Pokemon GO is Racist Now

[Another Ampers&]

1 minute ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

People tends to take things seriously.

Just because there is an article about it doesn't mean it's factual like how people strongly believes that there are wage gap between genders

so to be clear, you disagree with the suggestion that racism is A Thing based around the 4 parameters suggested in bullet points within the article

and also irrelevantly you disagree with the suggestion that there is a pay gap between genders?

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

Just now, Another Ampers& said:

so to be clear, you disagree with the suggestion that racism is A Thing based around the 4 parameters suggested in bullet points within the article

and also irrelevantly you disagree with the suggestion that there is a pay gap between genders?

Yes I disagree with the existence of gender gap between genders as this has been debunked so many times by experts and my own experience.

For the article, I will disagree "for now" as there is no reliable statistic on racial prejudice being prevalent nationwide.

[Another Ampers&]

Just now, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Yes I disagree with the existence of gender gap between genders as this has been debunked so many times by experts and my own experience.

For the article, I will disagree "for now" as there is no reliable statistic on racial prejudice being prevalent nationwide.

 

I'm going to ignore the paygap for now because it's outside the scope of the original argument and I really only have the energy to debate with liberals on one subject a day

Do you really think there's no reliable information on racial prejudice within north america. Like I really do feel the need to press you on this to see if this is really what you believe. Black people upload and publish to the internet alone more information about their experiences and their struggles in a single day than you could read in a year. So many books both nonfiction and based in reality that talk about racial inequality in america. Academic studies, government files. What do I even get you started with? The released FBI documents explaining how they framed the black panthers as a terrorist organization and treated them as such for demanding black equality? Contrasted against the continued, unhindered and government protected status of the ku klux klan? How about the widespread belief by doctors that black people just don't feel as much pain, and should be treated with less gentle care? Like can you imagine something like this, which happened just this week, happening to a white person?

There's just... so much information readily available to you that dropping the google link would just feel weird and petty do you REALLY believe this because I find it really very hard to believe

like what on earth could your definition of reliable possibly be if you can't find a single "reliable statistic" on racial prejudice existing on the societal level in north america and the west

 

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

1 hour ago, Another Ampers& said:

"petty"

Wow, I really ruffled your feathers didn't I? (Too easy :V)

I genuinely don't care enough to actively look up articles about problems that doesn't concern me, I only go by whatever articles that passes me by. So no... it wasn't "petty" nor "weird" to educate someone of the situtation, especially someone who is willing to be proven wrong.

Also there are some articles you posted that I disagree "FOR NOW" but I'd check on @GarthTheWereWolf first as he's in the medical field for years.

[Tsuujou]

19 hours ago, kazooie said:

I suppose I should re-phrase

"Just because lots of things go on in the world, doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about specific things that go on"

For example, just because there's a lot of fucked up terrorism occurring doesn't make all of the weird instances of police discrimination in the US are less fucked up. And just because we should be looking for solutions for reducing the rate and impact terrorist attacks, doesn't mean we shouldn't also look to reform or improve other aspects of our society.

Man that recent shooting situation was weird. Guy shot him and when asked why the cop said "I don't know". 

That reminds me of when I did a no-no when I was 7 and when my mom asked me why I did it I'd go "I DUNNOOOOO". Seems like some cops are 7 year olds now. :y

[PastryOfApathy]

3 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

I believe this is the second time I'll be asking someone in this thread to quote the article where it states "pokemon go is racist"

It's implied by the context of the article. ie. Pokemon Go by it's very nature discriminates against black people because it makes them walk outside.

3 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

This article isn't being forced on anyone who is playing the game. This article isn't requisite reading to play the game. This article isn't even posted on a pokemon / go related website. It's a thinkpiece that someone decided to write because they were playing the game and inspiration hit them, posted on a website where people talk about videogames and sometimes also social issues

like the fact that someone took the time to write their thoughts on race in america, framed by the game Pokemon Go, and posted it online is such a non issue

This is correct, this is an incredible non-issue. But that doesn't mean I can't point and laugh at it for being really dumb.

[Another Ampers&]

17 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

It's implied by the context of the article. ie. Pokemon Go by it's very nature discriminates against black people because it makes them walk outside.

okay

I don't know why this is the conclusion that you came to

Let's say that I concede your point and agree that the article is stating "pokemon go is inherently racist because it by its very nature asks black people to put themselves in situations that are more dangerous for them than any other race"

what do you think the writer of the article would like you to do about it, having described Pokemon Go as itself heavily and inherently racist. 

[Azure]

Just dropping by to say that I have the utmost distaste for Pokemon Go. Like hey, Nintendo, Japan, it's over guys. It's done. It's been 20 years and all you've managed to do is create a bunch of weirdos who want to fuck imaginary creatures. Other crimes include selling everything under the sun in terms of merchandise, savagely bilking their loyal fans of all their loose discretionary funds, and a pay to be cool mobile app that has led several people to untimely(or not so) deaths. Not to mention the glaring double standard amongst people who called it nerd shit in the 90s but now that it's on their mobile phone it's kewl brah. Get fucked u chumps

[kazooie]

1 hour ago, XoPachi said:

Man that recent shooting situation was weird. Guy shot him and when asked why the cop said "I don't know". 

That reminds me of when I did a no-no when I was 7 and when my mom asked me why I did it I'd go "I DUNNOOOOO". Seems like some cops are 7 year olds now. :y

It gets better: the police union followed up with an official statement that the police officer was, in fact, aiming at the autistic man who was playing with a truck. 

Great save, guys. Proud of ya.

[Tsuujou]

29 minutes ago, kazooie said:

It gets better: the police union followed up with an official statement that the police officer was, in fact, aiming at the autistic man who was playing with a truck. 

Great save, guys. Proud of ya.

...

That dept is a fucking circus.

[LadyRadarEars]

44 minutes ago, kazooie said:

It gets better: the police union followed up with an official statement that the police officer was, in fact, aiming at the autistic man who was playing with a truck. 

Great save, guys. Proud of ya.

 

13 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

...

That dept is a fucking circus.

"Only the police should have guns, so they can protect you!"

:3

Also if it wasn't Pokemon Go it'd be something else, I think. People are kind of unaware these days. Then again they've always been like that as long as I can remember, I mean, hell, I remember walking into low-hanging air conditioning units as a child because I had my face in a book, soo...

(The breaking into houses to get at pokemon though, wtf.)

[evan]

2 hours ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

I genuinely don't care enough to actively look up articles about problems that doesn't concern me,

 

isn't this a mindset we actively make fun of people of the opposite political leaning for, making over active statements or denigrating the counter argument BEFORE actually knowing anything about it (and then when pressed either admitting they don't bother to do the research or require their opponent to research for them)

2 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

It's implied by the context of the article. ie. Pokemon Go by it's very nature discriminates against black people because it makes them walk outside.

This is correct, this is an incredible non-issue. But that doesn't mean I can't point and laugh at it for being really dumb.

Except I don't think the article is even going that far. I was skeptical thoroughly because I hate kotaku, but based on their conclusions, they're actually saying that DUE to racism, pokemon go cannot be enjoyed how it should. pokemon go itself in the article implicitly has no actual method of being racist; it's the political environment that creates a problem, not the game itself. 

the guilt is in the title, title is clickbait

normally i'd agree with calling something like this profoundly stupid, but i'm afraid i don't see the statistical reason to say that on this one. yes it's clickbait, but it's not entirely unfounded a claim. you're gonna have to tell me why it's really dumb beyond "it just is"

[Tsuujou]

1 hour ago, Azure said:

Just dropping by to say that I have the utmost distaste for Pokemon Go. Like hey, Nintendo, Japan, it's over guys. It's done. It's been 20 years and all you've managed to do is create a bunch of weirdos who want to fuck imaginary creatures. Other crimes include selling everything under the sun in terms of merchandise, savagely bilking their loyal fans of all their loose discretionary funds, and a pay to be cool mobile app that has led several people to untimely(or not so) deaths. Not to mention the glaring double standard amongst people who called it nerd shit in the 90s but now that it's on their mobile phone it's kewl brah. Get fucked u chumps

LMAO!

Honestly, I've been inconvenienced a bit by PGO players. They can be a nuisance. 

[Toshabi]

3 hours ago, evan said:

isn't this a mindset we actively make fun of people of the opposite political leaning for, making over active statements or denigrating the counter argument BEFORE actually knowing anything about it (and then when pressed either admitting they don't bother to do the research or require their opponent to research for them)

Except I don't think the article is even going that far. I was skeptical thoroughly because I hate kotaku, but based on their conclusions, they're actually saying that DUE to racism, pokemon go cannot be enjoyed how it should. pokemon go itself in the article implicitly has no actual method of being racist; it's the political environment that creates a problem, not the game itself. 

the guilt is in the title, title is clickbait

normally i'd agree with calling something like this profoundly stupid, but i'm afraid i don't see the statistical reason to say that on this one. yes it's clickbait, but it's not entirely unfounded a claim. you're gonna have to tell me why it's really dumb beyond "it just is"

"I spent less than 20 minutes outside. Five of those minutes were spent enjoying the game. One of those minutes I spent trying to look as pleasant and nonthreatening as possible as I walked past a somewhat visibly disturbed white woman on her way to the bus stop. I spent the other 14 minutes being distracted from the game by thoughts of the countless Black Men who have had the police called on them because they looked “suspicious” or wondering what a second amendment exercising individual might do if I walked past their window a 3rd or 4th time in search of a Jigglypuff."

 

 

BOY, DATS EVERYONE THAT GETS CAUGHT PLAYING POKEMKN GO! It's literally being "The only reason why X is happening is cuz im black".I literally had it where people IN THEIR CARS drove up to the front of my inlaw's house and stayed parked in front of it for a good 3 minutes. It was A bunch of white folks (whom got the police called on them) who turned out to be playing pokemon GO. Every race is invoking this creepy ass vibe that are making "little old white folk" scared and confused. Even I drew some attention 2 weeks ago when I was playing in a residential neighborhood and  stopped to battle some gyms. The example he flung on this article isn't invoked from blackness, but playing pokemon GO. And so far, its been anything but blacks getting stabbed and shot and mugged while playing this game. 

 

Be Smart.

Walk in open public places.

Don't stop in front of people's homes.

Be mindful of your surroundings.

 

This articles core values are factual, but the writer came off like someone who loves to blame race on everything. And from this article, THATS  a fact.

 

Society is barely catching on (the ignant folk) about whats what with pokemon go. Knowing the writer, he probably gets even less reaction now.

[evan]

24 minutes ago, Toshabi said:

*words*

i don't even disagree. i effortposted about this exact thing on the last page and pointed out that it's not limited to one race. i've acknowledged this already.

read pastry's reply and keep in mind what the difference is when she says that we're going about this like the author is accusing pokemon go of being intrinsically racist.

the article is poorly done. no denial there.  but it's goal is to underline how if a black man is statistically more likely to face aggravated confrontation for the police, then a game whose populace is notorious for attracting attention and seeming suspicious has a good chance of causing some shit.

however, the article literally does not claim the game is a source of discrimination. it's saying that some people can be stupid as fuck without being as likely to get shit for it, (see the guy who was out at midnight running around walking up to random people asking where a fucking gengar is) while others could be putting themselves more at risk of the shit they're already worried about. if anything, by pointing out that people are fucking stupid and get the cops called on them for playing pokemon go, then we're just proving the author right about the correlation which could LEAD to something.

i'm not saying i like the article. i just think we're trying to pull some level of victimization about a comment on the fact that a thing that makes black people more likely to look suspicious has the potential to lead to a statistic of violence that results from black people looking suspicious.

to your point, he's trying to make a thunderstorm out of a mild rain weather forecast, but he's also not talking out of his ass or SOLELY playing the victim game. he's cautionary about something that probably won't lead anywhere, but in today's environment easily could.

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

3 hours ago, evan said:

isn't this a mindset we actively make fun of people of the opposite political leaning for, making over active statements or denigrating the counter argument BEFORE actually knowing anything about it (and then when pressed either admitting they don't bother to do the research or require their opponent to research for them)

I'm going to rely on my judgement than reading articles. :V

Does racism exist? Ofc it exist.. People who believes otherwise needs to get out of their fucking bubble. People fight over their differences like opinions, games they play, movies they like, so it's safe to say that people will fight over something trivial as skin color but am I suppose to assume everyone here are racist because there exist articles suggesting such? I guess that's what people do these days do they? :V

[evan]

9 minutes ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

I'm going to rely on my judgement than reading articles. :V

Does racism exist? Ofc it exist.. People who believes otherwise needs to get out of their fucking bubble. People fight over their differences like opinions, games they play, movies they like, so it's safe to say that people will fight over something trivial as skin color but am I suppose to assume everyone here are racist because there exist articles suggesting such? I guess that's what people do these days do they? :V

i'm probably going to stop replying to your posts from here on out but i i just want you to know i genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

It's probably a bad idea for anybody to go out at midnight trying to look for Pokemon. I understand why it may be more of an issue for black people, but even so, no matter what race you are, it's pretty dumb to go out at midnight because of Pokemon.

[Butters]

The more people who wanna silence bringing up social justice, the more its gonna be talked about. I don't know why people opposed to it don't understand that.

[Endless/Nameless]

wha

[Troj]

15 hours ago, Butters said:

The more people who wanna silence bringing up social justice, the more its gonna be talked about. I don't know why people opposed to it don't understand that.

Of course, I'm exceedingly biased, but I'm inclined to agree here.

It feels like 80-90% of the conversation is usually just people arguing over whether racism, sexism, transphobia, or homophobia is like, really an actual thing. I'd really love for the conversation to eventually move towards figuring out how to best respond to the various sources of suffering, struggle, and angst that plague human beings.

People on one side are so deeply wedded to their own Goodguy Badges and their own faith in a Just World that they utterly flip out when someone suggests that they might harbor implicit biases or stereotypes, or might be complicit in systems that are quietly or subtly unfair, or that sometimes, people suffer unjustly and unfairly, through no fault of their own.

This compels people on the other side of the debate to increase their volume, sometimes to the point to over-stating or over-emphasizing their core ideas about systemic injustices or unconscious biases, and disingenuously ignoring facts and examples that fall outside of their preferred model of the world. Even the well-intentioned folks feel that they have to do this, I reckon, because even their most basic arguments are often being dismissed and pooh-poohed.

My (again, admittedly biased) sense is that if people in general could just concede that yes, perhaps they harbor some unconscious and conscious biases and assumptions that aren't helpful or accurate in despite of generally being good and well-intentioned, and that yes, perhaps people are unfairly judged and pigeonholed because of their presentation/appearance and/or because of the beliefs others harbor about "their kind," we could actually get down to real brass tacks on these issues.

For their part, liberals have to learn to contain their zeal for pointing out said biases or injustices, or for trying people in "social justice thoughtcrime court," because that's how you lose allies and alienate friends. They also need to be willing to admit when a minority is also a shitty person, in spite of being due equal treatment and equal respect. Liberals also need to acknowledge that explanations are not excuses where certain attitudes or behaviors are concerned, and that minorities are neither children nor helpless ragdolls.

[Guest]

Off topic, but @Troj from what I see of you, I genuinely would want to buy you a drink. 

[Troj]

2 hours ago, Lemon said:

Off topic, but @Troj from what I see of you, I genuinely would want to buy you a drink. 

Aww, thanks!

Imma hold you to that. I could go for a Moscow Mule. (Fat Tire will do in a pinch, though.)

[Red Lion]

The biggest problem with the article is its motive. As pointed out it's very obvious clickbait and I think we've reached a point, as a society where the only people that respond positively to that kind of delivery are people who agree with what's being stated.

Is it true that a lone black guy wandering is more likely to be viewed as suspicious than a white guy? Depending on where you live, yeah, probably, and you can dig up all kinds of connections and patterns to figure out why the statistics are skewed like that and what the factors to that are. But the article didn't really do that and it didn't help itself in any way by starting off with a title framed to make the reader thing there's something inherently racist about Pokemon Go. 

I went into the article expecting something in the actual game to deliberately target black people but as I read it it became more and more apparent that this was just another excuse to bring up inequality and while a more competent article would have made compelling arguments, suggested solutions or tried to dig a little deeper this one just comes of as manipulative whining. Right down to the overly dramatic delivery of the writer's point.

"I might die if I keep playing"

Here's the reality of this article. Pokemon Go is a pretty weak vehicle to try and deliver a serious think piece about the dangers of being black in America. Especially when what you're saying amounts to "black people are more likely to be targeted as suspicious by the police". 

I don't think he actually believes he's going to die from playing this game. I don't even really believe that he didn't embellish some of the details of his experience with the game for the sake of punching up his article. I don't respond to dramatic declarations of "my very life is in danger!". I have lived pretty much my entire adult life peeking out of the metaphorical closet and wondering if it's safe to come out to my friends, family, community and whether or not I might be in physical or emotional danger if I out myself to the wrong people. My  patience and interest in pandering manipulation has long since dwindled and this article just leaves me feeling indifferent to the point being made by the writer.

It's a weak article, it doesn't say anything we haven't heard before, the author delivers a social issue with all the credibility and competence of a 14 year old going "Oh my god I could literally die, like for real," and any strong reaction either way is an overreaction. 

[WileyWarWeasel]

I'd be more concerned about Pokemon Go and similar apps conditioning people to being led by the nose and photographing their surroundings for intangible rewards.

[Butters]

On 7/24/2016 at 10:00 AM, Troj said:

 

For their part, liberals have to learn to contain their zeal for pointing out said biases or injustices, or for trying people in "social justice thoughtcrime court," because that's how you lose allies and alienate friends. 

Not a fan of Jane Elliot, Troj? ;3

[Troj]

1 hour ago, Butters said:

Not a fan of Jane Elliot, Troj? ;3

Oh, blue eyes/brown eyes lady!

For one thing, context matters. If Jane Elliott has been invited to do a seminar or exercise, that's one thing. If she's having dinner at your house, that's another thing.

For another, it can be helpful to adjust your tactics to your audience. Jane Elliott likes to get up in people's faces, and based on what I've seen of her in action, sometimes that works to jolt people into awareness, and other times, it needlessly and excessively alienates or freaks out the person she's chosen to confront.

I was thinking more about SJWs and young activist kids who equate being ignorant or not yet sufficiently "woke" about a topic with being a bigot and therefore, an enemy. Someone can be misinformed or ignorant without being malicious or hateful.

Also, while they shouldn't spend their lives dramatically flagellating themselves for their unconscious biases or politically-incorrect choices--because that melodrama gets old fast--liberals need to understand that they're not perfect, either. Having the "right" politics doesn't always translate into saying or doing the right thing--or even, knowing what to say or do in a situation.

There's a fine balance here, since some liberals go too far the other way, and are unctuously sweetie-nicey in a way that hits a lot of people as condescending and disingenuous. (See: a lot of the articles on Everydayfeminism.)

Well, and even if someone teaches, corrects, or instructs you "incorrectly" or in a way that offends or irks you, while it is understandable that you might chafe at this and feel slower to warm up to what they say, it doesn't necessarily make what they're saying incorrect. So, "I hold a bigoted/outdated/wrong/problematic belief because an SJW was mean to me or said a stupid thing," has a limited half-life as an actual excuse. I'm getting quite sick of "rational" or "objective" people who focus exclusively on loopy SJWs or crazy feminists so that they don't have to engage with any of the ideas under that social justice umbrella--and I used to belong to that camp, so I know how they tick, and sympathize to a degree.

[Tsuujou]

 

9 minutes ago, Troj said:

I was thinking more about SJWs and young activist kids who equate being ignorant or not yet sufficiently "woke" about a topic with being a bigot and therefore, an enemy. Someone can be misinformed or ignorant without being malicious or hateful.

7/10

Too much sense.

[Another Ampers&]

14 minutes ago, Troj said:

I was thinking more about SJWs and young activist kids who equate being ignorant or not yet sufficiently "woke" about a topic with being a bigot and therefore, an enemy. Someone can be misinformed or ignorant without being malicious or hateful.

I think this is really important and ties into a lot of what you were saying before

A lot of us harbour unconscious biases that are purely a result of a society that conditions us to be racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc, etc, etc and harboring those beliefs is something that's going to have to be forgiven in some circumstances

I can't remember who said this, someone on tumblr whose name escapes me but "More important than what you get called out for is how you respond to being called out"

like when you say something hella racist and someone's like "hey can u not" it's embarrassing to yourself and the people around you for a few minutes before everyone kind of forgets right, like you respond with compassion and understanding you say "oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware, I won't do it again". What makes it much worse is when instead you respond angrily as if you're being attacked it just gets super messy and that shit ends friendships

one of the most important things to learn for me as an ally and even as someone who is a member of certain oppressed demographics is recognizing that I'm going to hold in me oppressive beliefs, and that's okay. It's something society has conditioned in me and I have to strive constantly to Do Better. I'm not Perfect, and I still have a lot of learning to do

As an aside, your use of "Liberals" is really interesting and I'm curious as to what your personal definition is there

[Troj]

45 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

As an aside, your use of "Liberals" is really interesting and I'm curious as to what your personal definition is there

Basically, I'm referring very broadly to people on the "Left" of the political spectrum--so, people who, in general, are in favor of reproductive choice and family planning, believe in the social safety net, are suspicious of Big Business and laissez-faire capitalism, want to protect the environment, and who are anti-sexism, anti-LGBTQism, and anti-racism (at least in theory). At the meta-level, liberals' decisions and ethics are driven largely by the values of Care and Equality.

I'm assuming here that not a lot of conservatives are going to be too enthusiastic about social justice, whereas most liberals will at least give it lip service.

I don't like the word "progressive" because I think the word "liberal" is still descriptive and dandy.

But, of course, not all liberals are cut from the same ideological or political cloth, and not all would prescribe the same solutions even to the problems they generally agree on. They also vary in how they prioritize various concerns, considerations, and ethical values.

TL;DR, "Liberal" was the simplest word I could think of to encompass folks who are generally on board with social justice.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Troj
One clarification and typo fix.

[Another Ampers&]

1 minute ago, Troj said:

Basically, I'm referring very broadly to people on the "Left" of the political spectrum--so, people who, in general, are in favor of reproductive choice and family planning, believe in the social safety net, are suspicious of Big Business and laissez-faire capitalism, want to protect the environment, and who are anti-sexism, anti-LGBTQism, and anti-racism (at least in theory). At the meta-level, liberals' decisions and ethics are driven largely by the values of Care and Equality.

I'm assuming here that not a lot of conservatives are going to be too enthusiastic about social justice, whereas most liberals will at least give it lip service.

I don't like the word "progressive" because I think the word "liberal" is still descriptive and dandy.

But, of course, not all liberal are cut from the same ideological or political cloth, and not all would prescribe the same solutions even to the problems they agree on.

I just find it interesting as someone who is in the left because we use "liberal" to describe people in the middle whose views aren't radical

[Troj]

12 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

I just find it interesting as someone who is in the left because we use "liberal" to describe people in the middle whose views aren't radical

How so? What's your point?

For me, "liberal" is a term that covers everything from left-of-center to far-left. "Conservative," likewise, covers everything from right-of-center to far-right.

For the sake of this conversation, we could also call the people I'm talking about "social justicey people," but that's awkward to say :D.

Radicalism falls on a spectrum, too, since generally-non-radical people can sometimes harbor a few radical or fringe beliefs or attitudes.

You just made me think about whether SJWs are actually liberals, though, because some of them (like the kids on Tumblr) seem narrowly focused on not causing offense or triggering, at the expense and/or exclusion of a lot of values and concerns that classical liberals hold very dear.

[Jtrekkie]

Single dimensional classifications have always been cumbersome. As long as there are two contrary principles it works, but the number of ways those principles can be developed is immense.

As it happens you usually have the same principles, more or less, with different degrees of importance attached to them, so it's best to just admit that the labels are cursory and go from there. 

[Another Ampers&]

26 minutes ago, Troj said:

How so? What's your point?

For me, "liberal" is a term that covers everything from left-of-center to far-left. "Conservative," likewise, covers everything from right-of-center to far-right.

For the sake of this conversation, we could also call the people I'm talking about "social justicey people," but that's awkward to say :D.

Radicalism falls on a spectrum, too, since generally-non-radical people can sometimes harbor a few radical or fringe beliefs or attitudes.

You just made me think about whether SJWs are actually liberals, though, because some of them (like the kids on Tumblr) seem narrowly focused on not causing offense or triggering, at the expense and/or exclusion of a lot of values and concerns that classical liberals hold very dear.

oh there's no point at all, it's just weird to me to see people being called liberals for being invested in social justice when I'm used to the term being used as a pejorative against ppl who aren't invested enough in it

[MalletFace]

Just now, Another Ampers& said:

oh there's no point at all, it's just weird to me to see people being called liberals for being invested in social justice when I'm used to the term being used as a pejorative against ppl who aren't invested enough in it

I'm on the extreme far left, and I really only see 'liberal' used to insult other leftists outside of the news.

I even teasingly call my communist friend a 'liberal tankie' despite him being neither a liberal nor a Stalinist.

[Butters]

2 hours ago, Troj said:

 

For another, it can be helpful to adjust your tactics to your audience. Jane Elliott likes to get up in people's faces, and based on what I've seen of her in action, sometimes that works to jolt people into awareness, and other times, it needlessly and excessively alienates or freaks out the person she's chosen to confront.

 

I'm pretty sure that's the point though. 

Honestly, I rather think the response to social justice (and its warriors lol) is very similar to how people react to the blue eye/brown eye test. People enamored with the status quo hate the boat being rocked and love silence for the oppressed and discriminated. Social Media has made it so that people can be heard all the time now. As long as it exists, so will sjws. They're a fact of life now.

Although, what some people call sjw's, I call slacktivists. I love a person who is really into social justice (even at the dinner table), but a person who just uses it to one up people in an argument? Different story. 

[Troj]

5 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

oh there's no point at all, it's just weird to me to see people being called liberals for being invested in social justice when I'm used to the term being used as a pejorative against ppl who aren't invested enough in it

Ohh, now I follow.

Yes, it is used as a pejorative, sadly. In reality, there's nothing wrong with being a liberal.

4 hours ago, Butters said:

I'm pretty sure that's the point though. 

Honestly, I rather think the response to social justice (and its warriors lol) is very similar to how people react to the blue eye/brown eye test. People enamored with the status quo hate the boat being rocked and love silence for the oppressed and discriminated. Social Media has made it so that people can be heard all the time now. As long as it exists, so will sjws. They're a fact of life now.

Although, what some people call sjw's, I call slacktivists. I love a person who is really into social justice (even at the dinner table), but a person who just uses it to one up people in an argument? Different story. 

Hence my argument that feeling offended or annoyed by SJWs is no excuse to reject social justice as a whole. Personally, I think a lot of people choose to seek out examples of SJWism to be scandalized and offended by, so that they can have an excuse to ignore the whole enchilada because it just plain makes them uncomfortable.

You're right that social media has permanently changed the name of the game.

And yes, most SJWs are essentially slacktivists or keyboard warriors who take themselves entirely too seriously.

 

 

[Red Lion]

 Most SJWs are also not sincere about their crusade of choice, they just want brownie points for being "good people". The tumblr culture aspect of social justice has made it necessary to weed through people who are just trying to cash in on some oppression credit and people who genuinely care and want to help. There are people jumping on causes because they fancy themselves some kind of progressive, forward thinking, rebel crusader so they go out of their way to antagonize the other side, often just for the sake of having an enemy to fight. As a result the opposition pushes back because no one likes hearing "you oppress me by existing!". 

Most of the resistance from the other side comes from the fact that people are more often ignorant than malicious and even the ones who aren't even ignorant they're just straight/white/cis/male often find themselves alienated and antagonized. So it's easier to brush the other side off as being a bunch of whiny bitches because that's what people do when they feel like they're being personally attacked. No one involved has really learned that if you treat someone like the enemy they will become your enemy. I think more people would be open to listening and caring if they weren't made to feel like the finger was being pointed directly at them as an individual. Then you have people who just look for reasons not to address an issue at all because they really are racist/homophobic/misogynistic. 

There's also this notion that being part of a minority makes you immune to expressing any kind of bigotry because the notion of privilege is often used as a bench marker for who is on the "good side" of the argument and who is on the "bad side". When you take something like social privilege and weaponize it to validate or vindicate a side you've tainted the message. People who claim to want equality on both sides of the argument just end up making bigger rifts because everything has become about "us vs them" and no one really wants to budge. 

Socio-economic inequalities are real and need recognition, but no one gets anywhere by turning it into an internet war.

[FlynnCoyote]

So I've been playing this since it came out pretty much. In that couple weeks or whatever, I've talked to about a dozen complete strangers while out walking. I usually walk to the shops about twenty minutes away to do grocery shopping after work, but I figure having PGO open on my way and back is the most convenient way to actually play the game while still technically doing something productive.

A few young kids have been playing it in my area. Nicest kids I've talked to in years, pointed me to a gastly that was only slightly out of my way to find. In return I put a lure on a stop near their house for them. They loved it. This was just a few days ago. Last week an older guy was getting into his car at the medical centre carpark I walk past and kindly let me know that there was an ekans and a pinsir just on the other side. A middle aged woman noticed me trying to catch a doduo and called out "get him!" just earlier today, at which point I noticed that she was playing it as well.

There is a dense cluster of stops in the mall and in the rec park nearby, and pretty much every day a group of students from the high school turns up and puts lures all around them, and cheers whenever they see people taking advantage of the area. It's perfect timing for when I and a lot of others get there after work and school. Two of the people I work with are on it as well, and they've both had similarly positive experiences with the game in public. It took a few days to get used to the idea, but for the most part people seem to have embraced it and even those around who don't play it don't seem to have any real enmity towards it.

At this point I'm gonna mention that the people I've mentioned above are of just about every ethnicity there is, black, arab, asian, white, and nobody seems to give a crap about that in the slightest. There is racism in Australia for sure, but PGO is doing nothing to add to it, and much I've seen around to have the opposite effect. So really it seems like this article is just a lame excuse of an attempt to scapegoat something popular. Because a nice big scapegoat is easier to point at than real problems, right? 

[#00Buck]

28 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

 Most SJWs are also not sincere about their crusade of choice, they just want brownie points for being "good people". The tumblr culture aspect of social justice has made it necessary to weed through people who are just trying to cash in on some oppression credit and people who genuinely care and want to help. There are people jumping on causes because they fancy themselves some kind of progressive, forward thinking, rebel crusader so they go out of their way to antagonize the other side, often just for the sake of having an enemy to fight. As a result the opposition pushes back because no one likes hearing "you oppress me by existing!". 

Most of the resistance from the other side comes from the fact that people are more often ignorant than malicious and even the ones who aren't even ignorant they're just straight/white/cis/male often find themselves alienated and antagonized. So it's easier to brush the other side off as being a bunch of whiny bitches because that's what people do when they feel like they're being personally attacked. No one involved has really learned that if you treat someone like the enemy they will become your enemy. I think more people would be open to listening and caring if they weren't made to feel like the finger was being pointed directly at them as an individual. Then you have people who just look for reasons not to address an issue at all because they really are racist/homophobic/misogynistic. 

There's also this notion that being part of a minority makes you immune to expressing any kind of bigotry because the notion of privilege is often used as a bench marker for who is on the "good side" of the argument and who is on the "bad side". When you take something like social privilege and weaponize it to validate or vindicate a side you've tainted the message. People who claim to want equality on both sides of the argument just end up making bigger rifts because everything has become about "us vs them" and no one really wants to budge. 

Socio-economic inequalities are real and need recognition, but no one gets anywhere by turning it into an internet war.

To treat people equally is to treat them in a dismissive and indifferent manner. 

This is because the things that biologically make you different really don't matter at all. 

If everyone is equal nobody is special. That drives some people crazy. Especially people who have no actual value. 

Being the sum of your biological characteristics is easy. Achieving things is difficult. 

Equality is about not caring about differences. 

[Azure]

4 hours ago, Red Lion said:

 Most SJWs are also not sincere about their crusade of choice, they just want brownie points for being "good people". The tumblr culture aspect of social justice has made it necessary to weed through people who are just trying to cash in on some oppression credit and people who genuinely care and want to help. There are people jumping on causes because they fancy themselves some kind of progressive, forward thinking, rebel crusader so they go out of their way to antagonize the other side, often just for the sake of having an enemy to fight. As a result the opposition pushes back because no one likes hearing "you oppress me by existing!". 

Most of the resistance from the other side comes from the fact that people are more often ignorant than malicious and even the ones who aren't even ignorant they're just straight/white/cis/male often find themselves alienated and antagonized. So it's easier to brush the other side off as being a bunch of whiny bitches because that's what people do when they feel like they're being personally attacked. No one involved has really learned that if you treat someone like the enemy they will become your enemy. I think more people would be open to listening and caring if they weren't made to feel like the finger was being pointed directly at them as an individual. Then you have people who just look for reasons not to address an issue at all because they really are racist/homophobic/misogynistic. 

There's also this notion that being part of a minority makes you immune to expressing any kind of bigotry because the notion of privilege is often used as a bench marker for who is on the "good side" of the argument and who is on the "bad side". When you take something like social privilege and weaponize it to validate or vindicate a side you've tainted the message. People who claim to want equality on both sides of the argument just end up making bigger rifts because everything has become about "us vs them" and no one really wants to budge. 

Socio-economic inequalities are real and need recognition, but no one gets anywhere by turning it into an internet war.

Bloody well said. 

[Endless/Nameless]

[Tsuujou]

1 hour ago, Azure said:

Bloody well said. 

He's pretty good at talkin. 

[Red Lion]

24 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

He's pretty good at talkin. 

 

1 hour ago, Azure said:

Bloody well said. 

Aw, well thank y'all

[willow]

I saw this article a few days after the game came out, and while I don't really like how the information is being presented or the exaggeration, I also get what it's at least trying to say

[MalletFace]

6 hours ago, #00Buck said:

This is because the things that biologically make you different really don't matter at all. 

If everyone is equal nobody is special. That drives some people crazy. Especially people who have no actual value. 

Being the sum of your biological characteristics is easy. Achieving things is difficult. 

Equality is about not caring about differences. 

You search for objective and descriptive meaning and comment that others are worthless when they use one of the more widely accepted prescriptive and subjective definitions. How is that helpful?

Equality has a long tradition in Abrahamic religious law, and the definition you use bears a resemblance to those ancient ideals. Where they suggested "Equality in the eyes of God," you suggest "Equality in the eyes of value." While the definition attempts to be objective, it ultimately fails in reaching that goal by invoking another abstract. Who - if this is the definition of equality - is to define God?

As persons realized that the power to define 'God' and 'God's will' rested perpetually in the hands of clergy, they moved on to suggest another similar definition, "Equality in the eyes of the law." From this point, it was pertinent to ask, "Who is to define the law?"

Again, persons realized that the power to define 'law' rested in the hands of those of the government, especially the nobility. From this point, one sees an explosion in definitions of 'equality.' As prescriptive equality is largely a philosophical, all of the proposed definitions are highly subjective. One can hardly even say that all humans possess an "Equality of humanity" before another suggests that some people may be less 'human' than others. Who is to define humanity?

The best questions I can ask you about your definition are "Who defines value?" and "Who defines difference?"

6 hours ago, #00Buck said:

To treat people equally is to treat them in a dismissive and indifferent manner.

Dismissive is opposite indifference. One cannot be both indifferent to a person and dismissive of that person. I have been indifferent to most of the posts in this thread, but I have yet to be dismissive of any of them. I think them all worth consideration, but I've yet to become involved with most of them.

[#00Buck]

47 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

You search for objective and descriptive meaning and comment that others are worthless when they use one of the more widely accepted prescriptive and subjective definitions. How is that helpful?

Equality has a long tradition in Abrahamic religious law, and the definition you use bears a resemblance to those ancient ideals. Where they suggested "Equality in the eyes of God," you suggest "Equality in the eyes of value." While the definition attempts to be objective, it ultimately fails in reaching that goal by invoking another abstract. Who - if this is the definition of equality - is to define God?

As persons realized that the power to define 'God' and 'God's will' rested perpetually in the hands of clergy, they moved on to suggest another similar definition, "Equality in the eyes of the law." From this point, it was pertinent to ask, "Who is to define the law?"

Again, persons realized that the power to define 'law' rested in the hands of those of the government, especially the nobility. From this point, one sees an explosion in definitions of 'equality.' As prescriptive equality is largely a philosophical, all of the proposed definitions are highly subjective. One can hardly even say that all humans possess an "Equality of humanity" before another suggests that some people may be less 'human' than others. Who is to define humanity?

The best questions I can ask you about your definition are "Who defines value?" and "Who defines difference?"

Dismissive is opposite indifference. One cannot be both indifferent to a person and dismissive of that person. I have been indifferent to most of the posts in this thread, but I have yet to be dismissive of any of them. I think them all worth consideration, but I've yet to become involved with most of them.

I'm glad to see the old pastime of picking peanuts out of poo has not gone out of fashion.