: It seems to me the one who made the article tries to actually defend Daniel and his sexism while saying that sexism against men is ok. That's not ok. He said that Daniel was harrased and that we are "a hate mob" WTF? BECAUSE WE WANTED ACTUALLY EQUAL RIGHTS? Holy sh** what's wrong with the media? Daniel is the one who harrased and made sexist comments against men then he is said to be for equal rights? WTF? He told the male community to kill themselves ffs. Well at least he got fired. Finaly Riot did the good thing by firing him. Going from one extreme to another is never good. Both extremes are bad.
> [{quoted}](name=RyzeTheSmurfMage,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=56jfyUl5,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-09-07T19:10:00.992+0000) > > It seems to me the one who made the article tries to actually defend Daniel and his sexism while saying that sexism against men is ok. That's not ok. He said that Daniel was harrased and that we are "a hate mob" WTF? BECAUSE WE WANTED ACTUALLY EQUAL RIGHTS? Holy sh** what's wrong with the media? Daniel is the one who harrased and made sexist comments against men then he is said to be for equal rights? WTF? He told the male community to kill themselves ffs. Well at least he got fired. Finaly Riot did the good thing by firing him. Going from one extreme to another is never good. Both extremes are bad. They described DZK as "an outspoken advocate for gender diversity" FUCKING WOT M8
: Let's chill with some Blitz!
Oh boy. I can only imagine what questions are going to be asked. *I wonder*
: Hello!
I feel like your approach here is genuine, and I appreciate you saying as much as you're allowed/able to on the *obvious*. And even though I'm *well* aware you had almost nothing to do with what happened (AFAIK), I hope you realize this whole fiasco isn't going away until the controversy involving PAX and DZK comes to a close, however it does. Thanks for communicating at all, though. And thanks again for actually being nice about it. I momentarily forgot Rioters can do that ever since the DZK incident.
: Just because they didn't make a public Gaddafi video of him doesn't mean he wasnt punished. I know at my job we don't get on the PA and announce to all the customers when someone was written up. I can't imagine why Riot would be different
> [{quoted}](name=420 grams,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=gVnUPgUa,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-09-06T16:29:45.982+0000) > > Just because they didn't make a public Gaddafi video of him doesn't mean he wasnt punished. I know at my job we don't get on the PA and announce to all the customers when someone was written up. I can't imagine why Riot would be different It's mostly me assuming since he's still going at it. I mean, I imagine if you were punished yesterday for doing something. You *probably* aren't going to do it again the VERY next day.
: did you just assume ____ gender?!
> [{quoted}](name=BLACK REALM GOD,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=zUXgl3ts,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-06T12:40:24.481+0000) > > did you just assume ____ gender?! Actually he explicitly says on his Twitter he goes by "He/Him" https://twitter.com/danielzklein?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor So no assumptions were made this day.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: Okay, it was funny at first, now you're all just being absolutely RIDICULOUS.
> [{quoted}](name=Hethalean,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=puQdqAe9,comment-id=000c00000000,timestamp=2018-09-04T17:27:32.976+0000) > > ...it was funny at first... It was *never* funny. We were *never* joking. None of us were *ever* laughing about this.
EkyonKun (NA)
: ***This will be part 1. Apparently I hit the text limit with this, so it'll be split into two parts*** --------------------------- > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=001800000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-04T04:39:58.652+0000) > > Look, first and foremost, it's self-evident that making a group for just blacks excludes whites. No one is trying to seriously argue otherwise. It's logically impossible to do so by definition, right?...In this case, we're arguing about whether it is right or wrong to have such a group. > > **You assert that it is wrong.** That claim is indefensible, but I want you to try and defend it. I got a good laugh from that one. "The claim that segregating blacks from whites is wrong is indefensible." That is what you're saying, right? This was solved in Brown vs. The Board of Education in the 1950's. Any segregation is wrong in my eyes. > > For the record, it can't be wrong _just_ because it's unequal treatment. That would be an example of begging the question or circular reasoning. Actually, yes. I can call it wrong, because it's unequal treatment. If you want equality, you give people equal opportunity. I mean...I don't even know how to expand upon that. I thought we already knew that. But let's assume someone reading this doesn't understand. Here's the problem: stereotypes are bad because it encourages people to view of and treat others differently based on how they were born. It is wrong to do this, because these genetic usually do not inhibit their potential abilities in life. Therefore, *encouraging* the previously mentioned stereotypes is bad, because it enforces them, cementing them into our collective societal memory. > > What's interesting and particularly damning is that you agree that we should provide accommodations for the disabled. What is it that makes it acceptable only in the case of disability? Unlike women, blacks, whites, hispanics, etc, they *by definition* have something "wrong" with them. If a person is born without legs, they need a wheelchair, and therefore need handicap friendly accessibility to accommodate for that. This shouldn't need explained, but here I am. There are countless other examples, so I'll just leave it at that one. > > You're right, that can't happen. In fact, even that were to happen, we still would not be able to achieve equality in a single day or even a year. Yep. Said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again. No one, with any method, could full on stop it. But we can all do our part. > There are people that have been severely abused for what they are, and not all of them are going to be able to let that go, even if they want to. It would likely take decades if not centuries to undo all of the damage. Yeah it's going to take centuries no matter what route you take. I keep saying that, and you keep bringing it up like I never said it in my life. > You trivialize our experiences when you make statements like that. I know your affiliation with the LGBT community. I'm here to say, I don't trivialize what you guys go through. You may take this as fake empathy, but it isn't. I know that right now, trans people are the new hot topic of people to criticize. "Man with a vagina? T'ain't natural." But I'm here to say that I do care. I deplore people who try to give a hard time based on how another individual feels about themselves. Say what you want about me, I do not trivialize this stuff. I take it very seriously. > No. People are bigoted because they choose to be. They might have learned that behavior when they were young, but ultimately, they make a choice to stay that way. I really, really doubt this. I don't think anyone wakes up saying "Ehhh who am I gonna hate today? Blacks? Sure, that sounds good." You don't choose who or what you hate. People are prejudice against other races or sexes because that's where their upbringing led them. > My father is an actual neo-nazi. He owns a swastika armband. He laughs when the news shows that a black person died in a car accident. He thinks women are a life support system for a vagina. That's the way I was raised. That's who I used to be. I chose to change. And THIS is what I'm talking about! THIS is the change I strive to see in this world. Be better than how you were brought up. Granted I said a *little* better, but it sounds like you took several steps in the opposite direction of your father if this is true. If the world is a little cleaner every day, it will eventually become spotless. So good on you. > Are you fucking serious? That doesn't fucking help. Raising your children to accept people of all colors and sexes, *does* help prevent this future behavior. If they learn to accept them while young, their reaction to prejudice toward others in the future will be met with confusion as to why they're treated as different. They may even take a stand to defend them. > It's not enough to hope that each generation is less prejudiced than the one before it. > > That. Doesn't. Fucking. Help. If it's successful, which it often will be, yeah. It does help. Let's look at the results. a few centuries ago we were enslaving blacks by what, the thousands? Millions? We'd flat out kill them for so much as looking at a white woman the wrong way. We'd wrongfully imprison them for crimes they never committed. Now? They're mostly tolerated by many people. And yes, *many* "extreme" actions had to be taken from there til now. But here's where the differences start. When blacks got this "special treatment" they were only given equal rights to the whites. Brown vs. The Board of Education was about putting blacks and whites *together,* **not** further segregating them. When slavery ended, it was about giving blacks the same basic rights as human beings instead of being treated like livestock. > What you are saying to do is neutral at best, deliberately complicit at worst. Asking that everyone be treated as equal human beings, disregarding all heritage, is deliberately complying with neo-nazis and bigots. Please, please tell me I'm misinterpreting you. Just please tell me that. > You know that bigots teach bigotry, right? Not really. I don't think we view early KKK members as national heroes. > It spreads. You can't defeat it by hoping to spread neutrality. I'm trying to spread acceptance. Neutrality would be "Just go form your own opinion about that black woman, I won't tell you mine" Acceptance is "That black woman is the same human being as both of us. Treat her with the same respect as any white man in a business suit." > You have to challenge it. Even if you could eventually defeat it through that method, why do you think that doing the absolute minimum would be an acceptable standard? It's not. It doesn't do anything to help people who are suffering _now_! Nothing is going to help the people suffering now. That includes "challenging it." If they face so much prejudice that they can be labelled as suffering, no plan or call to action is going to up and end it within the hour. People would just become sneakier in their attempts to belittle them. > But don't take it from me, take it from someone a lot more qualified. > > "Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people." - Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. To summarize, he says that people with ill intent will spread more quickly than those of good intent. This is mostly true, and I do agree with MLK Jr. that it is *imperative* that we spread the notion that all men [and women] are created equal. Staying silent doesn't help. But actively teaching acceptance is not silence. It is actively helping the cause, one step at a time. > You want to know what y'all can do? Take the time to listen. Promote the voices of minorities. Challenge your own views. Hold bigots accountable for their hatred. I guess how much I agree with this depends on your definition of "promote" and "hold accountable". I don't think bigots should be thrown in jail over saying the n-word. I also don't think we should promote them to be any higher than any other person. However, if you mean "Let others know that these minorities are just as capable as us." and "Letting bigots know that their actions have negative social consequences." Then, yes. I do agree with those. As MLK Jr. himself said. "Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." If the content of your character is calling women and blacks inferior, you deserve to be shamed by your peers. Because I see that as a shameful character.
***Part 2*** ---------------- > Prejudice. Is. Not. Logical. That means there isn't a single thing in all of existence that can provide _any_ logical support for it _except_ for ignorance of that fact. Do you know what that means by extension? Affirmative action does not cause racism. It does not justify racism. More importantly? It _cannot_ cause racism. It _cannot_ justify racism. Affirmative action by definition is treating others differently based on the traits they were born with. By design, it's a racist system. It has *very* good intentions. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's what's best. > > Racists will insist that it justifies their position. The racists are still fucking wrong. They are still fucking racists. You don't let racists decide what justifies racism. NOTHING JUSTIFIES RACISM. LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT FOR EVER OTHER MINORITY. > > They'll use whatever they want to justify their shitty prejudice. You can't take the ammo away from an ammo factory. They're just going to make more. Isn't that what affirmative action does? Takes the ammo away from an ammo factory? You're giving minorities extra privileges without solving the problem at its core. Meaning just more racism is produced. > > You need to stand up to them and tell them that they're wrong. Don't strip away the few protections and support systems that minorities have to appease them. Yes, do so. But do so *respectively.* It may seem counter-intuitive, but if people see you as the side of reason and equality, they'll lean more toward you. If you go around yelling incoherently and with *great* passion, people will see *you* as the extremist instead of the one striving for egalitarianism. Remember, you're not trying to change the racists and bigots. You're trying to let others see that it's better to *not* be like them. > > The people least likely to be racist against blacks...are black. > The people least likely to be sexist against women... are women. > The people least likely to be transphobic/homophobic...are LGBT+. > > That's common sense. You know, internalized racism/sexism is a huge thing, right? It may sound like common sense, but it happens all the time. I mean I doubt LGBT are going to be homophobic, since that'd be contradictory. But blacks enforcing black stereotypes to others? Women being sexist to other women? I've seen it all before. And I believe women on women sexism is *actually* more common than men on women sexism. Take that for what you will. > > The people most likely to stand up against racism against blacks...are black. > The people most likely to stand up against sexism against women...are women. > The people most likely to stand up against transphobia/homophobia...are LGBT+. > > That's common sense. Actually, most of the stuff I see done in the name of anti-prejudice nowadays is done by white people who *think* they know what they're talking about. Speedy Gonzales was previously banned in the USA, but due to backlash from the hispanic crowd, he was brought back on air. There are other examples, but this one will always stick out in my mind. > > By creating a minority only space you have created an environment with the lowest possible likelihood that discrimination occurs and the highest possible likelihood that discrimination is challenged. You also create a space that is the most likely to have the most knowledge about said group, which means they are the most likely to know what they need and what they do not like. > > It should be self-evident why this is one of the _best_ approaches to help minorities. > > There's not really any room to disagree, tbh. Hiding people from discrimination does not prevent discrimination. It just makes them feel better about it. Which I guess is kind of its own reward, but it certainly isn't helping the cause as a whole. If anything, it helps accentuate the notion of prejudice it by having others think that they *should* be treated differently. > > All you've done previously is state that you think everyone should be treated equally without actually qualifying _why_ that should be the case, which only really shows that you _don't actually understand the problem_. W..What? This part genuinely confused me. I don't know why people should be treated equally? E...Excuse me? Okay, I think people should be treated equally because we're people. We're all human. There's my answer. So...why do YOU think people should be treated equally? I wasn't aware there were multiple answers to this question. > > Minorities aren't upset _merely_ because they're treated differently. They're upset because the _ways_ in which they are treated differently are _harmful_ and _irrational_. That part is a bit obvious. No one's going to complain that they're given *too many* rights and privileges. They won't be upset that they're treated *too* well. I'm willing to bet most minorities and women simply want equal treatment. Not excess treatment. If we could achieve that, any further attempts at 'equality' would be moot, as we'd have already achieved that.
Yago (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00180000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T19:49:45.354+0000) > > For disabilities, it makes total sense. > > Affirmative action is the stance I have a problem with. Again, sounds good on paper. But in practice, you're promoting inequality between different members of society based on genetic traits. It's giving someone something on the basis they were born as a minority. > > A defense for what? My principles? It's just an ideal concept in my mind. As previously mentioned, it's unrealistic. There's always going to be some kind of prejudice in the world. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we settle for mediocrity. > Look, first and foremost, it's self-evident that making a group for just blacks excludes whites. No one is trying to seriously argue otherwise. It's logically impossible to do so by definition, right? That means we're arguing about something else. In this case, we're arguing about whether it is right or wrong to have such a group. **You assert that it is wrong.** That claim is indefensible, but I want you to try and defend it. For the record, it can't be wrong _just_ because it's unequal treatment. That would be an example of begging the question or circular reasoning. What's interesting and particularly damning is that you agree that we should provide accommodations for the disabled. What is it that makes it acceptable only in the case of disability? > As I have said before, you are totally right. *I* cannot create such a world by doing that. But if *every* member of society did, we'd achieve pure equality in a single day. Reminder that this will *not* happen. I'm just saying people *should.* It's a necessary group effort. You're right, that can't happen. In fact, even that were to happen, we still would not be able to achieve equality in a single day or even a year. There are people that have been severely abused for what they are, and not all of them are going to be able to let that go, even if they want to. It would likely take decades if not centuries to undo all of the damage. You trivialize our experiences when you make statements like that. >Most people who are racist or sexist nowadays are like that because of their upbringing. No. People are bigoted because they choose to be. They might have learned that behavior when they were young, but ultimately, they make a choice to stay that way. My father is an actual neo-nazi. He owns a swastika armband. He laughs when the news shows that a black person died in a car accident. He thinks women are a life support system for a vagina. That's the way I was raised. That's who I used to be. I chose to change. >All any individual can hope to do to prevent it is teaching still impressionable minds that these people are like anyone of us. Are you fucking serious? That doesn't fucking help. > Yeah. I already said multiple times it's unrealistic, and I said that because of this very reason. Sure it'd be ideal if we all got along and didn't think twice about who's black and who's white, but that's never gonna happen. What we do is take it one step at a time. Each day, strive to be a little bit better than the previous. Each generation, try to be a little bit more tolerable of others than your parents were. > It's not enough to hope that each generation is less prejudiced than the one before it. That. Doesn't. Fucking. Help. What you are saying to do is neutral at best, deliberately complicit at worst. You know that bigots teach bigotry, right? It spreads. You can't defeat it by hoping to spread neutrality. You have to challenge it. Even if you could eventually defeat it through that method, why do you think that doing the absolute minimum would be an acceptable standard? It's not. It doesn't do anything to help people who are suffering _now_! But don't take it from me, take it from someone a lot more qualified. "Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people." - Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You want to know what y'all can do? Take the time to listen. Promote the voices of minorities. Challenge your own views. Hold bigots accountable for their hatred. >You are not going to convince a 40 year old KKK member that blacks are equal. Ever. You can jail him, sure. But that doesn't solve the problem. It merely contains it. There are people who will not change their mind. That's still their choice. You can and should still challenge their decision even if they will never change. You can still make their decision have consequences. > This problem is not going away over night. No amount of affirmative action is going to change that. You aren't swaying the minds of the public with your ideals. You're merely creating equal outcome disguised as equal opportunity. > Prejudice. Is. Not. Logical. That means there isn't a single thing in all of existence that can provide _any_ logical support for it _except_ for ignorance of that fact. Do you know what that means by extension? Affirmative action does not cause racism. It does not justify racism. More importantly? It _cannot_ cause racism. It _cannot_ justify racism. Racists will insist that it justifies their position. The racists are still fucking wrong. They are still fucking racists. You don't let racists decide what justifies racism. NOTHING JUSTIFIES RACISM. LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT FOR EVER OTHER MINORITY. They'll use whatever they want to justify their shitty prejudice. You can't take the ammo away from an ammo factory. They're just going to make more. You need to stand up to them and tell them that they're wrong. Don't strip away the few protections and support systems that minorities have to appease them. > The bystander effect is going to happen no matter what rules are in place. If someone is being discriminated in a public area, the chances of a random stranger stepping in are very low. It does happen, but not often. Your system doesn't account for this any better than mine. > The people least likely to be racist against blacks...are black. The people least likely to be sexist against women... are women. The people least likely to be transphobic/homophobic...are LGBT+. That's common sense. The people most likely to stand up against racism against blacks...are black. The people most likely to stand up against sexism against women...are women. The people most likely to stand up against transphobia/homophobia...are LGBT+. That's common sense. By creating a minority only space you have created an environment with the lowest possible likelihood that discrimination occurs and the highest possible likelihood that discrimination is challenged. You also create a space that is the most likely to have the most knowledge about said group, which means they are the most likely to know what they need and what they do not like. It should be self-evident why this is one of the _best_ approaches to help minorities. > Suppose we'll just have to disagree on that, as I've already presented my defense. There's not really any room to disagree, tbh. All you've done previously is state that you think everyone should be treated equally without actually qualifying _why_ that should be the case, which only really shows that you _don't actually understand the problem_. Minorities aren't upset _merely_ because they're treated differently. They're upset because the _ways_ in which they are treated differently are _harmful_ and _irrational_.
***This will be part 1. Apparently I hit the text limit with this, so it'll be split into two parts*** --------------------------- > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=001800000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-04T04:39:58.652+0000) > > Look, first and foremost, it's self-evident that making a group for just blacks excludes whites. No one is trying to seriously argue otherwise. It's logically impossible to do so by definition, right?...In this case, we're arguing about whether it is right or wrong to have such a group. > > **You assert that it is wrong.** That claim is indefensible, but I want you to try and defend it. I got a good laugh from that one. "The claim that segregating blacks from whites is wrong is indefensible." That is what you're saying, right? This was solved in Brown vs. The Board of Education in the 1950's. Any segregation is wrong in my eyes. > > For the record, it can't be wrong _just_ because it's unequal treatment. That would be an example of begging the question or circular reasoning. Actually, yes. I can call it wrong, because it's unequal treatment. If you want equality, you give people equal opportunity. I mean...I don't even know how to expand upon that. I thought we already knew that. But let's assume someone reading this doesn't understand. Here's the problem: stereotypes are bad because it encourages people to view of and treat others differently based on how they were born. It is wrong to do this, because these genetic usually do not inhibit their potential abilities in life. Therefore, *encouraging* the previously mentioned stereotypes is bad, because it enforces them, cementing them into our collective societal memory. > > What's interesting and particularly damning is that you agree that we should provide accommodations for the disabled. What is it that makes it acceptable only in the case of disability? Unlike women, blacks, whites, hispanics, etc, they *by definition* have something "wrong" with them. If a person is born without legs, they need a wheelchair, and therefore need handicap friendly accessibility to accommodate for that. This shouldn't need explained, but here I am. There are countless other examples, so I'll just leave it at that one. > > You're right, that can't happen. In fact, even that were to happen, we still would not be able to achieve equality in a single day or even a year. Yep. Said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again. No one, with any method, could full on stop it. But we can all do our part. > There are people that have been severely abused for what they are, and not all of them are going to be able to let that go, even if they want to. It would likely take decades if not centuries to undo all of the damage. Yeah it's going to take centuries no matter what route you take. I keep saying that, and you keep bringing it up like I never said it in my life. > You trivialize our experiences when you make statements like that. I know your affiliation with the LGBT community. I'm here to say, I don't trivialize what you guys go through. You may take this as fake empathy, but it isn't. I know that right now, trans people are the new hot topic of people to criticize. "Man with a vagina? T'ain't natural." But I'm here to say that I do care. I deplore people who try to give a hard time based on how another individual feels about themselves. Say what you want about me, I do not trivialize this stuff. I take it very seriously. > No. People are bigoted because they choose to be. They might have learned that behavior when they were young, but ultimately, they make a choice to stay that way. I really, really doubt this. I don't think anyone wakes up saying "Ehhh who am I gonna hate today? Blacks? Sure, that sounds good." You don't choose who or what you hate. People are prejudice against other races or sexes because that's where their upbringing led them. > My father is an actual neo-nazi. He owns a swastika armband. He laughs when the news shows that a black person died in a car accident. He thinks women are a life support system for a vagina. That's the way I was raised. That's who I used to be. I chose to change. And THIS is what I'm talking about! THIS is the change I strive to see in this world. Be better than how you were brought up. Granted I said a *little* better, but it sounds like you took several steps in the opposite direction of your father if this is true. If the world is a little cleaner every day, it will eventually become spotless. So good on you. > Are you fucking serious? That doesn't fucking help. Raising your children to accept people of all colors and sexes, *does* help prevent this future behavior. If they learn to accept them while young, their reaction to prejudice toward others in the future will be met with confusion as to why they're treated as different. They may even take a stand to defend them. > It's not enough to hope that each generation is less prejudiced than the one before it. > > That. Doesn't. Fucking. Help. If it's successful, which it often will be, yeah. It does help. Let's look at the results. a few centuries ago we were enslaving blacks by what, the thousands? Millions? We'd flat out kill them for so much as looking at a white woman the wrong way. We'd wrongfully imprison them for crimes they never committed. Now? They're mostly tolerated by many people. And yes, *many* "extreme" actions had to be taken from there til now. But here's where the differences start. When blacks got this "special treatment" they were only given equal rights to the whites. Brown vs. The Board of Education was about putting blacks and whites *together,* **not** further segregating them. When slavery ended, it was about giving blacks the same basic rights as human beings instead of being treated like livestock. > What you are saying to do is neutral at best, deliberately complicit at worst. Asking that everyone be treated as equal human beings, disregarding all heritage, is deliberately complying with neo-nazis and bigots. Please, please tell me I'm misinterpreting you. Just please tell me that. > You know that bigots teach bigotry, right? Not really. I don't think we view early KKK members as national heroes. > It spreads. You can't defeat it by hoping to spread neutrality. I'm trying to spread acceptance. Neutrality would be "Just go form your own opinion about that black woman, I won't tell you mine" Acceptance is "That black woman is the same human being as both of us. Treat her with the same respect as any white man in a business suit." > You have to challenge it. Even if you could eventually defeat it through that method, why do you think that doing the absolute minimum would be an acceptable standard? It's not. It doesn't do anything to help people who are suffering _now_! Nothing is going to help the people suffering now. That includes "challenging it." If they face so much prejudice that they can be labelled as suffering, no plan or call to action is going to up and end it within the hour. People would just become sneakier in their attempts to belittle them. > But don't take it from me, take it from someone a lot more qualified. > > "Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people." - Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. To summarize, he says that people with ill intent will spread more quickly than those of good intent. This is mostly true, and I do agree with MLK Jr. that it is *imperative* that we spread the notion that all men [and women] are created equal. Staying silent doesn't help. But actively teaching acceptance is not silence. It is actively helping the cause, one step at a time. > You want to know what y'all can do? Take the time to listen. Promote the voices of minorities. Challenge your own views. Hold bigots accountable for their hatred. I guess how much I agree with this depends on your definition of "promote" and "hold accountable". I don't think bigots should be thrown in jail over saying the n-word. I also don't think we should promote them to be any higher than any other person. However, if you mean "Let others know that these minorities are just as capable as us." and "Letting bigots know that their actions have negative social consequences." Then, yes. I do agree with those. As MLK Jr. himself said. "Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." If the content of your character is calling women and blacks inferior, you deserve to be shamed by your peers. Because I see that as a shameful character.
Jackom1 (EUW)
: I haven't checked the boards in a while, let's see what's going on...
Just take your pizzas and leave. It isn't worth it. PS can I have a slice before you go
: I got a 14 day suspension for repeating the words on Daniel Z Klein in game.
> [{quoted}](name=Jewlliette,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EM090E5e,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-09-03T18:36:56.494+0000) > and told my Wukong that he should stop trying to violate every female in the game, even though he didn't say a single word the entire game. {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00360000,timestamp=2018-09-03T04:53:37.216+0000) > > It is absolutely *not* their political or social views people want him fired over. > > Whether he thinks it or not, he's a face of Riot. He can't be resorting to name calling and condescension. No matter *who* it is he's talking about. If he presented his argument in a formal manner, people would still disagree, but I wouldn't think people would want his job over it. I completely reject the idea that a company owns your private life off the clock. I support a society in which even odious people can be employed, simply because a society cannot function if we impose a tyranny of niceness, with the mob deciding what is nice and what is not (and thus subject to marginalization). In essence, an employee short of creating workplace conflict or being caught insulting customers in his professional capacity while on the company clock can get him fired, but an employee being an asshole outside the company environment is not what I'd consider grounds for firing. Imagine the shit show it would be if Facebook or Google employees who are conservative and voice opinions on immigration control or the moral fabric of society on sexual matters were being fired because they made comments while not working for the company We already know how absurd it was to fire James Damore for unpopular political opinions at Google. I don't want that further expanded to the point where online mobs can pretty much displace anyone out of a job.
> [{quoted}](name=Crescent Dusk,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=003600000000,timestamp=2018-09-04T00:05:00.447+0000) > > I completely reject the idea that a company owns your private life off the clock. I support a society in which even odious people can be employed, simply because a society cannot function if we impose a tyranny of niceness, with the mob deciding what is nice and what is not (and thus subject to marginalization). > I can respect that point of view, and even support it to a degree. But this was done on an account that is affiliated with Riot. I work security, and we have a saying. "When you wear the uniform, you represent our company. No matter where you are or what you're doing." And I think that should apply to basically everyone. Out of uniform? Go wild. 99.9% chance no one's gonna even know who you work for. But when you're representing a company, professionalism is always important. He should have done this on an alt account and not act like he worked there, at least. The repercussions would have been an order of magnitude less significant. I mean at *the very least* maybe just don't directly insult the people who essentially pay your salary.
Anatera (NA)
: Balance team is doing the OPPOSITE of balancing.
How about the imbalance team? I think it has a good ring to it.
AmazoX (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AEWbsAaM,comment-id=00030001,timestamp=2018-09-03T22:46:16.325+0000) > > If you're looking for LoL substitutes, I find DotA 2 to be pretty fun. It controls sorta like LoL except it's kind of slower pace, but also taken to the extreme in a bizarre manner. Like if Sniper was in league, he'd be able to shoot you from his mid outer turret to yours provided he has vision of you. > > I'd say it's worth checking out. I prefer Heroes of the Storm.
> [{quoted}](name=AmazoX,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AEWbsAaM,comment-id=000300010000,timestamp=2018-09-03T23:03:23.351+0000) > > I prefer Heroes of the Storm. To each their own.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ouroboro,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=p9E2u7eZ,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T08:54:04.455+0000) > > Its worth comparing the multiple threads on GD and Reddit to the rather silent supporters on Froskurinn and Daniel's twitter threads on the issue, with mostly support with only a handful of people dissenting and no issue from PAX so far, and even attendees. > > Not to say nothing will happen, but there's clearly an opposing side this time. On the previous occasion, many Rioters abandoned Reddit for Twitter "because we're being unfairly attacked". The fact Riot hasn't done anything on either Reddit or Boards suggests they already know they fucked up and refuse to admit it.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=p9E2u7eZ,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T09:03:25.017+0000) > > On the previous occasion, many Rioters abandoned Reddit for Twitter "because we're being unfairly attacked". > > The fact Riot hasn't done anything on either Reddit or Boards suggests they already know they fucked up and refuse to admit it. How hilarious would it be if they were "unfairly attacked" on Twitter, and then every platform they attempt beyond that? Like they just can't escape it without completely signing off the internet.
: > Bt didn't Mr. Klein violate THE GOLDEN RULE? > Be RESPECTFUL TO PLAYERS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS??? precisely why i can't take this game seriously anymore, if they're not gonna hold their own employees to the same standard SMITE is pretty cool, susano is basically yasuo, so that's where I'll be
> [{quoted}](name=VexingVal,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AEWbsAaM,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-09-03T20:50:24.926+0000) > > precisely why i can't take this game seriously anymore, if they're not gonna hold their own employees to the same standard > > > SMITE is pretty cool, susano is basically yasuo, so that's where I'll be If you're looking for LoL substitutes, I find DotA 2 to be pretty fun. It controls sorta like LoL except it's kind of slower pace, but also taken to the extreme in a bizarre manner. Like if Sniper was in league, he'd be able to shoot you from his mid outer turret to yours provided he has vision of you. I'd say it's worth checking out.
Yago (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=001800000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T05:02:27.254+0000) > > Then allow me to identify my definition of "true egalitarianism" > > Right now, some people seem to think that egalitarianism is simply bringing everyone up to line and making up for thousands of years of oppression and all that. This is not that. That's typically referred to as equity, which would be artificially bringing everyone up to line by enforcing rules that benefit them and exclusively them. > I'm well aware that you're not referring to equity. You're also still not acknowledging that the only reason those rules are enforced is because those 'benefits' only exist either for accessibility (E.g., disability) or to otherwise offset discrimination (E.g., affirmative action). In fact, calling it a benefit is deliberately misleading. > True egalitarianism is treating every human being *like a human being.* No one is "black" no one is "white", no one is "asian" except to describe your heritage. Every man, woman, ethnicity, and race, are all equal in the eyes of society and the law. > _**That's still not a defense.**_ TRUE egalitarianism is an ideal, and even if it's an achievable ideal, there's no reason to think it's achievable through the methods that you claim. You cannot create TRUE egalitarianism by claiming to 'treat every human being like a human being'. Even if you, personally, behave in such a way, there's no reason to think that other people would, too. Any system (I.e., any type of government or _social system such as culture_) that is de jure egalitarian does nothing to stop de facto discrimination. Even if you stop all the obvious cases of discrimination with such a system, there are studies proving that unconscious bias still exists and still has measurable effects. _People are going to exhibit discriminatory bias against minorities whether they feel they are biased or not._ Since the system claims to be egalitarian, you make it even easier for those who practice prejudice to build a claim of plausible deniability. You know what else? Due to the bystander effect, people are less likely to help those in need when they think someone else could step in, especially when the situation is ambiguous. Not only does your system permit discrimination, it actually makes it even harder to stop. > I absolutely do not enforce using anti-racism or anti-sexism to force a 'solution' which I believe solves nothing in the end except becoming the evil which you set out to rid of. Your opinion is naive and your stance isn't logically defensible.
> [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0018000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T18:19:41.485+0000) > > I'm well aware that you're not referring to equity. You're also still not acknowledging that the only reason those rules are enforced is because those 'benefits' only exist either for accessibility (E.g., disability) or to otherwise offset discrimination (E.g., affirmative action). In fact, calling it a benefit is deliberately misleading. For disabilities, it makes total sense. Affirmative action is the stance I have a problem with. Again, sounds good on paper. But in practice, you're promoting inequality between different members of society based on genetic traits. It's giving someone something on the basis they were born as a minority. > > _**That's still not a defense.**_ A defense for what? My principles? It's just an ideal concept in my mind. As previously mentioned, it's unrealistic. There's always going to be some kind of prejudice in the world. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we settle for mediocrity. > > TRUE egalitarianism is an ideal, and even if it's an achievable ideal, there's no reason to think it's achievable through the methods that you claim. > > You cannot create TRUE egalitarianism by claiming to 'treat every human being like a human being'. Even if you, personally, behave in such a way, there's no reason to think that other people would, too. Any system (I.e., any type of government or _social system such as culture_) that is de jure egalitarian does nothing to stop de facto discrimination. As I have said before, you are totally right. *I* cannot create such a world by doing that. But if *every* member of society did, we'd achieve pure equality in a single day. Reminder that this will *not* happen. I'm just saying people *should.* It's a necessary group effort. Most people who are racist or sexist nowadays are like that because of their upbringing. All any individual can hope to do to prevent it is teaching still impressionable minds that these people are like anyone of us. You are not going to convince a 40 year old KKK member that blacks are equal. Ever. You can jail him, sure. But that doesn't solve the problem. It merely contains it. > > Even if you stop all the obvious cases of discrimination with such a system, there are studies proving that unconscious bias still exists and still has measurable effects. _People are going to exhibit discriminatory bias against minorities whether they feel they are biased or not._ Since the system claims to be egalitarian, you make it even easier for those who practice prejudice to build a claim of plausible deniability. Yeah. I already said multiple times it's unrealistic, and I said that because of this very reason. Sure it'd be ideal if we all got along and didn't think twice about who's black and who's white, but that's never gonna happen. What we do is take it one step at a time. Each day, strive to be a little bit better than the previous. Each generation, try to be a little bit more tolerable of others than your parents were. This problem is not going away over night. No amount of affirmative action is going to change that. You aren't swaying the minds of the public with your ideals. You're merely creating equal outcome disguised as equal opportunity. >You know what else? Due to the bystander effect, people are less likely to help those in need when they think someone else could step in, especially when the situation is ambiguous. Not only does your system permit discrimination, it actually makes it even harder to stop. The bystander effect is going to happen no matter what rules are in place. If someone is being discriminated in a public area, the chances of a random stranger stepping in are very low. It does happen, but not often. Your system doesn't account for this any better than mine. > Your opinion is naive and your stance isn't logically defensible. Suppose we'll just have to disagree on that, as I've already presented my defense.
: >Calling your player base a toxic landfill. The player base is a toxic landfill. Look at all of you go. >No, that's not bullshit. That's just how 'isms' get worked around. Your almost correct. "isms" get worked around through solidarity efforts to change the conditions which create those "isms" in the first place. Ideologically, its not possible for you to change those things, due to your atomization of society. It's also not possible for Riot to actually change those things, because those conditions are what allow large business entities to exist and maintain control over large segments of the population in the first place. >Again, wrong. Racism is discriminating against someone based on their race. That's it. It's really and truly as simple as that. You don't need to be shot by the police to be on the receiving end of racism. And that's the atomization of society that makes impossible for you to actually deal with things like racism or sexism, let alone merely even understand those subjects.
> [{quoted}](name=Criomhthann,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=003b,timestamp=2018-09-03T13:55:51.949+0000) > > The player base is a toxic landfill. Look at all of you go. > There are trashy people everywhere. I've seen some truly awful human beings in my life. In this particular instance, however, there are very few who would even qualify as remotely toxic. The idea of debating in a healthy way is presenting yourself in a polite and informative manner. Of the which, I've seen a lot of on this topic. This isn't like those "nerf yasuo" threads where all they do is list his abilities off and demand they remove his double crit. Many people here are making very sound and relatively educated arguments. > Your almost correct. "isms" get worked around through solidarity efforts to change the conditions which create those "isms" in the first place. Ideologically, its not possible for you to change those things, due to your atomization of society. It's also not possible for Riot to actually change those things, because those conditions are what allow large business entities to exist and maintain control over large segments of the population in the first place. I'm well aware I cannot change the thoughts of millions. No one person can. The goal shouldn't be rushing out these ideals and force everyone to accept them. These things take time. Many racist or sexist people are stuck in their own thoughts, unable to view different people as equal human beings. What we *can* do is plant the seeds of equality, so to speak. Teach children at a young age that every person, regardless of their sex or skin, is equal to you and everybody else. They'll hopefully learn, grow up to be accepting, raise children, and hopefully have them be accepting as well. That's helpful. Ah and you are absolutely correct that Riot cannot change these things, which is why I still don't think they should have done that. Though, I'm confused on how these conditions generate profit for them. You kind of lost me on that one. I can assure you if sexism and racism ended forever, Riot would still be bringing home the big bucks. > > And that's the atomization of society that makes impossible for you to actually deal with things like racism or sexism, let alone merely even understand those subjects. I understand them perfectly well, thank you. And as I said. I *really* doubt *any* 'ism' is going to go away in our lifetime. But that doesn't mean we can't try. And Riot's approach, while I believe came from good intentions, is not the way to go about helping. Solving 'isms' by separate treatment of different sexes/races is never going to work. It just plain isn't.
: Maybe you should just fuck off and sea lion elsewhere. ;)
> [{quoted}](name=Automated Riven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=rjizp5TE,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:50:11.739+0000) > > Maybe you should just fuck off and sea lion elsewhere. ;) The downvotes seem to be telling me some people thought this was done seriously. It's a joke, people.
Don Lupus (EUW)
: Most of this so called discussion was a toxic landfill. The pathetic outcry and the hyper-childish, over-offended reaction was equally embarassing. If the shoe fits, you should wear it.
> [{quoted}](name=Don Lupus,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0039,timestamp=2018-09-03T06:07:27.161+0000) > > Most of this so called discussion was a toxic landfill. The pathetic outcry and the hyper-childish, over-offended reaction was equally embarassing. If the shoe fits, you should wear it. Do elaborate on this. I'm not sure where you're coming from.
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00380000,timestamp=2018-09-03T05:34:27.668+0000) > > I'm not comparing anything. I'm denouncing a sexist bigot and calling any form of sexism bad. > > I never once said "Women may have had it rough the past few decades and beyond, but men not being able to go to PAX is just as intolerable as those years of discrimination, perhaps worse!" > > I think calling a sexist bigot a sexist bigot is a pretty fair statement. And if you find someone who encourages sexism, well, they may not like me very much I guess. Pushing for equality without accounting for severity just reveals how disconnected all this yelling is though. People are calling him sexist on what could charitably called a technicality, but how his actions affected men negatively is almost non existent. Getting up in arms about this only elucidates how much people don't understand the weight of the topic they're trying to argue about, and how toothless this faux egalitarian gotcha-ism is.
> [{quoted}](name=SupaDupaDog,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=003800000000,timestamp=2018-09-03T05:53:04.317+0000) > > Pushing for equality without accounting for severity just reveals how disconnected all this yelling is though. We've accounted for this severity. It doesn't matter. White men don't have to be enslaved for decades because blacks were enslaved that long. You don't fix racism and sexism by bringing down others to 'acceptable' levels. An eye for an eye makes the whole world goes blind. You fix racism and sexism by taking a stand and refusing to treat others differently. Not everyone will follow in your footsteps, but this stuff has a ripple effect. Teach your kids not to judge anyone, they may do the same for their kids. Generations down the line, the world becomes better. > > Getting up in arms about this only elucidates how much people don't understand the weight of the topic they're trying to argue about, and how toothless this faux egalitarian gotcha-ism is. I perfectly understand the weight of the topic. If you understood as well, you'd realize this isn't stuff you can force-fix overnight. It takes generations of people to accept the fact that these other, genetically different people, are the same as you and me. Regardless of how they identify or what the color of their skin is. The people who refuse to accept this belief right now are typically going to be the ones who were raised under this belief and have matured enough that they won't have a swayed opinion just because these different people are getting different treatment. If anything, that only accentuates the issue and drives them further in their beliefs that their sexist and racist beliefs are completely true. After all, the governments and organizations are promoting it. Therefore, we must be different types of people and deserve different treatment. This is the mindset others gain when you promote treating different people in a different way. You set a precedent that it is okay to be sexist, racist or transphobic. The best way to strive for true equality is to be the change you want to see in this world. View each person based on their merits and efforts. Not by the color of their skin or sexual identity. Pass this on to the next generation, and you plant the seed of acceptance and equality.
: Averaging out about $10/month in RP purchases, and that's low balling, that's $280/month Riot is losing. $3,360/year. WE NEED MORE!!!
> [{quoted}](name= CURSEÐ REVENANT,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EFdoIaTE,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2018-09-02T19:13:45.862+0000) > > Averaging out about $10/month in RP purchases, and that's low balling, that's $280/month Riot is losing. $3,360/year. > > WE NEED MORE!!! Well it's at 248, so $2,480 a month, or $29,760 annual. So Tom the Riot Games custodian just lost his job.
: Comparing "dudes not getting to go to a press talk" with "women being actively pushed out of their chosen field of employment" is why people don't take these hissy fits seriously haha
> [{quoted}](name=SupaDupaDog,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0038,timestamp=2018-09-03T05:26:41.952+0000) > > Comparing "dudes not getting to go to a press talk" with "women being actively pushed out of their chosen field of employment" is why people don't take these hissy fits seriously haha I'm not comparing anything. I'm denouncing a sexist bigot and calling any form of sexism bad. I never once said "Women may have had it rough the past few decades and beyond, but men not being able to go to PAX is just as intolerable as those years of discrimination, perhaps worse!" I think calling a sexist bigot a sexist bigot is a pretty fair statement. And if you find someone who encourages sexism, well, they may not like me very much I guess.
: "Systemic sexism and racism exist at the intersection of bigotry and power dynamics. Racism isn't just being called the n-word, it's that + no one caring when you protest + not being given a loan a white person would have gotten + being shot by the police for no reason" Again, wrong. Racism is discriminating against someone based on their race. That's it. It's really and truly as simple as that. You don't need to be shot by the police to be on the receiving end of racism. I agreed with everything here but this. There are different types of racism and prejudice. He was pointing out what I call hidden racism that isn't out right blatant. Obvious racism is mostly gone. But hidden racism is still here and is something that hasn't been talked about and discussed main stream until recently.
> [{quoted}](name=Oakleaf Ranger,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0033,timestamp=2018-09-03T01:18:10.707+0000) > > "Systemic sexism and racism exist at the intersection of bigotry and power dynamics. Racism isn't just being called the n-word, it's that + no one caring when you protest + not being given a loan a white person would have gotten + being shot by the police for no reason" > > Again, wrong. Racism is discriminating against someone based on their race. That's it. It's really and truly as simple as that. You don't need to be shot by the police to be on the receiving end of racism. > > I agreed with everything here but this. There are different types of racism and prejudice. He was pointing out what I call hidden racism that isn't out right blatant. Obvious racism is mostly gone. But hidden racism is still here and is something that hasn't been talked about and discussed main stream until recently. Covert Racism, also known as Hidden Racism. Definition: A form of racial _discrimination_ that is disguised and subtle, rather than public and obvious. All racism is discrimination. There are absolutely no exceptions.
: I attended this recent Pax that everyone is talking about.
I'd leave a comment, but as a white cis male scum, my account would get banned if I even OH SHIT _**Your account has been temporarily disabled**_
Yago (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0018000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:19:54.038+0000) > > This is why I promote *true* egalitarianism. Not just a lawful one, but one that every human being respects. See, this is why I believe it's an unrealistic goal, but one we should all aim to achieve. Equal work for equal pay, equal rights for every person, and the only limits for any individual are their mental and physical capacities. > > No person, *period*, should be judged based on their sex, their race, or ethnicity. If you were born with it, then it shouldn't affect your opportunities or treatment. I am firm in my beliefs in this. I doubt we'll ever achieve it, but I can try my best to lead by example. > > We aren't getting *anywhere* by trying to treat minorities and women differently than others. Attempting to give them unnecessary and unfair treatment solves nothing. Oh sure it looks better on paper, but the end result is you are now discriminatory in the opposite direction. Putting the word 'true' in front of it doesn't actually do anything to defend it. If you wanted actual egalitarianism you wouldn't be comparing literally hundreds or thousands of years of oppression to the minor inconvenience that is a PAX panel you can't attend and a Rioter telling entitled sea lions to fuck off. The kind of 'egalitarianism' you're trying to promote is naive at best and intellectual cowardice at worst. It fails to acknowledge the fact that 'equal treatment' does not result in equal outcome. That's the entire fucking problem. Minorities have to work harder to receive less. If you're not going to address the reason that equal treatment does not result in an equal outcome, then you aren't fixing the damn problem. There's zero reason to remove what few supports minorities do have, even if those are 'unfair'...until after you've actually made substantial progress against the oppressive institutions that necessitated those reparations in the first place.
> [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00180000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-03T00:00:48.981+0000) > > Putting the word 'true' in front of it doesn't actually do anything to defend it. If you wanted actual egalitarianism you wouldn't be comparing literally hundreds or thousands of years of oppression to the minor inconvenience that is a PAX panel you can't attend and a Rioter telling entitled sea lions to fuck off. > > The kind of 'egalitarianism' you're trying to promote is naive at best and intellectual cowardice at worst. It fails to acknowledge the fact that 'equal treatment' does not result in equal outcome. That's the entire fucking problem. Minorities have to work harder to receive less. > > If you're not going to address the reason that equal treatment does not result in an equal outcome, then you aren't fixing the damn problem. > > There's zero reason to remove what few supports minorities do have, even if those are 'unfair'...until after you've actually made substantial progress against the oppressive institutions that necessitated those reparations in the first place. Then allow me to identify my definition of "true egalitarianism" Right now, some people seem to think that egalitarianism is simply bringing everyone up to line and making up for thousands of years of oppression and all that. This is not that. That's typically referred to as equity, which would be artificially bringing everyone up to line by enforcing rules that benefit them and exclusively them. True egalitarianism is treating every human being *like a human being.* No one is "black" no one is "white", no one is "asian" except to describe your heritage. Every man, woman, ethnicity, and race, are all equal in the eyes of society and the law. I absolutely do not enforce using anti-racism or anti-sexism to force a 'solution' which I believe solves nothing in the end except becoming the evil which you set out to rid of.
: People have a right to their political opinions regardless of how idiotic they are. I'd rather people not lose jobs over unpopular political opinions of any kind.
> [{quoted}](name=Crescent Dusk,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0036,timestamp=2018-09-03T02:21:25.427+0000) > > People have a right to their political opinions regardless of how idiotic they are. I'd rather people not lose jobs over unpopular political opinions of any kind. It is absolutely *not* their political or social views people want him fired over. Whether he thinks it or not, he's a face of Riot. He can't be resorting to name calling and condescension. No matter *who* it is he's talking about. If he presented his argument in a formal manner, people would still disagree, but I wouldn't think people would want his job over it.
: Can someone explain what's going on here in simple terms. Cause right now I'm to lazy to try and figure out, but it has something to do with white knights, sjw's and feminism.
> [{quoted}](name=Axe Hemorrhage ,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=002d,timestamp=2018-09-02T21:25:19.405+0000) > > Can someone explain what's going on here in simple terms. Cause right now I'm to lazy to try and figure out, but it has something to do with white knights, sjw's and feminism. Simplest terms I can think of, here we go. ------------------ Part 1: Riot has a PAX panel where they only allow men after 2:30 PM. Part 2: People catch wind of this, and denounce them for their discrimination. Part 3: Daniel here types out all you see here, which can be summarized as "Men are over-privileged, so women need to be given special treatment." while hurtling a lot of condescending insults. (Also some other Rioter comments DID NOT help.) Part 4: The mightiest shitstorm of 2018 on both the boards and lol subreddit. I think that's a decent summary.
Trundler (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=002c0000,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:55:47.166+0000) > > I mean. He said it. It's right there, you can read it. I didn't put words in his mouth or misconstrue them. > > And, no. I REALLY doubt Riot wants to ban 95% of their active player base for being male. The main point of this thread was to point out that this man is representing them in an incredibly toxic and nonsensical manner. If you deny that, well...well I'll say you're in the deep minority, at least. > > The initial goal was just to call attention to this one particular individual. It kinda got derailed into a discussion of equality, but I'll happily discuss that as well. I did read it, thanks. Read the section you were replying to about who isn't welcome, and try again. Intentionally or not, you're confusing two different subjects in his statement: 1) Men aren't invited to the early panel to make a specific space for women. 2) The kind of toxic misogyny on display in the Reddit thread should not be welcome in League at all. You're free to disagree with either or both of those claims, but the only way to read that statement as if he is trying to exclude all men from League (and not just from that panel) is if you believe all men are toxic misogynists.
> [{quoted}](name=Trundler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=002c00000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T21:02:00.795+0000) > > I did read it, thanks. Read the section you were replying to about who isn't welcome, and try again. Intentionally or not, you're confusing two different subjects in his statement: > 1) Men aren't invited to the early panel to make a specific space for women. > 2) The kind of toxic misogyny on display in the Reddit thread should not be welcome in League at all. > > You're free to disagree with either or both of those claims, but the only way to read that statement as if he is trying to exclude all men from League (and not just from that panel) is if you believe all men are toxic misogynists. I've been on the league subreddit. I frequent it quite often. I didn't see this abysmal display of toxic misogyny people have told me about. All I saw was backlash for blatant sexism in what is supposed to be a professional business. Of the which, he himself probably misunderstood as misogyny. And there's really no need to make special space for women. Just let anyone in until the seats are filled. It's actually easier than trying to deny access to people who just want to have a good time for no solidified reason. Back to Daniel, though, I can only see him refer to men as a whole. I never once saw him call out misogynists or redditors specifically. I'll reiterate. If he wanted to call out specific people, *he should have done that.* It's called clarification, and it's kind of really important when discussing these matters.
Trundler (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=000c0000,timestamp=2018-09-02T16:32:43.032+0000) insulting the vast majority of the game's players. You guys really need to stop making this claim. I'm a man and a member of the player base, I'm not insulted. He's insulting misogynists, not men. The only way he's insulting the majority of the player base is if the whiny man-children on Reddit are reflective the League population as a whole. Oh, wait....
> [{quoted}](name=Trundler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=000c00000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:57:49.704+0000) > > insulting the vast majority of the game's players. > > You guys really need to stop making this claim. I'm a man and a member of the player base, I'm not insulted. He's insulting misogynists, not men. The only way he's insulting the majority of the player base is if the whiny man-children on Reddit are reflective the League population as a whole. Oh, wait.... I think something to take note of is he never once said "misogynist." He *only* ever said "men." If he meant misogynist, he should have said it. I think that's a fair expectation.
Trundler (NA)
: Good God. If you think calling out the most toxic segments of the community is Riot trying to say that men are no longer welcome in gaming, you're either illiterate, an idiot, or you believe that all men are as misogynistic as the worst comments in that Reddit thread (which is probably an indication that you fall into that category). Fix your brain.
> [{quoted}](name=Trundler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=002c,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:50:45.627+0000) > > Good God. If you think calling out the most toxic segments of the community is Riot trying to say that men are no longer welcome in gaming, you're either illiterate, an idiot, or you believe that all men are as misogynistic as the worst comments in that Reddit thread (which is probably an indication that you fall into that category). Fix your brain. I mean. He said it. It's right there, you can read it. I didn't put words in his mouth or misconstrue them. And, no. I REALLY doubt Riot wants to ban 95% of their active player base for being male. The main point of this thread was to point out that this man is representing them in an incredibly toxic and nonsensical manner. If you deny that, well...well I'll say you're in the deep minority, at least. The initial goal was just to call attention to this one particular individual. It kinda got derailed into a discussion of equality, but I'll happily discuss that as well.
: >I've gone to a cosplay event for the past 8 years, and I've never once witnessed any form of objectification, harassment, or unwanted physical contact. Of those 8 years, 4 have been with my girlfriend. She has had zero incidents involving others. Of course, this is purely anecdotal evidence, but I guarantee you the vast majority of women do not feel unwelcome coming to cosplay and fan events. I'd bet my life and soul on that. From what I know, it *does* happen on occasion, but the reason it seems so rare is that *gasp* event coordinators react quickly and give creeps the boot. Creepers tend not to last long because their behavior isn't tolerated, creating a healthier environment. Riot really ought to learn from them...
> [{quoted}](name=IcyPepper,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0024,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:01:10.287+0000) > > From what I know, it *does* happen on occasion, but the reason it seems so rare is that *gasp* event coordinators react quickly and give creeps the boot. Creepers tend not to last long because their behavior isn't tolerated, creating a healthier environment. > > Riot really ought to learn from them... My bad then. Like I said, I can only go by what I see. But without actually being an attractive woman I guess I wouldn't know how bad it can be. Good to know event coordinators are usually on top of that stuff, though.
Yago (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00180000,timestamp=2018-09-02T18:30:15.214+0000) > > No, he's defending a sexist standpoint while hurling childish insults to a potentially overwhelming number of people. > > An example of standing up for minorities would be defending a black man for people making fun of him for being black. > > True egalitarianism may be an unrealistic goal, but it *should* be a goal nonetheless. The kind of 'egalitarianism' you're trying to promote is naive at best and intellectual cowardice at worst. It fails to acknowledge the fact that 'equal treatment' does not result in equal outcome. That's the entire fucking problem. Minorities have to work harder to receive less. _Equality isn't always just. _ Not to mention, a lot of 'egalitarianism' is just the same old bigotry with a new paint job. For example: 'Why should same sex marriage be legal? That's an extra right! Everyone already has the right to marry the opposite sex!' If you're not going to address the reason that equal treatment does not result in an equal outcome, then you aren't fixing the damn problem. It's that fucking simple.
> [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=001800000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T20:07:11.850+0000) > > The kind of 'egalitarianism' you're trying to promote is naive at best and intellectual cowardice at worst. It fails to acknowledge the fact that 'equal treatment' does not result in equal outcome. That's the entire fucking problem. Minorities have to work harder to receive less. _Equality isn't always just. _ Not to mention, a lot of 'egalitarianism' is just the same old bigotry with a new paint job. For example: 'Why should same sex marriage be legal? That's an extra right! Everyone already has the right to marry the opposite sex!' > > If you're not going to address the reason that equal treatment does not result in an equal outcome, then you aren't fixing the damn problem. > > It's that fucking simple. This is why I promote *true* egalitarianism. Not just a lawful one, but one that every human being respects. See, this is why I believe it's an unrealistic goal, but one we should all aim to achieve. Equal work for equal pay, equal rights for every person, and the only limits for any individual are their mental and physical capacities. No person, *period*, should be judged based on their sex, their race, or ethnicity. If you were born with it, then it shouldn't affect your opportunities or treatment. I am firm in my beliefs in this. I doubt we'll ever achieve it, but I can try my best to lead by example. We aren't getting *anywhere* by trying to treat minorities and women differently than others. Attempting to give them unnecessary and unfair treatment solves nothing. Oh sure it looks better on paper, but the end result is you are now discriminatory in the opposite direction.
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:42:34.800+0000) > > You realize it's as insulting to women as it is men, right? They're being told they're too weak to be in a man's presence, so they must be removed before they can find safety in the room they're in. We just want equality, man. Isn't that what this is about? To give a proper explanation: Women are not somehow being told they're too weak to be in a man's presence. Organising a female only event is about letting women have a chance to discuss issues that affect them in a space where they are guaranteed representation. This whole 'controversy' reminds me of people being offended by female only chess tournaments and esport leagues, claiming they belittle women or that it's somehow a negative thing for them. In reality, they're just spaces for women to participate in industries where they are normally underrepresented. Trying to make it look like a bad thing for women is a common tactic from people that pretend to care about 'equality' but don't really. It's just another way to try and get the event shut down.
> [{quoted}](name=AtomicCupcakes,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-02T19:32:41.138+0000) > > To give a proper explanation: > > Women are not somehow being told they're too weak to be in a man's presence. Organising a female only event is about letting women have a chance to discuss issues that affect them in a space where they are guaranteed representation. > > This whole 'controversy' reminds me of people being offended by female only chess tournaments and esport leagues, claiming they belittle women or that it's somehow a negative thing for them. In reality, they're just spaces for women to participate in industries where they are normally underrepresented. > > Trying to make it look like a bad thing for women is a common tactic from people that pretend to care about 'equality' but don't really. It's just another way to try and get the event shut down. Why not just guarantee representation by looking for eager female faces to have brief discussions with? I'm not trying to shut down anything. This is flat out sexual segregation in a place where it truly doesn't belong. Men aren't better at asking questions or whatever. There's no purpose to it. Just let eager women speak and be done with it. There was never a need to make a fuss over this. No one's going to complain if women asked the same amount of questions at a PAX panel as men did. I'd encourage it, even. As for the chess/esports thing, men are just naturally better at *most* sports. There's a good reason there's a lot of segregation when it comes to this somewhat touchy subject. And, yes, men are often marginally better at chess than women are. The difference isn't as stark as say, football. But there is a big enough disparity in skill levels that separating them is within reason. This is an okay example of separating the sexes. Though, as with most things in life, it isn't perfect. And, yes, I do care about equality, but this is not it. The idea of supporting this literally means you are against equality. There are no "ifs" or "buts" about it. If you want to segregate the males from the females in the manner that Riot was presented, you are against true egalitarianism by dictionary definition.
: How does this guy still have his job after directly attacking and insulting the majority of his company's customers several times over? Sanjuro was sacked fore you could even say it - is Riot so afraid of rabid SJW's to not even tweet "we do not condone this asshole's behavior and will talk to him about it"? > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0018,timestamp=2018-09-02T17:43:49.733+0000) > > He's not fucking wrong? If the community doesn't want to be called a landfill then we need to start taking out the trash. Then we should start with the asshat who is openly attacking people who are upset about discrimination. Doesn't get more trash than that. And if you honestly think he is right, well... Fuck off and sea lion somewhere else.
> [{quoted}](name=Weiss Guertena,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=001b,timestamp=2018-09-02T18:41:24.176+0000) > > How does this guy still have his job after directly attacking and insulting the majority of his company's customers several times over? Sanjuro was sacked fore you could even say it - is Riot so afraid of rabid SJW's to not even tweet "we do not condone this asshole's behavior and will talk to him about it"? I'd give it a week, personally. He did this over the weekend while Riot isn't working, and with labor day coming up, they won't even be in until Tuesday. After that they have to find out what happened, probably discuss it with him, and fill out the necessary paperwork. A progress which won't happen until, as I said, Tuesday at the earliest. PR has already made an announcement saying they expect professional behavior from their employees. They didn't do any name dropping, but we all know who they're talking about.
Yago (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-09-02T12:05:34.551+0000) > > NOTE: I know this is really long, but at least read the "My choice?" part. That one especially was what led me to type all this out. > > Daniel Z Klein is a System's Designer that works for Riot who made a series of public tweets in response to the recent PAX ordeal. For those of you not in the loop, men were barred from entering a certain panel until 2:30. Remember, this guy is a representation of Riot's image, regardless of his exact position. > > ----------------------- > **"This reddit thread about some events we're hosting at PAX being open to women and non-binary people only was just as much of a toxic landfill as I expected it to be"** > > Good start. Calling your player base a toxic landfill. Good professional practice. > ---------------------- He's not fucking wrong? If the community doesn't want to be called a landfill then we need to start taking out the trash. > **"The most commonly thrown around arguments are that this is being sexist against men, just like racism, and that you can't fix a problem by doing the opposite of what that problem is.** > > **Cool.** > > **That's all bullshit."** > > No, that's not bullshit. That's just how 'isms' get worked around. Trying to obtain equality with opposing action just causes conflict and often times reverts progress that was previously made. You need to set a precedent that no one is discriminated against for something they were born with unless it impairs them from adequately performing a required action. > It is bullshit. You're fucking wrong. It's that simple. Discrimination doesn't go away because you put up a sign that says "Everyone is welcome!". You know how we know? Because after we realized that 'separate but equal' wasn't fucking equal...we struck down segregation. And you know what happened? Nothing! It's been fifty fucking years and hundreds of our cities are still almost as demographically segregated as they were back then. > ------------------------------------------------- > **"Systemic sexism and racism exist at the intersection of bigotry and power dynamics. Racism isn't just being called the n-word, it's that + no one caring when you protest + not being given a loan a white person would have gotten + being shot by the police for no reason"** > > Again, wrong. Racism is *discriminating against someone based on their race.* That's it. It's really and truly as simple as that. You don't need to be shot by the police to be on the receiving end of racism. Again, you're fucking ignorant? That's not the definition of racism he's using. 'Racism' has a particular deeper meaning in academic contexts, just as 'liable' has a particular deeper meaning in law. There's no fucking reason for you to challenge that. > ---------------------------------- > **"Men are RIDICULOUSLY over-represented in gaming; they're listened to when women are ignored, promoted when women are passed over, lauded for speaking out when women are being called "difficult to work with"."** > > Men are definitely more recognized in gaming, but they're not over-represented. If I'm not mistaken, roughly 95% of the active player base for LoL is male, right? As for that other stuff, that seems like something that only comes with being in the gaming business. I wouldn't know anything about that, so I won't comment. Maybe Riot in particular does all that regularly, but I wouldn't know. He works in the industry. He just fucking told you what he meant by over-represented, and you're still sitting there trying to play with definitions. > ---------------------------- > **"I imagine the same power dynamics apply to cosplay and fan events. I'm sure women are objectified and harassed, both verbally and with unwanted physical contact. I'm sure they're spoken over and made to feel unwelcome at events like these."** > > I've gone to a cosplay event for the past 8 years, and I've never once witnessed any form of objectification, harassment, or unwanted physical contact. Of those 8 years, 4 have been with my girlfriend. She has had zero incidents involving others. Of course, this is purely anecdotal evidence, but I guarantee you the vast majority of women do not feel unwelcome coming to cosplay and fan events. I'd bet my life and soul on that. > -------------------- > **"So yes, in the interest of justice, equality, and fairness, men need to be excluded sometimes."** > > No they don't, that's the exact opposite of justice and equality. They absolutely do need to be excluded sometimes. Do you know why? Because they won't quit creating hostile environments! > ---------------- > **"But no, you have to be absolute overgrown toddlers and throw hissy fits."** > > Childish and over-exaggerated insults toward your player base who simply want true equality, nice. He's not fucking wrong. You made an entire fucking thread to drag him and try and ruin his career because he's sticking up for minorities. And you're not the only one to do so. It's blatantly harassment. > ----------------- > **"If you've never had to think about this for a minute in your life, congratulations, you're privileged as fuck and have been benefiting from a system that makes the lives of other people hell. I sincerely hope these manbabies crying in that thread will grow up some day. But I know most of them won't. That's their choice. "** > > So, if I've never thought about how stuff has to be taken away from me/my gender and given to another, I'm privileged and benefiting from this 'system' that's making other peoples' lives hell? You know, there are women and minorities who actually don't have this viewpoint. Are they privileged and benefiting from this same system? This point falls over its own logic. Also nice going back to childish and condescending insults, again. Yeah, you are fucking privileged. > ------------------- > > You heard it folks. An official member of Riot's own team is flat out saying, without any possible misconstrued words, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that men are no longer welcome at the PAX panel or even in gaming. And the only solution to rid of us once and for all, is to be "harsh and exclusionary". I'm not even going to comment on this. It speaks for itself. > ------------------ > **"And that's okay."** > > No, it isn't. The men who refuse to educate themselves and then behave the way you do? Yeah. Y'all should fucking leave. > --------------------------------- > I usually have no comment on stuff like this, but this is just way out of line and incredibly unprofessional. Even if he supports the decision to make the panel exclude males until later, (which really, no one should support that idea) there are MUCH better ways of doing so. Everyone will still disagree with you, but at least you'd be left with a shred of dignity and respect. But this? This is just a shameful display. If I was a Rioter, I'd be embarrassed just reading that. Knowing that so many people will look at those words and equate them to the entirety of my company and not just this individual. > > Also, no. I will not "Fuck off and sea lion somewhere else." as you so eloquently put. He's using his privilege to stand up for minorities. He's doing the right thing.
> He's using his privilege to stand up for minorities. He's doing the right thing. No, he's defending a sexist standpoint while hurling childish insults to a potentially overwhelming number of people. An example of standing up for minorities would be defending a black man for people making fun of him for being black. True egalitarianism may be an unrealistic goal, but it *should* be a goal nonetheless.
Moon Mom (NA)
: creeps in the world of cosplay is a very real thing =/. I'm shocked you haven't seen anything in 8 years honestly. I agree with most points, but this one stuck out like a sore thumb to me.
> [{quoted}](name=Moon Mom,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0019,timestamp=2018-09-02T17:52:56.140+0000) > > creeps in the world of cosplay is a very real thing =/. I'm shocked you haven't seen anything in 8 years honestly. I agree with most points, but this one stuck out like a sore thumb to me. I'm aware they exist, but it isn't as prevalent as a lot of people would have you believe. Girls aren't battling to keep every other man in sight from trying to sneak a quick pic of their cleavage. At least, I haven't seen anything like that. Again, this is purely anecdotal. I guess a more fair point would've been to say that it exists, but isn't as prominent as a lot of others will tell you. *I think.* It's kind of hard to tell how many people are doing that sort of thing, so I can only go by what I see.
: I learnt 4 different words reading your post, thanks for the education. Also this rioter is posting all this to look like a white knight and get praise, nothing more
> [{quoted}](name=VermillionWolf,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0012,timestamp=2018-09-02T16:42:55.632+0000) > > I learnt 4 different words reading your post, thanks for the education. Also this rioter is posting all this to look like a white knight and get praise, nothing more Did someone say 4 {{champion:202}}
: If I understand this right in a nutshell, there was a panel open to women early, everyone later, in an attempt to address a side that's been underrepresented. Some people got pissy, and a rioter essentially told them to screw off. I don't see the problem with it. They had an early panel for women, a later panel open to everyone. They wanted to target a specific part of the population, and they did. I can understand them wanting to split things, it's not uncommon for women to be drowned out and ignored otherwise. It's not right, but it tends to happen anyway. There are a lot of gender exclusive things out there, if you want to call equality then you have to accept that rather than blow a gasket when it happens. I haven't seen the post on Reddit, but I would be more surprised if there wasn't a post full of raging babies because there was a women only time frame for something. I think he was well within reasonableness with what he said in response to it. He's human, he has human thoughts, and he should be allowed to express them just like anyone else. I'm willing to bet that if someone else outside riot had posted that same thing, or if no one knew he worked for riot, then he wouldn't be getting blasted for it. Why should his thoughts be discriminated against so critically just because of his job? Seems pretty unfair to me.
> [{quoted}](name=Tobias LeBeau,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2018-09-02T16:12:00.282+0000) > > If I understand this right in a nutshell, there was a panel open to women early, everyone later, in an attempt to address a side that's been underrepresented. Some people got pissy, and a rioter essentially told them to screw off. > > I don't see the problem with it. They had an early panel for women, a later panel open to everyone. They wanted to target a specific part of the population, and they did. I can understand them wanting to split things, it's not uncommon for women to be drowned out and ignored otherwise. It's not right. So the argument is that they are drowned out, rather than intimidated. If that's true, all they'd need to do is be sure to split the discussions between male and female audiences. Make sure everyone is heard right from the get-go. There's no need for this "All female at first, then everyone later" mentality. At best, it's inefficient. At worst, your company looks bad. And yeah, no one would care who his name is if they didn't know he worked for Riot. But if he posted those same things as a response on Reddit or whatever, he'd get downvoted to oblivion and then forgotten about. This is different, though. Not only is his job title labeled for all to see, he's showing a blatant lack of professionalism for someone representing a multi-billion dollar company, *and* directly insulting the vast majority of the game's players. The only thing he could've done worse is threatening them if they even try to show up at that PAX panel before 2:30. This isn't harmless banter or sarcasm, this is outright aggression. And as Riot always says themselves... "It doesn't matter what others said to you, you are the one responsible for your own actions" I don't think Rioters themselves should have *any* extra leeway with this rule.
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:42:34.800+0000) > > You realize it's as insulting to women as it is men, right? They're being told they're too weak to be in a man's presence, so they must be removed before they can find safety in the room they're in. We just want equality, man. Isn't that what this is about? That is a gross misrepresentation of the entire idea. It is so obviously not how that actually works.
> [{quoted}](name=AtomicCupcakes,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:56:12.632+0000) > > That is a gross misrepresentation of the entire idea. It is so obviously not how that actually works. Okay. Explain the idea in a way that isn't making the women feel safer about discussing their thoughts, questions, and comments. I'll wait.
: Yeah, I'm glad riot are like this. This post is a classic example of ignoring nuance and misinterpreting to fit a narrative. People's reactions to these comments simply serve to prove what those comments are saying. People seem to have a massive persecution complex when anything caters exclusively to a group that isn't them. I'm glad posts like this exist. Fingers crossed you'll get yourselves so outraged you'll bugger off to another community and leave this one alone.
> [{quoted}](name=AtomicCupcakes,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=000a,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:54:12.563+0000) > > Yeah, I'm glad riot are like this. This post is a classic example of ignoring nuance and misinterpreting to fit a narrative. People's reactions to these comments simply serve to prove what those comments are saying. > > People seem to have a massive persecution complex when anything caters exclusively to a group that isn't them. > > I'm glad posts like this exist. Fingers crossed you'll get yourselves so outraged you'll bugger off to another community and leave this one alone. My post would remain largely the same if they did this to literally any other group. (Except children if they got some pretty R-Rated stuff in there.) Whites, males, females, elderly, blacks, Mexicans, albinos, Antarcticans, Liechtensteins, it doesn't matter. ANY kind of exclusionary discrimination that is not *strictly* necessary (Obviously men can't take off work for giving birth) is simply morally unjust. So, no. I'm not upset they're "catering to a group that isn't me", I'm upset they're excluding anyone at all that they don't have to. But I'm more upset that Daniel here is ridiculing Riot's own players.
: > [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0007000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:12:06.578+0000) > > You find no issue with barring males? > > But once again, let's flip it. What if we barred females until that time. Only males get to join in on the resume review, the presentation on what it means to be a producer, and the QA roundtable. It would be blown up as rightfully sexist. > > You don't achieve equality by denying one side. One of the other summoners posted a wonderful thread about how it shouldn't be about isolating these individuals but helping them find their voice in those situations. > > At the very least they could've held 2 panels, one welcoming all, and one with only females/non-binaries. This lifts up the underrepresented while not alienating and denying half of their playerbase/potential employees. Read what i said i even added a caveat as to why i would agree with it. If this was perfect world where our better selves could sit down and talk like normal humans, yes it would be wrong to bar certain people from a pre game event. We dont live in that world and we are part of a community that easily devolves into shouting matches about raping eachothers mothers and asking people to kill themselves, do you really think that wouldnt happen if you allowed men into an event that was ment to meet concerns of the our female counter parts?
> [{quoted}](name=GrandShadowfox,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=00070000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:25:02.960+0000) > > Read what i said i even added a caveat as to why i would agree with it. If this was perfect world where our better selves could sit down and talk like normal humans, yes it would be wrong to bar certain people from a pre game event. We dont live in that world and we are part of a community that easily devolves into shouting matches about raping eachothers mothers and asking people to kill themselves, do you really think that wouldnt happen if you allowed men into an event that was ment to meet concerns of the our female counter > parts? Yeah, I totally agree with you. Every time I go to a panel, all I can think is "JEEZ. Why are all these WHITE CIS MEN just shouting and threatening to rape everyone's mothers? If ONLY there was SOME panel where women could be safe and not have to deal with this blatant misogyny. Then the world would be a better place!" /s if not obvious, but no. People don't do that. You're fabricating an idea that would never, ever happen in the real world. The internet? Yeah anything goes here. I've seen women on the web telling other people to suck their dick. It's the internet. It happens. Anonymity is a powerful tool. Most people in the real world actually do act the way you'd expect them to. Of course there are trashy people who don't, but they're few and far between at events like these. My point is, this screaming match of raping and suicide is a non-problem in real world situations like this. I can attest to that first hand. It'd be an anomaly if it DID happen.
: > [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=000700000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:28:10.359+0000) > > No it wouldn't. And did you not read the part about at least holding 2 panels to allow this safe space they'd like while also no banning all men for being men (AKA Sexism!) Answer me this why do I as a man not find this offensive or as an afront to me? Because i dont get it, you seem to be offended and or triggered so please explain why this event is a a personal afront to you as a man. Explain
> [{quoted}](name=GrandShadowfox,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-02T15:39:03.574+0000) > > Answer me this why do I as a man not find this offensive or as an afront to me? Because i dont get it, you seem to be offended and or triggered so please explain why this event is a a personal afront to you as a man. Explain You realize it's as insulting to women as it is men, right? They're being told they're too weak to be in a man's presence, so they must be removed before they can find safety in the room they're in. We just want equality, man. Isn't that what this is about?
: EDIT: nvm misread idk what this guy was thinking when he made the post and decided to still post it. The whole limitation to the event is a joke, and his reaction to the feedback he should've saw coming was way worse. Is this man trying to be feminist?
> [{quoted}](name=Tormentula,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=R3EqewTu,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-09-02T12:55:19.327+0000) > > Discrimination isn't just racism. > > Its discrimination if you relate the subject to; race, homeland, religion, sex, age, medical conditions, etc etc etc. Which is why I put down "based on their race" part at the end. Not all discrimination is racism, but all racism **is** discrimination. EDIT: Saw your edit, np. I misunderstand/misread things on a daily basis. Humans gonna human.
Rioter Comments
: Yeah, except that's probably a bug. They should just remove the ability since it's so buggy XD
Ok I've seen this bug multiple times, like about half a dozen times or so, and every single time it's from Annie's Q for some reason. 99.9% of the time, the wall deletes her Q like any other projectile, but on VERY RARE instances it goes through. I have no explanation for it. I can only say spaghetti code and move on.
: What's his name?
> [{quoted}](name=L Rayquaza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ooEz08Ue,comment-id=0019,timestamp=2018-08-25T07:19:40.193+0000) > > What's his name? Maximus, but everyone else just calls him Max.
: Yes. Can we trade cat pics? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/415060622602928130/469915560528838681/20180720_001654.jpg
> [{quoted}](name=ChickenWrap,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ooEz08Ue,comment-id=0018,timestamp=2018-08-25T07:05:45.743+0000) > > Yes. > > Can we trade cat pics? > > https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/415060622602928130/469915560528838681/20180720_001654.jpg Yes.
Zeromatsu (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=EkyonKun,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ooEz08Ue,comment-id=00160000,timestamp=2018-08-25T06:46:36.469+0000) > > I'm doing my best to take proper care of him, but I don't really know how I can go about getting another cat. My girlfriend already has 2 dogs and a rabbit, and we're just now getting a new house. As much as I want him to be happy and well off, I just don't know if we have the capacity for any more animals. > > The two dogs are small and love playing with him, so I'm hoping that's enough social interactivity for him. I know that another cat would be best for him, and I'd love to provide for him, but there's only so much I can realistically do. Well, I guess there is nothing you can do then. If he has someone to play it's better than nothing, but still not optimal. Dogs and cats have different "body language" and different habits, so it's not the same. But I understand that you don't have the possibilities to get another one. Anyway, I didn't want to lecture you. I just made the experience that a lot of people don't know that cat's are very social. This goes for rabbits too btw :P Even more than for cats. It's the same as with birds, if they don't have a partner they suffer a lot. So, take good care of your cat and I hope you two will have a good time together. PS: I edited my post above a little.
> [{quoted}](name=Zeromatsu,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ooEz08Ue,comment-id=001600000000,timestamp=2018-08-25T06:58:41.492+0000) > > Well, I guess there is nothing you can do then. If he has someone to play it's better than nothing, but still not optimal. Dogs and cats have different "body language" and different habits, so it's not the same. But I understand that you don't have the possibilities to get another one. > > Anyway, I didn't want to lecture you. I just made the experience that a lot of people don't know that cat's are very social. > This goes for rabbits too btw :P Even more than for cats. It's the same as with birds, if they don't have a partner they suffer a lot. > > So, take good care of your cat and I hope you two will have a good time together. > > PS: > I edited my post above a little. To be honest I'm just glad they don't bark at him or anything. They'll bark anytime someone so much as makes a noise. But they run up to him and wag their tails, doing that sort of "chase and go" style of playing that he seems to enjoy doing with me, my fingers, and my feet. But that's pretty much for just when I'm gone. When I'm with him, unless he's napping, I'm playing/petting/nuzzling him all the time. Oh and on the topic of rabits, he doesn't seem to know what to make of it. He just stares at it through the cage, gently pawing until the rabbit shifts position, and that makes him jump back. Then after that, he either tries to paw again or slowly walk away. It's adorable.
Show more

EkyonKun

Level 66 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion