There is a lot of misogyny in gaming as women slowly enter a male-dominated realm with zero personal interaction or consequences.
So the Incel problem then
- Thread starter Dystopia
- Start date
- Status
hell, I'm a guy and I stick to single player games. When I tried wading into multiplayer years ago, 5 minutes of being smeared instantly by some foul-mouthed aspie 14-year-old convinced me I didn't want to waste my time interacting with those horrible examples of "people." I can't even begin to imagine what women experience in that environment.
Well considering that lots of other people get banned for all sorts of stupid reasons, including for things that a reasonable person wouldn't necessarily conclude are banned from reading the rules, people tend to get irate about blatant rule violations going unpunished. What they are doing is clearly and unambiguously prohibited by Twitch's ToS, and yet it's people who criticise them who get banned. Shit, you can't even criticise it on other sites without people getting uppity. Can you even come up with a reason they should be allowed to continue what they're doing, where they're doing it?
You gonna make that argument in defence of a man sexually exploiting minor girls? Considering how much flak I got for suggesting giving 14 year old boys prostitutes to aid their development, this argument you're making is ludicrous. But then, that proposal was for their benefit, whereas these lowlifes are exploiting teenage boys for profit, so that apparently makes it okay.
Pray tell, do you support Antifa?
No, it is the thing that defines the alt-right. If you are not an ethno-nationalist, you are not alt-right. It may come as a shock to you, but there's a wide range of people opposed to progressives, not just the alt-right. In fact the alt-right are mostly opposed to you because you're a competing faction, not for philosophical reasons. GG and Milo are not alt-right. Hell, Milo is a liberal. Lumping all the different anti-SJW groups into the alt-right is simply a lie.
Why? Did I hit too close to home?
You've posted all sorts of racist things here. Things that if you took your quotes and subbed in "Jews" for where you said "white", it'd be something Richard Spencer would endorse.
thunderous_funker":1c71z2rm said:
Isn't this shit that feminists are normally outraged against? In fact they should join the incels in shutting down the titty streams, seeing as they have a common interest here, albeit not for the same reasons.
Who cares what's in decades old movies? How's that relevant?
That's what the mute button is for. Even in the short period where games had built-in voice comms, but no mute function it wasn't that bad. It was the shit, off key singing that was the real problem.
If I were talking to a child, I would patiently explain:
1) Twitch rules are there to protect Twitch, not to define what is and isn't streamed. In particular, clearly subjective Terms of Service are there to give power to the service provider, not the users of the service.
2) Twitch likes to make money, and I would assume that streamers like the ones you find so upsetting are making them a lot of money
3) When whining to a service provider that "my feelings are hurt by someone exposing their bare skin on their Twitch channel, BAN THIS FILTH!!!1!!", it helps if you can show that actual harm is being done, not artificial outrage that women exist and have bodies
4) Trolls and whiners in someone's channel actually do lose Twitch money, because they make channels unpleasant to be in. This means that actual well-adjusted denizens of the internet are less likely to frequent them with their spending money, and streamers are more likely to quit.
If I were talking to an adult, I would have to resort to, "just how stultifyingly naive ARE you?".
But I have good news for you! My wife is a Twitch streamer, as I've mentioned before, and last week she told her channel the story about her friends reacting to a parental command to 'have a friend who owns a penis with you in the car when you drive at night' by stashing a dildo by the passenger seat.
No hordes of bewildered teenagers emptied their wallets at her channel, nor committed suicide in a miasma of sexually suggestive confusion.
I think Twitch might be able to cope, even if angry, gullible incels cannot.
Antifa doesn't exist in our country, so there's nothing to support?
But if it did, sure. Anti-fascism is exactly what the US needs right now.
What does this have to do with incels, unless you're implying that incels as a group are pro-fascist?
This is pretty much the standard for anything somebody disagrees with. Or rather if you have enough people involved somebody is going to go for B and C. How you feel about the person and the content in question depends on how OK you are with C. For example, very few people shed any tears when people went after Alex Jones with C, and Got YouTube, Apple, and Facebook to shut him down. Sure everybody could have just "Walked away and not frequented his channel" but that's not how people work.
So the people at rallies that claim to be part of Antifa are just cosplayers or just really like the look and are lying when they claim to be part of Antifa?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
Not going to repost it but there are 7 paragraphs of Antifa doing stuff in the USA in that link.
That article is strongly conflating Antifa with normal protesters or Resist protesters, and also points out that a large chunk of Antifa social activity is actually fake news literally spread by Russia.
To be clearer, I should have said "doen't exist in any scale that matters", or "functionally doesn't exist". Antifa as used is almost exclusively a made-up bogeyman by the Right to excuse thier increasing violence.
At best, it can be used as an umbrella definition for loosely organized groups that all have the same general aim, to confront fascism. If that's the definition we're using, it's nearly useless as one, as that makes essentially anyone protesting the current trends in politics "antifa". Which makes me Antifa.
But agian, what's the relevance to incels?
To be clearer, I should have said "doen't exist in any scale that matters", or "functionally doesn't exist". Antifa as used is almost exclusively a made-up bogeyman by the Right to excuse thier increasing violence.
At best, it can be used as an umbrella definition for loosely organized groups that all have the same general aim, to confront fascism. If that's the definition we're using, it's nearly useless as one, as that makes essentially anyone protesting the current trends in politics "antifa". Which makes me Antifa.
But agian, what's the relevance to incels?
Indeed. But I would argue that there is a difference in impact between Alex Jones trying to sway people's political beliefs on the basis of factually incorrect information, and a Twitch streamer playing video games and you can't quite see her nipples. Context being a thing.
I've barely ever watched a twitch stream, but I have a daughter that gets enormous amusement out of them. What exactly are they doing that's got you so bothered? How are they violating the terms of service? Isn't it up to Twitch's management to decide what is and isn't allowed on the site whether or not it technically violates Twitch's TOS?
Are they doing something that if done by a man would be illegal/immoral/not allowed on Twitch?
And lastly, why does it bother you?
Why are you addressing a shitty snipe on its dubious merits? He just wants to get a rise out of people and distract from his terrible arguments.
The shit that really should be addressed is his dumb assertion that only ethno-nationalists are alt-right. He leaves out a huge segment of pro-tradition and backwards looking sexists.
You're going to have to expand on this a little. You seem to want to say adult women are exploiting minors by showing skin on Twitch, which somehow forces those minors to go steal to tip. Did I misunderstand this?
Sure that gets into your response and which option you pick entirely depends on how you view the thing in question. Which is how we decide most things.
Getting a limb amputated is generally a bad thing and not a good solution to a splinter in your finger, but if it's to save you life, suddenly your view of the same action becomes completely different.
*shrug* it seemed to me to be the mindset that women are at fault men's bad behavior. That's what gets you burqas and niqabs.
I'm not sure what I'm meant to be responding to here. 'People react to things differently' is an accurate statement, but I clearly am not comfortable adopting a sanguine 'all outcomes are the same' reaction in this case.
My point is that the reaction of 'force this person out of their employment/hobby/pastime because I don't like that they're showing some skin' is not, for want of a better term, a proportional response, nor a healthy one. And I believe it to be a revealing choice given that these people are presumably not crusading around other channels trying to get streamers banned who make sexually suggestive 'jokes' about joysticks and whatnot. Hell, I've seen CohhCarnage make some perfectly dad-joke level sexually suggestive comments, and I'm pretty sure hordes of incels aren't complaining to Twitch about it.
These people are targeting women because they're women, and because they're showing skin (which reminds incels of what they don't 'have', and continues to force them to face the fact that it's mostly their own choices that have made that the case), and because showing skin makes incels think "ah-ha, we can get them by the rules!"
My confidence that their reaction is the wrong one, and the unhealthy one both for themselves and for the women they're targeting, is pretty much 100%. I will concede the right of other people to think differently, but not forgo my right to point out that many of those people are full of shit.
In general, I agree with your opinion. I would say women who are acting sexual suggestively to teenagers may not be the best way for them to learn about opposite sex. However, that is rank very low on my worry. It There are streamers who acts like asshole and online porn is readily available anyways.
It is really about what is the business vision of Twitch. Do they want to be family friendly or not. Do they want to be the brand that parents can trust.
I don't think Twitch has ever aspired to be a family friendly brand. Twitch chat being a toxic cesspool isn't an idea that just gets invented out of whole cloth. I'm also 100% positive that people crusading against streamers like Alinity are not doing so because they want Twitch to be a brand that "parents can trust".
I agree, that's definitely Twitch's right to choose how their brand is defined. Logging on to Twitch just now, I see the following games being broadcast, uncensored (as far as I know):
Dead by Daylight, a game about a serial killer dispatching innocents in certain gruesome ways
Doom, where you literally rip open enemies in melee for bonuses
Mortal Kombat X, a game that made over the top violence famous for literally decades
God of War
Sleeping Dogs
Grand Theft Auto V
. . . and on, and on, and on . . .
I think Twitch has decided how important it is to be family-friendly, and if watching people being ripped apart in a spray of viscera and gore is OK, I think almost any reasonable person could agree that women playing video games while wearing less clothing than is strictly necessary, and discussing things as awful as consenting sexual behaviour, could be tolerated.
But incels can't. I think we all know why.
Twitch is still a relatively new technology. Parents can install blockers to block porn with great ease, but I don't know if the same is true for violent games or sexually suggestive content.
Twitch is not a good environment for teenagers to learn about how to interact with other human beings though. I think it may actually encourage more red pill behavior given how some popular streamers act on stream. It is ultimately parents' responsibility but Twitch should also add better parental control.
To be fair, because of the culture in the USA a game about people violently killing other people would be far more accepted to have their kids play then a game that is other wise non-violent but has a partial nudity sex scene in it. That said there is zero chance the Incels going with "won't somebody think of the children" is anything but a smoke screen for their actual motivations.
Yeah, I mean the incel logic isn't that hard to ascertain.
1. Hot women should want me, but don't because [shitbrained reasoning redacted].
2. That hot woman on Twitch is just RIGHT FUCKING THERE TAUNTING ME WITH HER BOOBIES!!! And MAKING FUCKING MONEY!!!
3. Imma fuck her up for not wanting to fuck me.
That's it.
1. Hot women should want me, but don't because [shitbrained reasoning redacted].
2. That hot woman on Twitch is just RIGHT FUCKING THERE TAUNTING ME WITH HER BOOBIES!!! And MAKING FUCKING MONEY!!!
3. Imma fuck her up for not wanting to fuck me.
That's it.
My take is either thing (provide prostitutes and borderline cam girls) is bad for the children. However, providing prostitutes is actively enabling. Cam girls is just hard to prevent. Ideally, you want to teach the kids sex is not everything and everyone is equal before all these influence happen.
Nekojin and I can both go solo with femme avatars... and he'll get more gold/gear/etc out of idiots than I will. We both think it's hilarious.
No. We're not normally outraged against women choosing to use their physical assets to earn money any more than we are about women choosing to be stay at home mothers and homemakers.
Only fools who don't have the first clue about what the term "empowerment" actually means have problems with that sort of thing.
I saw this on harassment campaigns against women content creators. When contacted by the author of the article, the author of a harassment tool called "ThotBot" said "If I had it my way they would all face the death penality. Including you [the article's author]".
From a feminist perspective the male gaze is the depiction in media of everything (but especially women) from a cishet male perspective and presents women as objects for the fetishistic titillation of the cishet male viewer. This doesn't deny feminine sexuality or the legitimacy of sex work, if indeed that's what this is, it's a critique of our current defaults in media. From that perspective the fact that the media you're talking about represent a feminine perspective is actually an important distinction and a positive one from a feminist perspective, as is the fact that it's the women themselves producing the content, and that they're the ones making money from it. It is these same distinctions, I think, that make incels apoplectic with rage and prompt these harassment campaigns.
I think maybe you need to listen to some feminists. Or rather I think that more than I already did, which was a lot. I think something of an introduction is needed here, not because I think you'll listen but because I want to foreclose any attempt at plausible deniability for your ignorance.
From a feminist perspective the male gaze is the depiction in media of everything (but especially women) from a cishet male perspective and presents women as objects for the fetishistic titillation of the cishet male viewer. This doesn't deny feminine sexuality or the legitimacy of sex work, if indeed that's what this is, it's a critique of our current defaults in media. From that perspective the fact that the media you're talking about represent a feminine perspective is actually an important distinction and a positive one from a feminist perspective, as is the fact that it's the women themselves producing the content, and that they're the ones making money from it. It is these same distinctions, I think, that make incels apoplectic with rage and prompt these harassment campaigns.
Now that Wired article is a bit more illuminating as to the goings-on of the situation here. Looks like payment providers (e.g. PayPal) are blocking female users for violating the ToS because they're using it for payment and the incels are reporting them. Dystopia, I am curious as to your take on it. I watched a few minutes of that Tim Pool video you posted; I didn't watch all of it because it was rather long but early on he focused in on the IRS bit saying that it didn't really matter because the IRS isn't going to actually audit any streamer because of online comments. But this PayPal thing is demonstrable harm. You seem to be directing much anger towards the women taking over Twitch (as well as many of the commenters on that Tim Pool video) and that seems extremely misguided. Seems like you should only be upset at Twitch for creating a platform you don't like. LIkewise, should anything be done about this PayPal thing? Should payment providers be allowed to take close someone's account and take their money just based on their ToS rather than the legality of the user's activities? I think that's an interesting question similar to when (hopefully I have the details of the story straight) CloudFlare dumped StormFront. Is it simply them choosing to deal or not deal with customers based on certain criteria? Should they have that right? It seems to me that there's a gap in the space of payment providers if none are willing to allow camgirls to operate. Also I'm pretty uncomfortable with allowing a company to close an account and just absorb someone's funds. (Sorry if this was confusing; I don't post very much)
There's no fixing what's wrong with them... I don't think it's even about sex at that point they're just very mad that women can get paid for anything or be attracted to.
also this whole thing looks like folks getting energized to be used by some Steve Bannon come 2020, kind of like GG.
also this whole thing looks like folks getting energized to be used by some Steve Bannon come 2020, kind of like GG.
Personally I have no problem with companies having standards and rules and banning people because they don't follow the rules. Nobody is entitled to PayPal and as long as the company in question isn't violating any laws, they can refuse to do business with people if they want. In this case, I don't think it's "right" for them just to pocket the funds, but returning them to the original sender would be fine.
Well what was going on is that they had a policy of allowing it until reported, which is problematic because of these idiot self-invented mujaheddin. This way they could handle cam girl revenue streams without officially allowing explicit content.
By the way for the actual hate speech they had a policy of allowing it until it makes enormous media news and Trump's a president and you're rethinking your objectives and someone else ditched the hate speech site first and now you look bad for not following the suit.
edit: I was wondering, maybe there's actual sexuality difference with these guys? It really seems like Dystopia here for example is very jealous of the attention camgirls get. It obviously isn't about sex with women, because they're anti prostitution and practically pro burqa as if they're some islamic extremists. Worth thinking about. Maybe they're jealous of attention from other men that women get.
By the way for the actual hate speech they had a policy of allowing it until it makes enormous media news and Trump's a president and you're rethinking your objectives and someone else ditched the hate speech site first and now you look bad for not following the suit.
edit: I was wondering, maybe there's actual sexuality difference with these guys? It really seems like Dystopia here for example is very jealous of the attention camgirls get. It obviously isn't about sex with women, because they're anti prostitution and practically pro burqa as if they're some islamic extremists. Worth thinking about. Maybe they're jealous of attention from other men that women get.
Pocketing the frozen funds is out-and-out theft, and I'm honestly not sure how they get away with it. Hopefully someone decides to file a class-action suite against them.
That's like saying Ars Technica allows people to hurl personal insults at people until somebody reports it. It's against the rules, but they don't have the staff large enough to monitor every thread so stuff happens until somebody brings it up to the mods. That's pretty much the rule for anything that's too large to have everything they do monitored. Things happen, even if they are against the rules, until somebody points it out to them.
The Incels aren't inventing the rules, and the rules are certainly there, but Paypal and the like either don't care or more likely they don't have the manpower to monitor every single transaction to see if it's for-pay porn. Once somebody points it out, they enforce the rules on them.
Or to quote, maybe somewhat off but the intent is the same, a line from a Basketball movie. "Everybody knows it's not a foul if the refs don't blow their whistle."
Yeah, but I don't imagine the people involved want to be tied to a class action suit of "Paypay pocketed the money I was giving to a girl under the table in the hopes that she'd flash her breasts at me."
That said, I'm curious if they pocketed the money in the pipe line for Alex Jones or just refunded it.
I've been warning people about PayPal for years, and refuse to do business with them. I know a lot of artists who have gotten their assets frozen by PayPal during an "investigation" and the like. They've had this practice for over a decade. They keep wanting to act like a bank without being regulated like one, too.
"Don't think it's right" is kind of an understatement isn't it? That money wasn't given to PayPal to do whatever they want with. It was credited to an account that belongs to the payee. If PayPal takes it, that's theft and they should be prosecuted for it.
"Act like x but pretend we're not" sounds like pretty much every service that's started up out of Silly Valley.
- Status