Misogyny in online gaming

[Ghilliedhu]

He didnt exactly preach hate as I see it. He might also be trolling a bit to get reactions. If he meant what he said, he might have made his views extra "pointy" to get the message through.

Well if he's being a troll he's still a piece of **** then, isn't he?

[m4sCaRpWn]

That is not name-calling at all. Those are simple and accurate descriptors of fundamentalist christianity that Jorb has publicly admitted to subscribing to. He has openly agreed with each and every one of those ideologies in this very thread. Perhaps my rhetoric is strong, but it is in no inaccurate.

Oh really? He admitted to being a "logic rejecting...racist, sexist...piece of ****?" Odd, I don't remember him subscribing to any of those things.

Hey listen, you keep on going. The more loudly you people express your extreme, intolerant, fascist opinions the more harm you do to your cause.

[colesie]

He didnt exactly preach hate as I see it. He might also be trolling a bit to get reactions. If he meant what he said, he might have made his views extra "pointy" to get the message through.

Well if he's being a troll he's still a piece of **** then, isn't he?

No?

[dageir]

I agree that todays society is shallow, especially if you judge by the media. Also society is no longer easy to get an oversight over. Its complex. No easy answers. Things change all the time. Many wants safety and predictability. Thats not going to happen.

[jorb]

I have to admit that I had to give this some thought. Generally speaking I am surrounded by wonderful people who do wonderful things, so it is certainly not any sort of dissatisfaction with my immediate social context that I am trying to voice. 80% of the people I interact with -- those who tend their garden and generally just do their thing without imposing on others -- I have no quarrel with what-so-ever.

What bothers me is rather the failure of social harmony as it pertains to the res publica. Democratic political debate in Sweden very much mirrors the idiosyncrasies of the American Empire of which we are clearly a part, and it is not a pretty sight to behold. Most public debate is simply extremely hostile, uninformed, inflamed, petty and lacking in intellectual and interpretative generosity, especially in discussions within the broader memeplex of progressive and liberal causes du jour. As I read a fair amount of historical text material, a fair amount of it academic or journalistic in nature, I cannot help but notice that this was very much not the case under the Monarchical conditions of the late 19th century -- despite the fact that the actual topics of public debate were arguably far weightier then than today -- when public debate on the contrary went to great lengths to maintain politeness and decorum even in the presentation of very forceful arguments.

(This not to mention the fact that the simple treatment of language itself held a vastly higher proficiency level, and a radically higher degree of eloquence and aspiration, one which is completely alien to modern democratic debate, and this is very much not as a class issue. Literacy has been widespread in Sweden since the 1700s -- long before public education -- and the agitators of the early labor movement are right up there in style and form. I own, for example, a decent collection of reading books from the old Swedish Folkskola (our first public school) -- approximately grades 3 through 6, perhaps -- and they are all written at a level that I doubt that you today would encounter even in high school. Again, not a class issue. Feudalism in its continental forms is entirely alien to the Swedish yeoman tradition, and Sweden has never known serfdom. The best-by-far Swedish encyclopedia is still "Nordisk Familjebok", of the late 19th century, and every good article on sv.wikipedia is more or less based on it verbatim since the copyright has expired.)

The aspirations of that day were simply aimed far higher than those of today. People made demands of themselves first, and others second. Duty, diligence, sacrifice, perseverance and personal responsibility mattered and where considered the mark of a man, rather than -- as is the case within progressive victimology -- the lowest common denominators of sex and skin color. Public art and expression celebrated science, culture and actual, material progress, the skaldic tradition of poetry was still very much alive, and taxes were some 10-20%, if even that. Sweden was on the Gold standard, along with the rest of the civilized world.

Paradise, essentially.

Also, genitals were not considered so vastly important that they needed to be the constant focus of much public debate. It is rather a nice change of pace to read old dailies that do not read like Marxist fanzines attempting (and failing at) the risqué at every turn of their miserable attempts at cultural debate.

[jorb]

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEERP!!!!!! DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERP!

So, no, you miserable dolt. National socialism is on the contrary simply one among the many liberal, progressive, republican and democratic ideologies in the spirit of 1789 and 1848 that I loathe. Marching in lock-step to some mystical, metaphysical will of the people is what democrats and lemmings do. Men do not join intellectual sausage-fests.

[malaclypse]

What bothers me is rather the failure of social harmony as it pertains to the res publica. Democratic political debate in Sweden very much mirrors the idiosyncrasies of the American Empire of which we are clearly a part, and it is not a pretty sight to behold. Most public debate is simply extremely hostile, uninformed, inflamed, petty and lacking in intellectual and interpretative generosity, especially in discussions within the broader memeplex of progressive and liberal causes du jour. As I read a fair amount of historical text material, a fair amount of it academic or journalistic in nature, I cannot help but notice that this was very much not the case under the Monarchical conditions of the late 19th century -- despite the fact that the actual topics of public debate were arguably far weightier then than today -- when public debate on the contrary went to great lengths to maintain politeness and decorum even in the presentation of very forceful arguments.

The aspirations of that day were simply aimed far higher than those of today. People made demands of themselves first, and others second. Duty, diligence, sacrifice, perseverance and personal responsibility mattered and where considered the mark of a man, rather than -- as is the case within progressive victimology -- the lowest common denominators of sex and skin color. Public art and expression celebrated science, culture and actual, material progress, the skaldic tradition of poetry was still very much alive, and taxes were some 10-20%, if even that. Sweden was on the Gold standard, along with the rest of the civilized world.

Also, genitals were not considered so vastly important that they needed to be the constant focus of much public debate. It is rather a nice change of pace to read old dailies that do not read like Marxist fanzines attempting (and failing at) the risqué at every turn of their miserable attempts at cultural debate.

That you lay all of the problems of the modern world at the feet of progressives is what strikes me as odd. Public discourse on television today is awful because that's what sells commercials. The historical material you're reading was written by intellectuals and philosophers, and you're comparing their work to television pundits. And somehow marxism is to blame? Do I actually need to remind you that all the cultural and social trends you're decrying were born in and thrive in capitalist societies?

I don't know what going on in Sweden, but here in the US all the focus on genitalia emanates from the conservatives, who would likely find a lot to agree with in your posts. Here in the US we have the great pleasure of living in a society that thinks its "post-racial" whilst being built upon a solid foundation of institutional racism. Look at our prison demographics for an instructive example. So please excuse our brothers and sisters of color as they try to emerge from a thousand years of colonial oppression. I know its slightly inconvenient for you.

So, does the modern world have problems? Yes.
Would those problems be solved by dialing back the last 200 years? Maybe for middle class white guys, but not for everyone else.
Can you blame progressive politics for all these problems? An obvious and resounding "no".

[Ghilliedhu]

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEERP!!!!!! DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERP!

So, no, you miserable dolt. National socialism is on the contrary simply one among the many liberal, progressive, republican and democratic ideologies in the spirit of 1789 and 1848 that I loathe. Marching in lock-step to some mystical, metaphysical will of the people is what democrats and lemmings do. Men do not join intellectual sausage-fests.

Either you have severe aspergers or you are just painfully misinformed about western politics and what democracy and it subsidiary ideologies mean to the average westerner. It seems that your opinions of progressive, democratic values have been pulled from some kind of bizarro-western world or extremely subjective experience that has somehow left you feeling very personally aggrieved. We have a very similar archetype of thought in the west, it is mostly defended by the retired, the senile, and the plutocratic. They are heavily invested and rooted in tradition, religion and tend to be very anti-progressive. The fantastic thing about this phenomenon is that it is generally accepted that most, if not all of these people, will die ... soon. The west is slowly becoming more progressive as the illogical lust for tradition dies with those who are concerned about it. Needless to say, it's a little poetic.

I think several people have brought up the point that you seem to be arguing about some version of democratic progression that only exists in whatever tiny little nook of the world you are from. The examples and concerns you have outlined are literally affiliated with the exact opposite end of the political spectrum on this side of the planet and it's been the ongoing effort of Generation Y to subvert and change these old, tired and oppressive ideologies.

and it's working

[Claeyt]

I have to admit that I had to give this some thought. Generally speaking I am surrounded by wonderful people who do wonderful things, so it is certainly not any sort of dissatisfaction with my immediate social context that I am trying to voice. 80% of the people I interact with -- those who tend their garden and generally just do their thing without imposing on others -- I have no quarrel with what-so-ever.

What bothers me is rather the failure of social harmony as it pertains to the res publica. Democratic political debate in Sweden very much mirrors the idiosyncrasies of the American Empire of which we are clearly a part, and it is not a pretty sight to behold. Most public debate is simply extremely hostile, uninformed, inflamed, petty and lacking in intellectual and interpretative generosity, especially in discussions within the broader memeplex of progressive and liberal causes du jour. As I read a fair amount of historical text material, a fair amount of it academic or journalistic in nature, I cannot help but notice that this was very much not the case under the Monarchical conditions of the late 19th century -- despite the fact that the actual topics of public debate were arguably far weightier then than today -- when public debate on the contrary went to great lengths to maintain politeness and decorum even in the presentation of very forceful arguments.

Coming from a country that has always had impassioned, revolutionary, non-harmonious debate for better or worse, I'd like to repeat that the past was just as messy and chaotic as today. Here in the genteel 19th century U.S. we once had a sitting senator beat another senator's brains in with a cane on the Senate floor, while it was in debate. The argument was over journalism and slavery. Our first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel by the sitting Vice President and Gubernatorial candidate for New York, Aarron Burr. The duel was about a political op-ed piece in the New York newspapers written by Hamilton against Burr.

I can reference hundreds of 18th and 19th century political cartoons, many aimed at the royals of Europe in their own countries. I'll just link a site instead.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1347521/caricature-and-cartoon/59402/Early-19th-century

This not to mention the fact that the simple treatment of language itself held a vastly higher proficiency level, and a radically higher degree of eloquence and aspiration, one which is completely alien to modern democratic debate, and this is very much not as a class issue. Literacy has been widespread in Sweden since the 1700s -- long before public education -- and the agitators of the early labor movement are right up there in style and form. I own, for example, a decent collection of reading books from the old Swedish Folkskola (our first public school) -- approximately grades 3 through 6, perhaps -- and they are all written at a level that I doubt that you today would encounter even in high school. Again, not a class issue. Feudalism in its continental forms is entirely alien to the Swedish yeoman tradition, and Sweden has never known serfdom. The best-by-far Swedish encyclopedia is still "Nordisk Familjebok", of the late 19th century, and every good article on sv.wikipedia is more or less based on it verbatim since the copyright has expired.

Languages change, but again your interpretation of it is based on class. Slang, colloquialism, and bastardization of language has always been part of the growth of language. Swedish is a remarkably stable language, but English is not. The changes in the English language are easily explained because of it's world wide usage and immense amount of slang and local flavor. With Swedish you're probably seeing the growth and change of the language because of it's adoption of International terms and use by new populations of foreign born Swedes incorporating they're own languages into their new one.

Public Education has, of course, increased literacy rates throughout Europe tremendously. In Sweden the government and church mandated kyrkolagen was what led to those incredible literacy rate's by the 1700's not some organic non-government tradition.

Serfdom may have not existed in Sweden but the similar Kronohemman existed well into the 19th century.

The aspirations of that day were simply aimed far higher than those of today. People made demands of themselves first, and others second. Duty, diligence, sacrifice, perseverance and personal responsibility mattered and where considered the mark of a man, rather than -- as is the case within progressive victimology -- the lowest common denominators of sex and skin color. Public art and expression celebrated science, culture and actual, material progress, the skaldic tradition of poetry was still very much alive, and taxes were some 10-20%, if even that. Sweden was on the Gold standard, along with the rest of the civilized world.

...and here you lose all rationality. Sex and Skin color were never the basis of Progressive Liberal thought. They were only part of the greater desire for economic and political freedoms for everyone. I'm going to quote that line without the inserted political statement about progressive victimology. Look at it hard Jorb. You might want to edit it or open your mind to the world a little more.

Jorb said- "Duty, diligence, sacrifice, perseverance and personal responsibility mattered and where considered the mark of a man, rather than the lowest common denominators of sex and skin color."

I'm not even going to address the fallacy of an argument about going back to the Gold Standard. There's a reason we left it, and it involved the controlled wealth of the world resting in the hands of the few.

Paradise, essentially.

... for the wealthy few.

Also, genitals were not considered so vastly important that they needed to be the constant focus of much public debate. It is rather a nice change of pace to read old dailies that do not read like Marxist fanzines attempting (and failing at) the risqué at every turn of their miserable attempts at cultural debate.

I don't know how many 18th and 19th century ***** jokes, risque' novels and cartoons I could put here if I wanted to, but it would be a lot. I don't know which Marxist fanzines you're talking about. Over here in the U.S. all of our sources of information are pretty radically conservative.

So, no, you miserable dolt. National socialism is on the contrary one of the many liberal, progressive, republican and democratic ideologies that I loathe the most. Marching in lock-step to some mystical, metaphysical will of the people is what democrats and lemmings do.

National Socialism is the antithesis of Progressive Democracy. Fascists are not Democrats. Hitler was voted in, but never faced another fair election.

I've come to a conclusion about your ideas Jorb. You're suffering from what a lot of conservative males are feeling.

You fear the future. You fear the changes in your country and language over the last 40 years. You live in a country with a nearly one party system over the last 70 years, and don't believe you can change your country's path through Democracy. You feel powerless standing in the rising tide of the world while your country fades......but don't despair Jorb. Don't live in the past. Look to the future for what it really is, a new game with different rules and systems than what our grandfathers faced.

[Ikpeip]

Good afternoon,

Either you have severe aspergers or...

Well if he's being a troll he's still a piece of **** then, isn't he?

I mean, beyond being an animalistic, god-fearing, logic-rejecting, fundamentalist, right-wing christian with intolerant, racist, sexist, anti-progressive undertones, Jorb actually believes...

You are the personification of malignant, festering disease and suffering and everything you know and believe in bleeds this repulsive endemic of thought

...you are literally ***** retarded. This is not up for debate in any way, shape or form, you are 100% wrong and your opinions on this idea are logic-less, hypocritical and ultimately ***** stupid

Is this the result of your new, Generation Y society? We have overthrown the Evil Christians and entered a new Age where instead of reasoned debate, we instead just shriek like hysterical, feces-flinging monkeys? Rushing to personal insults and failing to consider (much less attempt to refute) the opposing opinion is a clear sign you are unable to argue from a logical, rational bedrock. You attacking Jorb as being intolerant, based solely on his religious views, is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster