Man recently whenever I see stuff like this discussed online I see more threats thrown at women than at men, even when it's a man in the wrong and a woman calling him out. That kind of pattern gets me thinking that threats towards women (or gender-based social inequalities generally) are a key overarching part of the issues being discussed, which is why I mentioned them.
Men receive threats but don't get the media attention that women get when they receive them. On a feminist website I received several death threats just for posting a link to an article from an anti-racist female advocate describing why modern feminism is not about gender equality in a discussion about teaching feminism in UK schools. Not to mention the several hundred "I hope you get raped" messages from feminists both men and women I receive.
On a side note I don't believe you could care less about death threats (it's just convenient poo to throw) and your own post demonstrates the neo-marxist worldview that is being discussed in this thread.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Man recently whenever I see stuff like this discussed online I see more threats thrown at women than at men, even when it's a man in the wrong and a woman calling him out.
I'm unaware of any rigorous study comparing the numbers and correcting for reporting biases. I'd advise you not to form a conclusion based on anecdotes. But more importantly, I'd ask you to reconsider why you're making this comparison in the first place. Does the relative number of death threats say anything? Imagine for a moment for a moment that there are as many death threats directed at controversial men as women, and men just tend not to report them as much. This wouldn't excuse the death threats directed at women, or diminish their wrongness, or change them in any way. We ought to be just as outraged that people are being subjected to this kind of intimidation. Now imagine that we find some way to discourage death threats, but for some reason it works better on those directed at men than at women. So threats to women go down, say, 5% whereas threats to men go down 20%. Now there are more threats to women than to men. But we'd be crazy to say this wasn't an improvement on the previous situation.
Death threats to women aren't wrong because of an imbalance in the numbers. They're wrong because they're death threats.
@Crashing: this is the gamejournopros thing pushed by Milo Yianopolis that you're alluding too, right? Gimmie a minute.
EDIT: according to this guy, you're incorrect at least in part about the conspiracy theory
Also, Neogaf has a thread on this, and they helpfully collect debunked arguments. Have fun!
Let's not get off-topic here. There's already a thread on Gamergate.
Oh hey Joande, I was wondering when you'd show up.
As far as the confirmation bias thing goes, I had a look and the impression I'm getting is that women tend to get more gendered harassment and are victims of stalking at a greater rate than men. Should be pretty obvious considering stuff like "The Fappening".
As with pretty much everything in society, if you're not-white you get a worse deal than if you're white, and if you're trans, god help you. Men also seem to commit most of the harassment, no matter the target.
several hundred
what the ****? That's messed up.
Death threats to women aren't wrong because of an imbalance in the numbers.
Yeah, no matter the target a death threat is wrong, it's just that if there's an imbalance based on identifiable characteristics of the target (eg, gender, cis/trans, race) that suggests patterns in the structure of society that should be worked on, doesn't it?
As far as the GG thing goes, I don't really want to restart that topic if I can avoid it because the entire movement is a ****show and I'm probably gonna be afk for a while, hence the infodrop. I figure if anyone else wants to restart it, they can find useful data there.
As far as the confirmation bias thing goes, I had a look and the impression I'm getting is that women tend to get more gendered harassment and are victims of stalking at a greater rate than men. Should be pretty obvious considering stuff like "The Fappening".
As with pretty much everything in society, if you're not-white you get a worse deal than if you're white, and if you're trans, god help you. Men also seem to commit most of the harassment, no matter the target.
Maybe the people collecting the data actually care about women getting threats and couldn't care less about men getting threats and thus like the literally hundreds of papers from this same exact sect in academia is questionable. In fact it seems fair to say that all the research from gender/womens departments is really just propaganda given that it is done in such blatent bad faith.
The latest feminist argument embodying why I could never take anything like your source seriously was the feminist response to research showing that boys are just as likely as girls to be sexually abused. It went like this; Since males who are sexually abused are more likely to become abusers it makes perfect sense to devote all resources to girls as this research shows they are in even more danger.
As for privilege theory and its use in your post it is relevent (given the context of this thread) to point out that privilege theory is really just a continuation of critical theory with special emphasis on the master suppression techniques. http://i.imgur.com/sWYjYjz.png?1
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Men also seem to commit most of the harassment, no matter the target.
Men are just a lot more directly aggressive as a baseline. It's probably the testosterone. Although women do show more aggression when deindividuated, as they are on the internet, so if I were forming a hypothesis I'd expect less of a gender gap here than there would be in face-to-face confrontations. But like I said, I don't know of anyone who's actually done this study.
Yeah, no matter the target a death threat is wrong, it's just that if there's an imbalance based on identifiable characteristics of the target (eg, gender, cis/trans, race) that suggests patterns in the structure of society that should be worked on, doesn't it?
Does it? Even if in fact there is a significant imbalance among the recipients of death threats and sexist attitudes are the explanation for that imbalance, I submit that it's still more useful to push the message "Don't threaten anyone ever" than "Don't threaten women because it's sexist". If we've got 100 death threats to women and 50 death threats to men, I'd rather attack both sides of the problem and bring it down to 50 and 25 than attack just one and bring it down to 50 and 50.
Especially since in the long run, I believe sexist attitudes are better eroded by asserting everybody's common basic humanity than by singling out women as a victim class. Of course most feminists and egalitarians are intelligent and fair-minded enough that they aren't actually asking for women to receive special treatment. But nevertheless, when we talk about "threats against women", what sexists hear is that there's still something special and different about women, reinforcing their sexism. It's harder for them to do that when we talk instead about "threats against anybody (incidentally including women)".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as the confirmation bias thing goes, I had a look and the impression I'm getting is that women tend to get more gendered harassment and are victims of stalking at a greater rate than men. Should be pretty obvious considering stuff like "The Fappening".
Once again, trolls tailor their insults/threats to the person they are targeting. The idea behind trolling is to get a reaction from the person being trolled. I'll give you three guesses to what kind of insults/threats get strong emotional responses from feminists/women. They are not being trolled because they are women and/or because they are feminists, they are being trolled to get an emotional response.
There are several feminists that have been featured in the news that; get paid for speaking engagements, write books, make monetized youtube videos, etc. and have turned internet trolling into a selling point to both make money and further their ideological agendas. Anita Sarkeesian & Brianna Wu are both great examples of this.
You should also note that all of the links you provided here are explanations from feminists, from feminist view points and that none of them provide any strong evidence for the narrative that you are parroting from them. So I'm not sure that I would take those with anything more than a grain of salt.
Certainly, they will give you the impression that women get more harassment than men online and that men (particularly those that are both white and straight) don't face any problems at all in society.
It's interesting that you linked that article because it also points to what I was saying above about harassment from online trolls, perhaps you missed it so I'll share with you a line you probably missed:
Quote from From your article »
The Bureau of Justice statistics reported in a revised 2012 study that women are more likely to experience stalking, including cyber stalking, than men whereas men and women tend to face harassment, including cyber harassment, in equal measure.
I imagine that probably takes most of the air out of your argument, since the article you linked doesn't even support what you are saying about harassment online or offline.
It's true that according to statistical data that women get stalked more than men (16.2% compared to 5.2% according to the cdc) but that doesn't make the men who are stalked less important than the women who are stalked. Both are problems that need to be solved and should be considered equally important.
Quote from Hackworth »
Men also seem to commit most of the harassment, no matter the target.
Unless you have some kind of psychic powers the rest of us don't, this is an assumption. We don't know who these trolls are.
To OP, there are plenty of reasons to be pissed off at SJWs; over the past year, 'intersectionality' has ****ed over Indians something terrible. But 'cultural Marxism' conspiracy theories aren't the way to do it. The fact that you can call something that has nothing to do with labor Marxist is...I can't, I've lost the ability to can.
Marxism is fundamentally about the struggle between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
Marx focused on the socioeconomic disparity because he thought that would be the main focal point, but it's really about those who possess power vs. those who do not.
As such, this is a perfectly acceptable way to use the term "Marxism".
Oh hey, the American Astronomical Society has weighed in on the side of common sense.
Getting called on a bad fashion choice also shouldn't justify death threats or whatever,
I've noticed that death threats seem to be inevitable whenever something breaks on the internet.
You just condemn them, report them to the authorities if they seem significantly serious, then set that aside and get on with the business of actually thinking about the issues.
Man recently whenever I see stuff like this discussed online I see more threats thrown at women than at men, even when it's a man in the wrong and a woman calling him out.
That kind of pattern gets me thinking that threats towards women (or gender-based social inequalities generally) are a key overarching part of the issues being discussed, which is why I mentioned them.
On the other hand, when a man does say that he has received a threat, he is usually told to "suck it up" or "be a man" about it. You may not be hearing of threats thrown to men because we've been taught they should handle it without help, while when a woman is threatened we drop everything and help, even if they don't actually need it.
This is generally why you don't usually see all the death threats of high-profile people, including politicians, although I am betting some receive such threats daily. Being high-profile, we naturally assume they have the resources to handle such threats, and most of the time they do. This doesn't validate the death threats against women, but it also doesn't mean that they are unique or that the threats are indicative of some larger hate campaign.
Oh hey, the American Astronomical Society has weighed in on the side of common sense.
Getting called on a bad fashion choice also shouldn't justify death threats or whatever,
I've noticed that death threats seem to be inevitable whenever something breaks on the internet.
Unfortunately I think death threats have become a normal part of US culture... A couple weeks ago after the Packers beat the Bears (Football) people not only threatened the head coach of the Bears but also found his daughters on Twitter and sent then death/rape threats... I mean seriously? threatening young ladies because their dad is the coach of your favorite team and the team is sucking? Not only did that happen but it barely even registered as a story in the media.
Men also seem to commit most of the harassment, no matter the target.
Men are just a lot more directly aggressive as a baseline. It's probably the testosterone. Although women do show more aggression when deindividuated, as they are on the internet, so if I were forming a hypothesis I'd expect less of a gender gap here than there would be in face-to-face confrontations. But like I said, I don't know of anyone who's actually done this study.
Yeah, no matter the target a death threat is wrong, it's just that if there's an imbalance based on identifiable characteristics of the target (eg, gender, cis/trans, race) that suggests patterns in the structure of society that should be worked on, doesn't it?
Does it? Even if in fact there is a significant imbalance among the recipients of death threats and sexist attitudes are the explanation for that imbalance, I submit that it's still more useful to push the message "Don't threaten anyone ever" than "Don't threaten women because it's sexist". If we've got 100 death threats to women and 50 death threats to men, I'd rather attack both sides of the problem and bring it down to 50 and 25 than attack just one and bring it down to 50 and 50.
Post-menopause does see a rise in female aggression and more "male" behaviors..
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
To OP, there are plenty of reasons to be pissed off at SJWs; over the past year, 'intersectionality' has ****ed over Indians something terrible. But 'cultural Marxism' conspiracy theories aren't the way to do it. The fact that you can call something that has nothing to do with labor Marxist is...I can't, I've lost the ability to can.
Marxism is fundamentally about the struggle between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
Marx focused on the socioeconomic disparity because he thought that would be the main focal point, but it's really about those who possess power vs. those who do not.
As such, this is a perfectly acceptable way to use the term "Marxism".
</blockquote>
Actually, not quite. Marx actually divided society into four basic classes:
Haute bourgeoisie, basically the big wealth. More accurately, though, it refers to business owners, landlords, financiers, and insurance. I would add celebrities to this list.
Petit bourgeoisie, or skilled labor. Teachers, doctors, engineers and the like. They're part of the proletariat, but better off than the proletariat proper.
Proletariat, or unskilled (but still productive) labor. This is your factory workers, your farmers, your millers, your butchers, and your miners. Not the people who own factories and mines, however.
Lumpenproletariat, or unproductive labor. Basically the criminal class.
Note that the petit bourgeoisie and proletariat are potential allies, while the haute bourgeoisie is the enemy and the lumpen really don't care enough to take part in the revolution.
That last part is why we cannot call SJWs Marxists. Many of them support members of the criminal class, such as prostitutes. (It's complicated because other SJWs are exclusionary of prostitutes 'for their own good'.) And being a black member of the haute bourgeoisie is its own form of oppression, per the SJWs. (And SJWs have a very America-centric view of...everything.)
Note that Marxists...really suck at divisions of society other than class lines. By definition, Marxism begins with a Lewis Henry Morgan-style linear view of cultural evolution, from primitive communism through slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism, followed by the revolution, socialism, and pure communism. In addition, most Marxists can't see race without thinking of it simply as a caste system, which goes far to explain why so many Marxists to this day deny the Holodomor. And Marx saw all religion as evil, while most criticism of religion has traditionally been aimed at proselytizing religions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Unfortunately I think death threats have become a normal part of US culture... A couple weeks ago after the Packers beat the Bears (Football) people not only threatened the head coach of the Bears but also found his daughters on Twitter and sent then death/rape threats... I mean seriously? threatening young ladies because their dad is the coach of your favorite team and the team is sucking? Not only did that happen but it barely even registered as a story in the media.
I think it's a small subgroup of individuals, most likely young adults, who have grown insensitive to threats of violence. These are the people that do fall into the category of "video games lead to more violent people, etc".
They are also probably the worst kind of trolls you see online.
Seriously, I think the FBI needs to get on said death threats and the Feds need to prosecute people. I find the casual death threats that are just thrown about everywhere really disturbing.
Actually, not quite. Marx actually divided society into four basic classes:
You're missing the point. That how Marx chose to define the society and explain his concept of class struggle, but fundamentally the concept of Marxism doesn't have to apply to a strict definition of what Marx himself stated or used.
The underlying point of Marxism is that there are fundamental conflicts between certain groups, and these conflicts define how a part of the world operates.
That dude actually started crying when he apologized for wearing that shirt. To me, that's more offensive than the shirt. You wore a shirt that is in bad taste. You probably knew you were going to speak to the media that day. So own it and don't cry like a 5 year old. Christ, I'm a woman and I've never cried in public. I didn't even cry at both of my grandmothers' funerals.
Seriously, I think the FBI needs to get on said death threats and the Feds need to prosecute people. I find the casual death threats that are just thrown about everywhere really disturbing.
I agree fully. As long as people can make these threats with little to no risk of repercussions they are going to keep doing it. The more it happens the more it will become "normal".
You're missing the point. That how Marx chose to define the society and explain his concept of class struggle, but fundamentally the concept of Marxism doesn't have to apply to a strict definition of what Marx himself stated or used.
The underlying point of Marxism is that there are fundamental conflicts between certain groups, and these conflicts define how a part of the world operates.
So, you mean there are no fundamental conflicts between two separate groups on matters of class, ethnicity, or political ideology?
Wow, I have to go tell this to the seven billion people who would disagree. Not respectfully disagree, mind. But they would certainly disagree.
On death threats, I do find #Gamergate interesting for the simple reason that many of these same people had no issue with the death threats by other SJWs against indigenous activists for either not boycotting Israel or for protesting the Washington Redskins. This doesn't make Gamergaters right, and neither do the death threats against this guy make Gamergaters right, but it does demonstrate a certain degree of hypocrisy.
By the way, if anyone wants to see what actual leftists think of SJWs, I suggest you check out the comments section for any diary by lagertha on Daily Kos. You'll be quite enlightened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
So, you mean there are no fundamental conflicts between two separate groups on matters of class, ethnicity, or political ideology?
Wow, I have to go tell this to the seven billion people who would disagree. Not respectfully disagree, mind. But they would certainly disagree.
Good job chopping off half a sentence: "...and these conflicts define how a part of the world operates". Marxism posits these divisions and the struggles for power that arise from them as the driving force behind human history. All human actions are explainable in these terms. For instance, a scientist wore a stupid shirt on television not just because he has terrible taste and/or complete colorblindness, but because Man is seeking to exclude Woman from the STEM fields. That's what makes the Marxist worldview (and its spawn) distinctive. Not just "People can be categorized."
By the way, if anyone wants to see what actual leftists think of SJWs, I suggest you check out the comments section for any diary by lagertha on Daily Kos. You'll be quite enlightened.
And no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, you mean there are no fundamental conflicts between two separate groups on matters of class, ethnicity, or political ideology?
Could you tell me how you got to that conclusion based on what I wrote?
To be fair, could you tell me how you're redefining the class issues out of Marxism? An ideology based entirely on—wait for it—class issues?
But seriously, though, it seems that was what you were saying. But it's usually more your
@BS:
Actually, no. Like, if someone wears a Che Guevara shirt made by slaves in a Bangladesh sweatshop, you wouldn't consider that person a leftist, right? Their actions indicate a superficial left. (I'll spare you a rant about Guevara's racism against black people.)
The same thing is true of SJWs, who more than anything reflect America's obsession with our new Olympians, the celebrities. And seriously, check out the Kossacks' opinions on SJWs for a more general sense of the prevailing opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
To be fair, could you tell me how you're redefining the class issues out of Marxism? An ideology based entirely on—wait for it—class issues?
I'm not doing that at all, and I never mentioned anything about how I would use Marxism personally. I merely wrote that the basic concept behind Marxism can be used beyond what Marx himself used it for. The basic concept behind Marxism is that there are fundamental, and irreconcilable, conflicts between people and that these conflicts drive quite a bit of what happens in history.
Whether Marx himself would agree with how philosophers and academics have taken his concept is beyond me. I just know that has happened, and at this point Marxism goes beyond a strict adherence with how Marx himself applied it.
But seriously, though, it seems that was what you were saying. But it's usually more your
This seems to be an incomplete sentence. Care to finish it? And could you explain to me how you thought I was saying whatever you thought I was saying besides just saying that seemed to be your thought?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Men receive threats but don't get the media attention that women get when they receive them. On a feminist website I received several death threats just for posting a link to an article from an anti-racist female advocate describing why modern feminism is not about gender equality in a discussion about teaching feminism in UK schools. Not to mention the several hundred "I hope you get raped" messages from feminists both men and women I receive.
On a side note I don't believe you could care less about death threats (it's just convenient poo to throw) and your own post demonstrates the neo-marxist worldview that is being discussed in this thread.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Death threats to women aren't wrong because of an imbalance in the numbers. They're wrong because they're death threats.
Let's not get off-topic here. There's already a thread on Gamergate.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as the confirmation bias thing goes, I had a look and the impression I'm getting is that women tend to get more gendered harassment and are victims of stalking at a greater rate than men. Should be pretty obvious considering stuff like "The Fappening".
As with pretty much everything in society, if you're not-white you get a worse deal than if you're white, and if you're trans, god help you. Men also seem to commit most of the harassment, no matter the target.
what the ****? That's messed up.
Yeah, no matter the target a death threat is wrong, it's just that if there's an imbalance based on identifiable characteristics of the target (eg, gender, cis/trans, race) that suggests patterns in the structure of society that should be worked on, doesn't it?
As far as the GG thing goes, I don't really want to restart that topic if I can avoid it because the entire movement is a ****show and I'm probably gonna be afk for a while, hence the infodrop. I figure if anyone else wants to restart it, they can find useful data there.
EDIT: added reply, self censored.
Art is life itself.
Maybe the people collecting the data actually care about women getting threats and couldn't care less about men getting threats and thus like the literally hundreds of papers from this same exact sect in academia is questionable. In fact it seems fair to say that all the research from gender/womens departments is really just propaganda given that it is done in such blatent bad faith.
The latest feminist argument embodying why I could never take anything like your source seriously was the feminist response to research showing that boys are just as likely as girls to be sexually abused. It went like this; Since males who are sexually abused are more likely to become abusers it makes perfect sense to devote all resources to girls as this research shows they are in even more danger.
As for privilege theory and its use in your post it is relevent (given the context of this thread) to point out that privilege theory is really just a continuation of critical theory with special emphasis on the master suppression techniques. http://i.imgur.com/sWYjYjz.png?1
Does it? Even if in fact there is a significant imbalance among the recipients of death threats and sexist attitudes are the explanation for that imbalance, I submit that it's still more useful to push the message "Don't threaten anyone ever" than "Don't threaten women because it's sexist". If we've got 100 death threats to women and 50 death threats to men, I'd rather attack both sides of the problem and bring it down to 50 and 25 than attack just one and bring it down to 50 and 50.
Especially since in the long run, I believe sexist attitudes are better eroded by asserting everybody's common basic humanity than by singling out women as a victim class. Of course most feminists and egalitarians are intelligent and fair-minded enough that they aren't actually asking for women to receive special treatment. But nevertheless, when we talk about "threats against women", what sexists hear is that there's still something special and different about women, reinforcing their sexism. It's harder for them to do that when we talk instead about "threats against anybody (incidentally including women)".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Once again, trolls tailor their insults/threats to the person they are targeting. The idea behind trolling is to get a reaction from the person being trolled. I'll give you three guesses to what kind of insults/threats get strong emotional responses from feminists/women. They are not being trolled because they are women and/or because they are feminists, they are being trolled to get an emotional response.
There are several feminists that have been featured in the news that; get paid for speaking engagements, write books, make monetized youtube videos, etc. and have turned internet trolling into a selling point to both make money and further their ideological agendas. Anita Sarkeesian & Brianna Wu are both great examples of this.
You should also note that all of the links you provided here are explanations from feminists, from feminist view points and that none of them provide any strong evidence for the narrative that you are parroting from them. So I'm not sure that I would take those with anything more than a grain of salt.
Certainly, they will give you the impression that women get more harassment than men online and that men (particularly those that are both white and straight) don't face any problems at all in society.
It's interesting that you linked that article because it also points to what I was saying above about harassment from online trolls, perhaps you missed it so I'll share with you a line you probably missed:
I imagine that probably takes most of the air out of your argument, since the article you linked doesn't even support what you are saying about harassment online or offline.
It's true that according to statistical data that women get stalked more than men (16.2% compared to 5.2% according to the cdc) but that doesn't make the men who are stalked less important than the women who are stalked. Both are problems that need to be solved and should be considered equally important.
Unless you have some kind of psychic powers the rest of us don't, this is an assumption. We don't know who these trolls are.
Marxism is fundamentally about the struggle between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
Marx focused on the socioeconomic disparity because he thought that would be the main focal point, but it's really about those who possess power vs. those who do not.
As such, this is a perfectly acceptable way to use the term "Marxism".
I've noticed that death threats seem to be inevitable whenever something breaks on the internet.
On the other hand, when a man does say that he has received a threat, he is usually told to "suck it up" or "be a man" about it. You may not be hearing of threats thrown to men because we've been taught they should handle it without help, while when a woman is threatened we drop everything and help, even if they don't actually need it.
This is generally why you don't usually see all the death threats of high-profile people, including politicians, although I am betting some receive such threats daily. Being high-profile, we naturally assume they have the resources to handle such threats, and most of the time they do. This doesn't validate the death threats against women, but it also doesn't mean that they are unique or that the threats are indicative of some larger hate campaign.
Unfortunately I think death threats have become a normal part of US culture... A couple weeks ago after the Packers beat the Bears (Football) people not only threatened the head coach of the Bears but also found his daughters on Twitter and sent then death/rape threats... I mean seriously? threatening young ladies because their dad is the coach of your favorite team and the team is sucking? Not only did that happen but it barely even registered as a story in the media.
Post-menopause does see a rise in female aggression and more "male" behaviors..
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Actually, not quite. Marx actually divided society into four basic classes:
Haute bourgeoisie, basically the big wealth. More accurately, though, it refers to business owners, landlords, financiers, and insurance. I would add celebrities to this list.
Petit bourgeoisie, or skilled labor. Teachers, doctors, engineers and the like. They're part of the proletariat, but better off than the proletariat proper.
Proletariat, or unskilled (but still productive) labor. This is your factory workers, your farmers, your millers, your butchers, and your miners. Not the people who own factories and mines, however.
Lumpenproletariat, or unproductive labor. Basically the criminal class.
Note that the petit bourgeoisie and proletariat are potential allies, while the haute bourgeoisie is the enemy and the lumpen really don't care enough to take part in the revolution.
That last part is why we cannot call SJWs Marxists. Many of them support members of the criminal class, such as prostitutes. (It's complicated because other SJWs are exclusionary of prostitutes 'for their own good'.) And being a black member of the haute bourgeoisie is its own form of oppression, per the SJWs. (And SJWs have a very America-centric view of...everything.)
Note that Marxists...really suck at divisions of society other than class lines. By definition, Marxism begins with a Lewis Henry Morgan-style linear view of cultural evolution, from primitive communism through slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism, followed by the revolution, socialism, and pure communism. In addition, most Marxists can't see race without thinking of it simply as a caste system, which goes far to explain why so many Marxists to this day deny the Holodomor. And Marx saw all religion as evil, while most criticism of religion has traditionally been aimed at proselytizing religions.
On phasing:
I think it's a small subgroup of individuals, most likely young adults, who have grown insensitive to threats of violence. These are the people that do fall into the category of "video games lead to more violent people, etc".
They are also probably the worst kind of trolls you see online.
Seriously, I think the FBI needs to get on said death threats and the Feds need to prosecute people. I find the casual death threats that are just thrown about everywhere really disturbing.
You're missing the point. That how Marx chose to define the society and explain his concept of class struggle, but fundamentally the concept of Marxism doesn't have to apply to a strict definition of what Marx himself stated or used.
The underlying point of Marxism is that there are fundamental conflicts between certain groups, and these conflicts define how a part of the world operates.
I agree fully. As long as people can make these threats with little to no risk of repercussions they are going to keep doing it. The more it happens the more it will become "normal".
So, you mean there are no fundamental conflicts between two separate groups on matters of class, ethnicity, or political ideology?
Wow, I have to go tell this to the seven billion people who would disagree. Not respectfully disagree, mind. But they would certainly disagree.
On death threats, I do find #Gamergate interesting for the simple reason that many of these same people had no issue with the death threats by other SJWs against indigenous activists for either not boycotting Israel or for protesting the Washington Redskins. This doesn't make Gamergaters right, and neither do the death threats against this guy make Gamergaters right, but it does demonstrate a certain degree of hypocrisy.
By the way, if anyone wants to see what actual leftists think of SJWs, I suggest you check out the comments section for any diary by lagertha on Daily Kos. You'll be quite enlightened.
On phasing:
And no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge, right?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Could you tell me how you got to that conclusion based on what I wrote?
To be fair, could you tell me how you're redefining the class issues out of Marxism? An ideology based entirely on—wait for it—class issues?
But seriously, though, it seems that was what you were saying. But it's usually more your
@BS:
Actually, no. Like, if someone wears a Che Guevara shirt made by slaves in a Bangladesh sweatshop, you wouldn't consider that person a leftist, right? Their actions indicate a superficial left. (I'll spare you a rant about Guevara's racism against black people.)
The same thing is true of SJWs, who more than anything reflect America's obsession with our new Olympians, the celebrities. And seriously, check out the Kossacks' opinions on SJWs for a more general sense of the prevailing opinion.
On phasing:
I'm not doing that at all, and I never mentioned anything about how I would use Marxism personally. I merely wrote that the basic concept behind Marxism can be used beyond what Marx himself used it for. The basic concept behind Marxism is that there are fundamental, and irreconcilable, conflicts between people and that these conflicts drive quite a bit of what happens in history.
Whether Marx himself would agree with how philosophers and academics have taken his concept is beyond me. I just know that has happened, and at this point Marxism goes beyond a strict adherence with how Marx himself applied it.
This seems to be an incomplete sentence. Care to finish it? And could you explain to me how you thought I was saying whatever you thought I was saying besides just saying that seemed to be your thought?