Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
  1. #281
    Warchief Beet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Who me?
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Utrrabbit View Post
    What the actual fuck are you talking about. Are you one of "those" people.

    I will make this extremely clear to you. So even someone with such a small brain can understand. The statement was saying they will be hiring based on if you are best for the job not for what your race, sex, religion or gender identification is. I also have news for you so you can understand this. Currently the gaming msrket is dominated by white males. Not because they have the skills or the knowledge, only cause they are white and a male. This is just a fact. And for you to even come on here a spew that crap is hypocritical bs.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You mean old blizz that had the actual sexual preditors and are the main reason this happened.

    You are smart.
    I mean the old blizzard that made games people like myself loved. That’s the old Blizzard I mean. Ya know. The ones who gave us WC3, Diablo 2, and WoW vanilla thru Cata. I am smart thanks. I just like playing fun games

  2. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by Rozz View Post
    You guys never talk about the actual news Jesus.

    As this thread was posted in MMO-Champion's NEWS section... this statement is strange.

  3. #283
    Moderator Rozz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,891
    Quote Originally Posted by KOUNTERPARTS View Post
    As this thread was posted in MMO-Champion's NEWS section... this statement is strange.
    Then you don't read the comments here often lol
    The news section turns into a contest for worst take in the thread after a few pages if even.
    Moderator of the General Off-Topic, Politics, Lore, and RP Forums
    "If you have any concerns, let me know via PM. I'll do my best to assist you."

  4. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    Oh of course he's smart - not more so than everyone else though (just his target audience). And he knows exactly how to tap into his that audience. But he is horribly misguided. I would hazard that if you have never seen anyone someone convince you against his arguments, it's not necessarily to do with the strength of the argument



    Screw you too. I would be happy to counter-argue any of his shit, but I was answering the assertion that he "has some interesting points"

    - - - Updated - - -



    It's the ideologies that he promotes that make him evil because they are extremely harmful to many people.



    Not true. When I first heard of the guy I went and did a bit of reading about him. And I was horrified.



    JP inspires zealotry and hate and taps into fear and insecurity.




    WE did not. Science does this itself. Today every inept Tom, Dick and Harry with zero expertise in science believes they're somehow equipped to add constructively to the debates of the day. This is why we have such ridiculous debates on issues (eg climate change, Covid vaccines) that really should not be debates at all anymore because there is pretty much a massive consensus among those who have competence/expertise on the subject.



    You don't know me. So I don't think you're in a position to make that assessment.
    You where literally calling him evil

  5. #285
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    Lets start with your first claim "Forced monogamy" .... You know dam well that Peterson doesn't prescribe to the "Forced monogamy" that you are trying to use to character assassinate him.
    Interesting that you should say that given that I didn't go into ANY detail at all on what I believe his take on "forced monogamy" is. Conveniently though you have provided the exact definition of it which I was referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    So lets get started... this is directly from Peterson.

    My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure as (let’s say) hinted at in Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.

    It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name).

    Here’s something intelligent about the issue, written by antiquark2 on reddit (after the NYT piece appeared and produced its tempest in a tea pot): “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”

    As antiquark2 points out, “for decades.” My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings. I might also add: anyone serious about decreasing violence against women (or violence in general) might think twice about dismissing the utility of monogamy (and social support for the monogamous tendency) as a means to attain that end.

    Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

    The Competition–Violence Hypothesis: Sex, Marriage, and Male Aggression

    “men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”
    Ok, I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you're genuine in your desire for an intelligent discussion about this rather than that you're just trying to push an agenda.

    I don't disagree with any of the facts or research on the topic of, let's call it, "the benefits of a monogamous society". First off, it makes intuitive sense to me, secondly this is an area in which JP clearly has expertise and he has leaned on many other experts. But that doesn't mean I agree with his argument as a whole.

    My first issue with his argument is that it is devoid of the counter arguments. It's great to expound the benefits of something, but before promoting that as a solution, you have to look at the cons as well.

    My second issue with his argument is how it will be received by his intended audience. Peterson can shout at the top of his lungs all he likes that he isn't trying to justify male violence, but the simple fact is that MRA and incel and red pill types will read his message as a justification for their anger. It creates a sense of entitlement (to sex with women) among those men and detracts from personal responsibility for one's actions. This in turn undermines the concept of consent, and promotes rape culture. It just makes the situation worse. And the beauty of the whole thing is that when things do explode, he gets to say "told you so" without ever having to accept responsibility for his part in fanning the proverbial flames.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
    This doesn't constitute a rational justification for forced monogamy though. We used to live in a society that had socially enforced monogamy. But it came with a myriad of problems that our forebears had to fight to overcome in the free world (some places, like Saudi Arabia still have it and continue to justify it on the basis of basically what JP is arguing). Yes, I can totally agree that moving our society away from enforcing monogamy brings with it certain problems. But we don't solve those problems by reverting to a previous state which had even worse problems.

    The problem with Peterson's argument here is not about identifying the problem. I think there is a lot of merit in his analysis thereof. The problem is in his proposed solution which is even worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    [B]No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).
    I never suggested he advocated this. But in the end it's what will happen. He is advocating for society to enforce that kind of morality. When a lot of people back that idea, it becomes something they vote for. In the same way that conservative Americans have managed to succeed in making things like gay marriage and abortion illegal, so too will they make it illegal to not be monogamous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.
    Oh the irony that JP and his acolytes get upset at the notion that he is suggesting this. Because he loves to use slippery slope arguments when fighting against political correctness. If societal enforcement of monogamy as a means of addressing the problem of male aggression happens, this is exactly the slippery slope we'll find ourselves on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.
    Sure. But at what cost? We don't even have to extrapolate to figure that out. Just look at history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    denial of the existence of gender discrimination ? - Prove it , because it is not true.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

    At around 5:40.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    his attacks on the transgender community ? Completely wrong, the amazing transgender woman in this video agrees and takes Peterson's side the entire time against the 31 gender lunatics on the other side, I assume you side with them.
    I am not trans. But every trans person I know has a massive problem with JP. The fact that the odd trans person here and there agrees with him doesn't change the fact that vast majority have a serious bone to pick with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    His thoughts on BLM : Youtube - "Jordan Peterson on Black Lives Matter & Identity Politics" 71k views
    Ironically I hadn't meant to point to JP on this, simply using the "all lives matter" phenomenon as an analogy.

    But yeah, haven't to this, I am again reminded of why I think JP is such a repugnant character. He is full of sympathy for the right-wing racist, but utterly scathing of the victims.

    Look. He is not wrong that a movement like BLM has the potential to cause a great deal of harm, essentially through mob mentality. But the fact is that the BLM movement has a very legitimate reason for existing. Black Americans are prejudiced against in a very significant way. Yes, they may be angry, and yes, rioting is not constructive. But when people like JP and this Candice Owens woman (whom I have never heard of before, but is the subject in the clip) essentially hand wave away their grievance and instead point the finger....well what the fuck do you expect? It can only make the situation worse (and conveniently help to make JP's predictions materialise - it's basically a self fulfilling prophecy).

    If JP was a good human being, instead of an evil one (if I am generous, maybe I can concede to him simply being arrogant and misguided - which is almost as bad), he would start with compassion with the victims of racially motivated police brutality. He would not try to rationalise the phenomenon as being the fault of the victims, nor would he immediately try to paint them as "the real danger" because of their retaliation.

    This is the massive problem with his openly stated position as an opponent of political correctness: He refuses to acknowledge the reasons why political correctness became necessary in the first place. Instead he chooses only to attack it, without ever bothering to suggest addressing the underlying problem in a better way. And in so doing he is creating antagonism, and influencing people to become more divisive. His stated objective of trying to save the world from evil, but he is a big part of the problem.


    A few other points: JP often likes to tout his qualification as a "clinical psychologist" as an argument of authority. But I can tell you right now that most clinical psychologists do not agree with him. His method of argumentation may be strongly influenced by his expertise as such, but his conclusions are heavily biased by his own personal viewpoint which, to use his words, results in corruption.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    You where literally calling him evil
    Yes, and I stand by that.

    PS: In response to that bit about The Handmaid's Tale. Every time I see JP speaking, I cannot help but think of Commander Waterford. I wouldn't be surprised in Joseph Fiennes modeled his character on JP.
    Last edited by Raelbo; 2022-01-25 at 03:22 PM.

  6. #286
    In other words... we're sorry we've had people who allegedly harassed our employees, employees that are now making bad content and games or are not making them at all, so we'll hire more women, alphabet people and people of color while laying off hundreds of others - said groups of people included - during record profits. Every developer update will feature developers of mixed backgrounds and they'll have a rainbow shirt whenever they talk to you, in order to make us look good. This is our promise to you.

    And truly, this is how it is.
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2022-01-25 at 03:46 PM.

  7. #287
    The Insane Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    19,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob4453 View Post
    Rl
    You can't give one example of the crap you say. "JP inspires zealotry and hate and taps into fear and insecurity." I say bullshit ! Prove it ! You cant ! hahaha.
    This is a pretty easy ask all you have to do is look at the topic that actually made him blow up on the internet being bill C16 and how he lied to play into the fear people had about compelled speech and hate of trans folk.

    The only reason you or any one else online even know who he is was because of said fear and hate surrounding a bill that he wasn’t only lying about but was already in effect on a provincial level where he worked.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  8. #288
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    In other words... we're sorry we've had people who allegedly harassed our employees, employees that are now making bad content and games or are not making them at all, so we'll hire more women, alphabet people and people of color while laying off hundreds of others - said groups of people included - during record profits. Every developer update will feature developers of mixed backgrounds and they'll have a rainbow shirt whenever they talk to you, in order to make us look good. This is our promise to you.
    You think you're being smart and funny. But really you're the opposite.

    Now I am not going to try argue that most attempts to achieve employment equity aren't fraught with problems. What I will say is that I find it hard to understand how it is that people fail to recognise that a lack of equity in the workplace is a massive red flag. Aside from the obvious social imbalances this highlights, it also strongly suggests that the organisations employing those people are biased, more likely than not, in a way that detracts from attaining the best people for the job.

    Think of it this way: If you start with the understanding that innate ability to do the sort of job that employees at a company like Blizzard need to do are proportionally distributed across racial and gender lines, then it stands to reason that if you want the best people for the job, you should be recruiting along those same lines. The fact that a company like Blizzard employs a disproportionately large number of males compared to females, and a disproportionately large number of people from certain demographics simply indicates an opportunity to tap into a bigger talent pool.

    And the fact that currently the state of trained professionals is skewed across those lines again represents an opportunity for the industry as a whole to tap into those sources.
    Last edited by Raelbo; 2022-01-25 at 04:39 PM.

  9. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    Now I am not going to try argue that most attempts to achieve employment equity aren't fraught with problems. What I will say is that I find it hard to understand how it is that people fail to recognise that a lack of equity in the workplace is a massive red flag. Aside from the obvious social imbalances this highlights, it also strongly suggests that the organisations employing those people are biased, more likely than not, in a way that detracts from attaining the best people for the job.
    I am not targeting equity in any way; equity is something that is expectable and should come naturally. Equity has got nothing to do with the ratio of males and females, whites and blacks, heterosexuals and homosexuals that are employed by a company.

    I look at everyone as my equal and I don't divide people into categories; everyone deserves the same opportunity. More people of one group getting more positions than any others in a specific profession doesn't mean there's discrimination at hand. For example, the gaming industry has long been male dominated because gaming has long been a mainly male hobby and interest. This is changing, but it still more popular among males. This then leads to a bigger number of interested and inspired new hires also being male. This also applies to motorsport, fishing, mining and other areas.

    Many scoff at the mention of what I wrote above, like it's an alien concept that nobody can understand or observe no matter where they turn. It is a hard fact that is problematic only to those who use their identity as a card of entry or those who wish to discriminate others based on the traits they were born with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo
    Think of it this way: If you start with the understanding that innate ability to do the sort of job that employees at a company like Blizzard need to do are proportionally distributed across racial and gender lines
    And why would anyone start with that understanding? The innate ability/talent that you mention doesn't depend on one's color, sex or sexual orientation, which is why you shouldn't assume that talent is equally spread along race and sex. At no point can it be true that talent is equally distributed among all populations along racial and sexual identity. It is mathematically impossible or, should I say, improbable. At no point has Blizzard barred females, blacks, homosexuals or whoever else falls under these groups of people from working at Blizzard.

    It is common sense that everyone that exists on our planet should be in the "talent pool", so long as they apply for the job. The fact that more white males get jobs in the gaming industry doesn't mean there's discrimination at hand. It is discrimination to at one point say "we've had enough of white males", just like it would be discrimination to say that "we've got enough female nurses in our hospital, the next 10 hires must be male to balance the ratio of female-to-male nurses".

    What you should say is that every group of people on Earth can, under the right and fair circumstances, be eligible for a job at Blizzard, but whether they are or aren't should have nothing to do with race and sex. The fact that certain communities, whether they're white or black, excell at certain things while being bad at others, has a lot to do with personal interest, knowledge and work ethic. These are circumstantial and depend on external factors that span an individual's entire life; said individual being male, female, white or black won't change the way they were formed in terms of their interests, goals and work ethic. A white kid that grew up in the suburbs, playing video games all day with their friends, is going to have a higher chance to be interested in a career in gaming than a black kid that spent his days playing basketball with their friends, who will in turn have a higher chance of being an NBA star. These are choices and opportunities Blizzard can't magically change, unless they intend to rewrite reality(no pun intended at Zovaal) in order to equally spread opportunities and hobbies across all groups of people globally.

    What I am ridiculing and will continue to ridicule is Blizzard continously accentuating these differences between humans.
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2022-01-25 at 05:31 PM.

  10. #290
    Blizzard. We dont care of you got developers with beards and high eels.

    No one cares except the guy on high eels.

    We want good games. Made by competent individuals.

  11. #291
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    More people of one group getting more positions than any others in a specific profession doesn't mean there's discrimination at hand.
    I chose not to use the word "Discrimination" but since you want to use it, I would argue that such a situation is definitely indicative of a form of discrimination. It may not be intentional or sinister like some other forms of discrimination, but it is pretty clear that women and people of racial minorities are at a disadvantage when it comes to making it into this profession. And given that this disadvantage correlates with gender and race, that is pretty clearly unfair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    For example, the gaming industry has long been male dominated because gaming has long been a mainly male hobby and interest. This is changing, but it still more popular among males.
    But stop and think about why this is. I know some people want to believe that it has something to do with the "natural order" or some similar drivel, but if you're being honest, you'll recognise that this is simply the result of where we come from with regards to societally assigned gender roles. Society used to dictate that certain activities were exclusively the male domain and vice versa. And while this has been steadily changing over the last century, it's still a lot more present in reality than many people would care to admit. Because while the laws in most western democracies have changed, the attitudes within communities and families and religions still lag behind. And most people don't even realise because it is what we grew up with up and have grown to consider is normal and natural.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    This then leads to a bigger number of interested and inspired new hires also being male. This also applies to motorsport, fishing, mining and other areas.
    The fact that it exists does not make it right. It simply demonstrates that our society is not yet as enlightened as we want to believe it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Many scoff at the mention of what I wrote above, like it's an alien concept that nobody can understand or observe no matter where they turn. It is a hard fact that is problematic only to those who use their identity as a card of entry or those who wish to discriminate others based on the traits they were born with.
    As a white male, I have been blessed to have been able to do the job I was born to do. Being that my profession is a male dominated field (engineering) I know several female colleagues who had to fight a lot harder than me to get where they are. And it is pretty clear that a lot of other females born to be engineers were unable to overcome those obstacles that I never had to face. So please don't condescending try and claim that it's not problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    And why would anyone start with that understanding? The innate ability/talent that you mention doesn't depend on one's color, sex or sexual orientation, which is why you shouldn't assume that talent is equally spread along race and sex.
    That's a straight up contradiction. If sex/race/sexual orientation have zero bearing on innate ability, then statistically anyone, regardless of their demographics should have an equal chance of possessing said innate ability. Across a large population you should therefore expect the talent pool to be spread proportionally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    At no point can it be true that talent is equally distributed among all populations along racial and sexual identity. It is mathematically impossible or, should I say, improbable.
    I never said equally. I said proportionally. If 10% of the population is black, then you should see around 10% of the talent pool to reside within the black population. Given that roughly half the population is female, you'd expect roughly half the talent pool to reside within females.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    At no point has Blizzard barred females, blacks, homosexuals or whoever else falls under these groups of people from working at Blizzard.
    Of course they haven't. But that doesn't mean that they haven't had a bias against those groups. The fact is most of us have these kinds of biases, but we don't even realise it. It's only when you look at the demographic breakdown of the company and compare it to the real world that you have evidence of bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    It is common sense that everyone that exists on our planet should be in the "talent pool", so long as they apply for the job. The fact that more white males get jobs in the gaming industry doesn't mean there's discrimination at hand.
    As I said above, it depends on how you define discrimination. The fact that a disproportionate number of job applications at Blizzard come from white males does, most definitely, point to a prejudice against women and people of other races. Now I am certainly not saying that all of that prejudice comes from Blizzard. A lot of comes from society at large, which still applies a lot of pressure on women to stay clear of this profession.

    That being said, as I understand it, the numbers Blizzard are aiming for are to bring them in line with how women and racial minorities are represented within the field. On top of that, they seem to be making efforts to help address the societal bias by putting in place programs to promote women to get into the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    It is discrimination to at one point say "we've had enough of white males", just like it would be discrimination to say that "we've got enough female nurses in our hospital, the next 10 hires must be male to balance the ratio of female-to-male nurses".
    True, but it is also a fallacy that this is what employment equity seeks to do. Which is not to say that this doesn't happen. Simply that you can't blame the principle of employment equity for the fact that some organisations fuck it up.

    Done correctly, what employment equity programs within companies should be doing is this: Looking at whether the representation of various demographic groups within their organisation is in line with what is in the real world and using that as a gauge of whether they're doing things right. Because if those numbers are different, it likely indicates some bias, either in terms of their recruitment process, or in terms of how desirable they are perceived to be as an organisation.

    There is zero need to hire (or not hire) people people on the basis of race or gender. What does need to change is the image Blizzard puts out there in terms of being a desirable place to work at for women, and to look at their recruitment criteria - specifically the biases that tend to push them towards certain demographics over others.

    This narrative, pushed by fearmongers, that a drive to achieve equity will result in the best candidates being overlooked in favour of inferior candidates deserves to be challenged for being a load of unsubstantiated and poorly thought out hogwash. The reality is that many of the best candidates were already overlooked due to biases against them for being who they are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    What you should say is that every group of people on Earth can, under the right and fair circumstances, be eligible for a job at Blizzard, but whether they are or aren't should have nothing to do with race and sex.
    Correct. But your error is that you fail to recognise that historically, and even today still (even if less so in the past), "being elligible for the job" very much has a lot to do with race and sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    The fact that certain communities, whether they're white or black, excell at certain things while being bad at others, has a lot to do with personal interest, knowledge and work ethic. These are circumstantial and depend on external factors that span an individual's entire life; said individual being male, female, white or black won't change the way they were formed in terms of their interests, goals and work ethic. A white kid that grew up in the suburbs, playing video games all day with their friends, is going to have a higher chance to be interested in a career in gaming than a black kid that spent his days playing basketball with their friends, who will in turn have a higher chance of being an NBA star.
    Sorry to be blunt, but this is pretty racist. The uncomfortable truth which I suspect you're not particularly keen to hear, is that these things are more often than not determined by privelege.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    These are choices and opportunities Blizzard can't magically change, unless they intend to rewrite reality(no pun intended at Zovaal) in order to equally spread opportunities and hobbies across all groups of people globally.
    It is true that Blizzard cannot magically change the unjust circumstances that led to what you call "choices" that resulted in the opportunities available to different people. But what they can do (are apparently are doing) is trying to be more cognisant of those circumstances when trying to assess the true worth of an individual.

    I live in South Africa. As you may or may not be aware, we have the dubious distinction of having invented apartheid. Thankfully we abolished it 27 years ago. But a lot of the effects still linger today, and undoing the damage is something that is going to take many more years/decades to accomplish. This means that in reality, the challenges faced by the average black person when trying to achieve pretty much any qualification are significantly greater than that of white people. It took me, as a white male, a long time to learn to recognise this. That my achievements aren't simply due to my own doing - which is not to say that I don't deserve credit for what I have achieved - but rather that had I had been born poor and black in a township, odds are I would not have achieved the same outcome.

    So when I am at a social function and I hear some priveleged white mother (with her Porsche Cayenne parked in the driveway) talking about how unfair it is that her son who achieved an 80% aggregate in school can't get into veterinary school when some black kids with 70% aggregates made it in, I just find that sad. Sad that she has so little empathy that she cannot recognise the magnitude of the achievement for the black kid to achieve what they did in spite of their circumstances.

    People like this need to stop trying to use measures like academic results as some kind of absolute indicator of worth. If you're looking honestly at who is going to be the best person for the job, context is important too. And for as long as we live in an unequal world, it will remain so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    What I am ridiculing and will continue to ridicule is Blizzard continously accentuating these differences between humans.
    Well that's not really what they're doing, and trying to portray it as such is somewhat disingenuous. Unfortunately this is not a problem that will simply fix itself. It seems to me that this defensiveness from people like you is predicated on a desire to ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist than be forced to accept it. Because hey, that would be inconvenient and uncomfortable, and right now, as someone who isn't affected by this personally, you are more comfortable in your own narrative.

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo
    I chose not to use the word "Discrimination" but since you want to use it, I would argue that such a situation is definitely indicative of a form of discrimination. It may not be intentional or sinister like some other forms of discrimination, but it is pretty clear that women and people of racial minorities are at a disadvantage when it comes to making it into this profession. And given that this disadvantage correlates with gender and race, that is pretty clearly unfair.
    Less women and people of color chosing this sort of calling isn't discrimination; it is personal choice. I won't deny that the conditions they grew up under influence these choices; a black kid that never had money to buy a gaming console will obviously have less affinity towards video games. These are things Blizzard can't correct by looking for interest where it doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    Well that's not really what they're doing, and trying to portray it as such is somewhat disingenuous. Unfortunately this is not a problem that will simply fix itself. It seems to me that this defensiveness from people like you is predicated on a desire to ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist than be forced to accept it. Because hey, that would be inconvenient and uncomfortable, and right now, as someone who isn't affected by this personally, you are more comfortable in your own narrative.
    I am not pretending that a "problem" doesn't exist; you're pretending that a "problem" exists because this imaginary quota of equal numbers of employed men, women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, blacks, asians, hispanics and every other group that dwells planet Earth isn't met.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo
    The fact that it exists does not make it right. It simply demonstrates that our society is not yet as enlightened as we want to believe it is.
    The fact that it exists doesn't make it not right either. It exists because it is a personal choice and personal choice is either possible or impossible based on the conditions one is raised and lives under; these conditions won't be magically changed by Blizzard unless they directly invest money into empowerished communities. These conditions indeed vary, but this is an issue that affects every group of people of every colour of skin - white people and males included.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo
    I live in South Africa. As you may or may not be aware, we have the dubious distinction of having invented apartheid. Thankfully we abolished it 27 years ago. But a lot of the effects still linger today, and undoing the damage is something that is going to take many more years/decades to accomplish. This means that in reality, the challenges faced by the average black person when trying to achieve pretty much any qualification are significantly greater than that of white people. It took me, as a white male, a long time to learn to recognise this. That my achievements aren't simply due to my own doing - which is not to say that I don't deserve credit for what I have achieved - but rather that had I had been born poor and black in a township, odds are I would not have achieved the same outcome.
    You are once again conflating two very different and distinct issues; a gaming company looking to hire talent equally from all groups of people and the differences in the distribution of wealth and opportunity that ties directly into said wealth. Looking to hire more talent for a specific area won't magically spawn said talent in equal distribution across all groups. Unless Blizzard is going to spend 20 years of funding poor black communities in the US to achieve what you talk about, then this is pointless to discuss.

    You are actively degrading one's own personal investment, inspiration and hard work and boiling down the worth of said personal investment to denominators such as skin color and sex.

    It is an extremely racist way to look at the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo
    So when I am at a social function and I hear some priveleged white mother (with her Porsche Cayenne parked in the driveway) talking about how unfair it is that her son who achieved an 80% aggregate in school can't get into veterinary school when some black kids with 70% aggregates made it in, I just find that sad. Sad that she has so little empathy that she cannot recognise the magnitude of the achievement for the black kid to achieve what they did in spite of their circumstances.
    This is an extremely racist and discriminatory way to look at the world. I'm actually surprised that you can talk about this with such conviction. To deprive a human of something they achieved on their own, just because they were born to a specific parent and in specific conditions, is pure discrimination. To even bring up the fact that the mother is white is a racist idealogue's talking point; what if a rich black man's son from England achieved 80% of the score and a poor white boy from England achieved a score of 70% in an entry exam?

    What black kids in South Africa should be given is government-issued financial support to have an opportunity to study, not an opportunity to get what they don't deserve with lower results by discriminating against others based on who they were born to. Parents achieving success should not dictate discrimination against their children, otherwise you will soon be faced with the children of rich black people who will be in for a racist, discriminatory treatment prescribed by the thinking of people who share your vision of the world.

    I started replying to your post in segments after reading them one by one, but after having read this final one I truly see what kind of a discriminatory mindset you have. The recent extreme rise of fundamentalist idealogues in the West and the increasing support they recieve no longer surprises me; it is a perpetuumobile that runs in circles endlessly and fuels itself on bigotry like this.
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2022-01-26 at 08:38 PM.

  13. #293
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Less women and people of color chosing this sort of calling isn't discrimination; it is personal choice. I won't deny that the conditions they grew up under influence these choices; a black kid that never had money to buy a gaming console will obviously have less affinity towards video games.
    I would say that trying to label it as "personal choice" is a bit disingenuous given that which you concede in your next sentence. Just admit it. When you're born into privilege, choice is a real thing. When you're not, those "choices" tend to be imposed on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    These are things Blizzard can't correct by looking for interest where it doesn't exist.
    It is entirely true that this problem is much bigger than Blizzard. However that doesn't mean that they can't be a positive force for change - as opposed to a lot of folks on forums like this who are a negative force trying to oppose change (because basically the status quo suits them just fine).

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    I am not pretending that a "problem" doesn't exist; you're pretending that a "problem" exists because this imaginary quota of equal numbers of employed men, women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, blacks, asians, hispanics and every other group that dwells planet Earth isn't met.
    I have argued my case. If you can't see how gender and raced based disparities in the workplace prove that we don't live in a fair and equitable world, I would say you're blind, or purposely choosing to ignore it. Instead of countering my argument though, you're just repeating racist rhetoric now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    The fact that it exists doesn't make it not right either.
    Irrelevant, because I never made such an argument. You were the one trying to justify gender biases by pointing to various other places where it exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    It exists because it is a personal choice and personal choice is either possible or impossible based on the conditions one is raised and lives under; these conditions won't be magically changed by Blizzard unless they directly invest money into empowerished communities. These conditions indeed vary, but this is an issue that affects every group of people of every colour of skin - white people and males included.
    Again, I repeat, I am not saying that this is Blizzard's fault or that they can magically fix the problem. Also you should note that Blizzard's employment equity targets aren't based on trying to match the demographic distribution of the population at large. They are taking into account exactly what you said, and trying to make sure that the people represented in the job market are proportionally represented at Blizzard. This is why their target for female employment is still only 30% ie only one women for every 2.3 men in the organisation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    You are once again conflating two very different and distinct issues
    Just because I am discussing two distinct issues in the same post doesn't mean I am conflating them. I am sorry if you are confused in how you're choosing to read what I wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    a gaming company looking to hire talent equally from all groups of people and the differences in the distribution of wealth and opportunity that ties directly into said wealth. Looking to hire more talent for a specific area won't magically spawn said talent in equal distribution across all groups. Unless Blizzard is going to spend 20 years of funding poor black communities in the US to achieve what you talk about, then this is pointless to discuss.
    I thought I had made it quite clear, but since you somehow didn't get it the first time, I'll rephrase: there are two issues:
    1) Blizzard is trying to change their employment profile to match the existing state of the industry
    2) Blizzard are putting in place some programmes to help transform the industry. Obviously they can only affect it a small amount, but they are doing their part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    You are actively degrading one's own personal investment, inspiration and hard work and boiling down the worth of said personal investment to denominators such as skin color and sex.
    No I am not. That is your misinterpretation. It is a common error by people of privilege and I observe it every day because of the country I live in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    It is an extremely racist way to look at the world.
    So what is this now? Kindergarten? You're racist...No you're racist. Honestly, focus on the argument. You've been doing a shit job of that so far. Maybe if you did you'd come out of this conversation as a better human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    This is an extremely racist and discriminatory way to look at the world. I'm actually surprised that you can talk about this with such conviction. To deprive a human of something they achieved on their own, just because they were born to a specific parent and in specific conditions, is pure discrimination.
    Except I did no such thing. I did not deprive anyone of anything they achieved on their own. And certainly not on the basis of race. So your accusation of racism here is completely uncalled for. You're just being defensive.

    Here is what I did do: I placed the relative achievements of two human beings in context. What I am saying is that the 80% mark "achieved" by someone with all their advantages by virtue of their personal circumstance, is not as impressive as the 70% mark achieved by another person born into a significantly disadvantaged personal circumstance. As it so happens, due to history, race plays very heavily into personal circumstance, but that doesn't mean I am judging people on the basis of their race.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    To even bring up the fact that the mother is white is a racist idealogue's talking point; what if a rich black man's son from England achieved 80% of the score and a poor white boy from England achieved a score of 70% in an entry exam?
    So, I am relating a real story based on the real situation, and now you're trying to challenge me on hypothetical, rare scenarios? How very disingenuous of you. The simple fact is that South Africa is a country that, because of our history, and that thing called apartheid, has it's privilege lines pretty much synonymous with racial lines.

    Again, nothing about my argument is about race. It's entirely about privilege. But as said above, in South Africa, race and privilege do go hand in hand (and this is true, if to a lesser extent, in many democracies). For what it's worth, I do take exception in SA to the extremely privileged black elite here getting the benefit of EE programs. It's basically corruption. However typically the victims of that are poor black people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    What black kids in South Africa should be given is government-issued financial support to have an opportunity to study, not an opportunity to get what they don't deserve with lower results by discriminating against others based on who they were born to.
    Firstly, yes, the government here should be doing more to give the poor majority (which is 99% black) a better education. However I take exception to your next statement. For a "typical" black kid growing up in a "typical" black home in a rural cesspit, achieving 70% makes them far more deserving of praise (and further opportunities in life) than a "typical" white kid growing up in a "typical" white home in the suburbs who achieves 80%. That is not discrimination. It's calibration. It's looking at what the achievements mean in the context of personal circumstance. If this hypothetical white kid (who is representative of what actually is typical) had actually put in the kind of commitment and effort as that hypothetical black kid (who is actually pretty fucking exceptional among his peers, because the vast majority just drop out of school or fail) then said white kid would have achieved 95%. And then he would absolutely be given all the credit and opportunities he deserves. And if we're looking at reality, he didn't even need to put in half the effort that hypothetical black kid did, just enough to show that his achievements aren't entirely down to privilege.

    Your argument is literally saying (even if it is not your intention) that because someone is born into poverty, they deserve less even if they have more talent and work harder than someone else who is able to score better purely on the basis of being born into privilege.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Parents achieving success should not dictate discrimination against their children
    Of course not. And I am absolutely not saying that. What I am saying is that in the status quo, parents achieving success affords massive advantages on their children. And parents failing to achieve success dictates discrimination against their children. It's a vicious cycle really.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    otherwise you will soon be faced with the children of rich black people who will be in for a racist, discriminatory treatment prescribed by the thinking of people who share your vision of the world.
    Clearly you failed to understand my vision of the world. Maybe that is my fault for not adequately expressing myself. Hopefully my latest response helps to clarify. If not, the issue is probably you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    I started replying to your post in segments after reading them one by one, but after having read this final one I truly see what kind of a discriminatory mindset you have. The recent extreme rise of fundamentalist idealogues in the West and the increasing support they recieve no longer surprises me; it is a perpetuumobile that runs in circles endlessly and fuels itself on bigotry like this.
    Oh jeez. Just fuck off with the condescension would you? Try have an open mind. I have read what you have written, and it's pretty clear that you're so convinced of your own righteousness that you didn't even properly understand what I wrote. I mean a lot of your responses distorted or misrepresented what I wrote.

    Further to this story I was talking about, it's a common fallacy among white people in SA to complain about how unfair it is that black kids with lower marks get into universities ahead of their kids with better marks. But if you look at the facts, white kids are massively overrepresented in universities relative to the demographics of the country. And most people of privilege simply will not see this. Not because they're bad people, but because of how our brains work. It's a hard thing to recognise fairness when it comes to ourselves because that is just how we are biased. It takes effort. And I have made that effort. I would encourage you to do the same. But I am betting you won't...sadly.

    I suspect your arguments are predicated on a fear that my attitude is about seeking retribution based on past imbalances. I can assure you that it absolutely is not. Quite the opposite in fact. Because while evil men like JP want to focus on the danger of a backlash against real issues like racial unfairness, gender discrimination, white privilege etc, and as a result brush those issues under the carpet by being a self proclaimed anti-PC champion, the real danger is in ignoring those problems. Movements like BLM in the USA get violent because those people aren't heard. People like him (and I suspect you) hand wave away the issues, talking about life choices and personal responsibility and how choosing the name BLACK lives matter is racist (and shouldn't it be ALL lives matter anyway?). This is what inflames the situation and leads to exactly the kind of backlash you are so terrified of.

    Solving the problem starts with being honest and acknowledging the problem. Then you do what you can. Again, if you look at SA, the previous regime spent years acknowledging that apartheid was wrong out of fear that admitting that would result in retribution. It was a brave step (incredibly so) to make that admission. And you know what happened? The country transitioned peacefully. Because when you acknowledge someone and what they've suffered, and offer to help, that gives them a sense of worth and of hope and suddenly their need for retribution goes away.
    Last edited by Raelbo; 2022-01-27 at 09:31 AM.

  14. #294
    Light comes from darkness shise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    6,484
    To be honest, for the next 3 years it´s fine.

    I have finally realized that the only way to play World of Warcraft is by playing Classic. So we have 2,5 or 3 good years ahead. I hope they sort out their shit by then and give us a good revamp on retail...

    I mean, why would you play retail when you have Vanilla+BC+WotLK. Once you dig in, it becomes a no brainer... and I was the first vocal against the idea of classic.. found it redundant. Lol, now playing it again, I find retail redundant.

  15. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by Rozz View Post
    You guys never talk about the actual news Jesus.
    Agree. Often i see threads with iteresting topics and 99% of the discussion is based on the same sh1t in every other threat.

  16. #296
    I need to know important information about Canada visit visa from Pakistan. If you have knowledge about it so please share it with me. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •