense that all attractive women in western society give credit to their appearance for their success in the same way. They don't all have the same amount of success. It's just an ignorant statement.
Your statements are just as sexist as the post we're discussing. There is no science here, no sociology, just your opinions. You can't measure how much credit people give to their appearance, you just know that attractive women don't give 'enough' credit to their appearance. So...who does give enough credit to their appearance for their success? What is the control group for 'enough' credit given to a person's appearance?
Remember, sexism is about ignorance, not hatred. Your statements are sexist, but I have no idea what the motivation is behind them. I don't even know if you believe what you're saying. You might hate women, you might not. You don't have to hate women to make sexist statements.
My bias towards the words 'misogynistic @ss'; is that it turns out I like the way those words sound. It's more fun than calling someone an @sshat, but the usage is really limited. This thread is probably the first and last time I'll ever get to use those words. I started using it to say, "There's no excuse act like a misogynistic @ss on forums, like the guys shown in Pokket's article." Once I used the term, I realized I liked the sound of it. It's like the word gangrene. It sounds cool.
I dont even know where to start, there is just so much wrong with everything you wrote. Your claiming that we cant quantify things that we can clearly observe as a quantifiable difference between individuals based on thier appearance. Your only throwing up a pedantic smokescreen about metrics.
If observational findings are deemed sexist merely due to the relation of the subject matter of a control group than all of science is in fact guilty of discrimiation of every type which would include sexism. Science and observation have in fact found numerous differences between the genders which by your definition would qualify science as being sexist. But that is absurd unless you wish to concede that reality is itself sexist, since science is just the study of understanding reality. The same argument can also be used against science's finding in terms of race. Which by your logic would make science racist.
As a matter of fact the idea that science has identified differences between the genders is something your arguing is based on ignorance. WTF? How the hell can scientific findings be a source of ignorance? Are you arguing that science is wrong? Are Scientists ignorant?
Damn ... this article was pure retard bait and WOW did the idiots bite!
No need to even reply Pokket as sadly you chose an audience who is actively seeking detachment from society. So much so that some simply have lost touch and have no reference point for understanding satire.
Just aknowledge that many "get it" and many simply will never choose to get it. Misogyny is rampant here and so ingrained into our culture and even more so within gaming culture that you are left with no platform to speak from. Your works sink beneath it. You cannot change these people as it is hard wired into their souls. Only they can change themselves and this will take a lifetime and for some never happen.
Thanks for the advice I will definately put this plan into action!
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Why is this on mmorpg.com, if this article was the other way around and talking about women in a negative light it wouldn't get published at all. Yes men are horrible so lets publish an article about how horrible they are so they can feel even worse about themselves.
Comments
That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them.
I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss' in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it.
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Pro Tip: Shut off your webcam and throw it away.
Problem solved.
Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here.
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
./sigh... <snip> All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are. Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try.
That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them. I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss' in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about.
Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here.
A sexist statement is where one attributes a behavior or an ability/disability to a group of people based on their gender. Generally this is done using a negative statement, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be centered around hate, just on ignorance.
Sociology is centered around observation and testing. An observation is made, then it's tested to see if it's accurate. The idea is to remove ignorance.
The statement "attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are" could be called an observation. How much credit should be given to their looks? What is the control group that sets the standard for how much credit attractive women should attribute their looks? How would someone even measure this? The motivation behind the statement determines whether it's hate, but it's ignorance that makes it sexist.
** edit **
Because I've put it in there in nearly every other post, I have to put it here. Misogynistic @ss. I am not calling you a misogynistic @ss, but as I've explained before, I like the way those words sound, and this is my one chance to use them in a thread where it might be relevant, so I'm going to use it as much as possible.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
How can it be ignorance if its based on observation of the subject at hand? Also the fact that you and others seem to not be able to help the association between these sorts of observations and the assumption of people being a "mysogonistic @ass"; shows your own bias on the issue.
I happen to agree with the statement that attractive women in western society do not give thier apearance enough credit in terms of thier success. My own observations have born this out more times than i can count. I dont think merely noticing this makes me a hater. It seems like kind of a silly conclusion to jump to. Do i hate everything that has observable properties? Of course not. Do i hate the sky because im able to look up at it and see that it is blue today? That's absurd. Would it change anything if i did hate the sky and made the same observation? Not at all. The observation would be just as correct. Now you could argue in terms of why the sky is blue, but that is being needlessly pedantic. I look up, the sky is blue. The why is important, but changes nothing.
Women as a group do have observable properties but we treat such things with a knee jerk defensive reaction everytime. Why? Is it because not every observation is favorable? Why should that matter? Nothing is perfect. Why do we insist on seeing women as perfect?
./sigh... All i am saying, with no underlying meaning, is that i feel that attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are. Thats it, don't read into. I know its hard, but try.
That is a sexist statement. You've lumped 'attractive' women in Western Society into one group, and attributed something to them. I think I've explained why I've used the phrase 'misogynistic @ss' in this thread. It's fun to say and I won't get another legitimate chance to use it. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not angry with men or women in general. Now people...that's something to get angry about.
Wait a sec. i just want to make sure i understand what your saying here. So basically your argument boils down to: generalization=hate. Ok so by your definition sociology is a hate filled soft science since its the study of the phsycology of various groups of people. Actually on further reflection, you may be onto something here.
A sexist statement is where one attributes a behavior or an ability/disability to a group of people based on their gender. Generally this is done using a negative statement, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be centered around hate, just on ignorance. Sociology is centered around observation and testing. An observation is made, then it's tested to see if it's accurate. The idea is to remove ignorance. The statement "attractive women in western society do not give enough credit to their looks when it comes to how successful they are" could be called an observation. How much credit should be given to their looks? What is the control group that sets the standard for how much credit attractive women should attribute their looks? How would someone even measure this? The motivation behind the statement determines whether it's hate, but it's ignorance that makes it sexist. ** edit ** Because I've put it in there in nearly every other post, I have to put it here. Misogynistic @ss. I am not calling you a misogynistic @ss, but as I've explained before, I like the way those words sound, and this is my one chance to use them in a thread where it might be relevant, so I'm going to use it as much as possible.
How can it be ignorance if its based on observation of the subject at hand? Also the fact that you and others seem to not be able to help the association between these sorts of observations and the assumption of people being a "mysogonistic @ass"; shows your own bias on the issue.
I happen to agree with the statement that attractive women in western society do not give thier apearance enough credit in terms of thier success. My own observations have born this out more times than i can count. I dont think merely noticing this makes me a hater. It seems like kind of a silly conclusion to jump to. Do i hate everything that has observable properties? Of course not. Do i hate the sky because im able to look up at it and see that it is blue today? That's absurd. Would it change anything if i did hate the sky and made the same observation? Not at all. The observation would be just as correct. Now you could argue in terms of why the sky is blue, but that is being needlessly pedantic. I look up, the sky is blue. The why is important, but changes nothing.
Women as a group do have observable properties but we treat such things with a knee jerk defensive reaction everytime. Why? Is it because not every observation is favorable? Why should that matter? Nothing is perfect. Why do we insist on seeing women as perfect?
The statement starts with "I feel", which makes it an opinion, not an observation. The statement is sexist because it focuses on women, not people. If the original statement was "attractive people do not give enough credit to their appearance in their success", then it at least wouldn't be sexist. It would still be somewhat ignorant because the statement isn't provable. The the amount of credit people give to their appearance in regards to their success isn't measurable. It doesn't even make sense that all attractive women in western society give credit to their appearance for their success in the same way. They don't all have the same amount of success. It's just an ignorant statement.
Your statements are just as sexist as the post we're discussing. There is no science here, no sociology, just your opinions. You can't measure how much credit people give to their appearance, you just know that attractive women don't give 'enough' credit to their appearance. So...who does give enough credit to their appearance for their success? What is the control group for 'enough' credit given to a person's appearance?
Remember, sexism is about ignorance, not hatred. Your statements are sexist, but I have no idea what the motivation is behind them. I don't even know if you believe what you're saying. You might hate women, you might not. You don't have to hate women to make sexist statements.
My bias towards the words 'misogynistic @ss' is that it turns out I like the way those words sound. It's more fun than calling someone an @sshat, but the usage is really limited. This thread is probably the first and last time I'll ever get to use those words. I started using it to say, "There's no excuse act like a misogynistic @ss on forums, like the guys shown in Pokket's article." Once I used the term, I realized I liked the sound of it. It's like the word gangrene. It sounds cool.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I dont even know where to start, there is just so much wrong with everything you wrote. Your claiming that we cant quantify things that we can clearly observe as a quantifiable difference between individuals based on thier appearance. Your only throwing up a pedantic smokescreen about metrics.
If observational findings are deemed sexist merely due to the relation of the subject matter of a control group than all of science is in fact guilty of discrimiation of every type which would include sexism. Science and observation have in fact found numerous differences between the genders which by your definition would qualify science as being sexist. But that is absurd unless you wish to concede that reality is itself sexist, since science is just the study of understanding reality. The same argument can also be used against science's finding in terms of race. Which by your logic would make science racist.
As a matter of fact the idea that science has identified differences between the genders is something your arguing is based on ignorance. WTF? How the hell can scientific findings be a source of ignorance? Are you arguing that science is wrong? Are Scientists ignorant?
Damn ... this article was pure retard bait and WOW did the idiots bite!
No need to even reply Pokket as sadly you chose an audience who is actively seeking detachment from society. So much so that some simply have lost touch and have no reference point for understanding satire.
Just aknowledge that many "get it" and many simply will never choose to get it. Misogyny is rampant here and so ingrained into our culture and even more so within gaming culture that you are left with no platform to speak from. Your works sink beneath it. You cannot change these people as it is hard wired into their souls. Only they can change themselves and this will take a lifetime and for some never happen.
You stay sassy!
Thanks for the advice I will definately put this plan into action!
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo