4 ms·

Gotta love the sexist-comment-apropos-of-nothing you managed to throw in at the end there.

by jamesaguilar 13y ago

baddox 13y ago
Yes, claiming that personality and ability is more important than cleavage and a cute face is definitely sexist.
- cantankerous 13y ago
  If it's not sexist, it sure is still apropos of nothing given the context. Whenever I watch Twitch, I'm rarely looking at somebody's face on the stream (because there isn't one). If there is, it's surely not a face made to "look cute". It's usually a guy with his mouth hanging open because he's concentrating on a game. Using "cleavage" intimates that it's only women (or typifies women as some "other") that try to use their looks on Twitch to get far because they don't have any personality or ability. OP could have just said "good looks" to get the point across.
  - macNchz 13y ago
    I went on Twitch for the first time ever tonight as I was reading the linked article, clicked on World of Warcraft at random, and 6 of the 11 featured streams visible above the fold included a picture-in-picture of a cute girl with lots of cleavage. I clicked one out of interest and she wasn't even playing a game...she had the twitch chat up on her screen and was soliciting donations while people spammed the chat with "I wanna cum on your tits" like I was on some awful video game camgirl site. Anyway, clearly you're not watching WoW videos, but statement above was not 'apropos of nothing'.
    - baddox 13y ago
      There you go again, being sexist and privileged in your reporting of reality.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Sigh. I should know better than to call these things out on HN. Hey, does it not seem at all odd to you that he focused in on the stereotype that women trade on their looks in broadcasting, ignoring that men do the same? Does it not seem passing strange that he brought it up when nobody was talking about appearance in broadcasting in the first place? Like the thread wouldn't be complete without a negative comment on women? If I randomly said, "Some women are gold-diggers," in a thread unrelated to gold-digging -- say, a thread about amicable divorce, which we have had on here before -- it would be a) true, b) irrelevant, and c) probably sexist. Do you understand that? If not, I would say you are probably suffering from an over-abundance of privilege and a serious deficiency in empathy.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > Hey, does it not seem at all odd to you that he focused in on the stereotype that women trade on their looks in broadcasting, ignoring that men do the same? No, because on Twitch it is much more prominent for women, and even if it wasn't, there's a 50% chance for either. > Does it not seem passing strange that he brought it up when nobody was talking about appearance in broadcasting in the first place? No. People bring up new things all the time. > Like the thread wouldn't be complete without a negative comment on women? Sounds like a straw man argument. I don't think he or anyone else claimed that the goal of the comment was to "make the thread complete." > If I randomly said, "Some women are gold-diggers," in a thread unrelated to gold-digging -- say, a thread about amicable divorce, which we have had on here before -- it would be a) true, b) irrelevant, and c) probably sexist. I disagree with b) and c). > Do you understand that? I understand and disagree. > If not, I would say you are probably suffering from an over-abundance of privilege and a serious deficiency in empathy. That sentence is preposterous, and inappropriately aggressive and accusatory. I'd prefer that you refrain from judging my "privilege" (which is a meaningless concept that just means "you're bad") and empathy levels when you have essentially no information about either.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      > have essentially no information about either Well, you just denied that privilege exists, and were unable to recognize a sexist comment as sexist. That gives me plenty of entropy to make a strong guess about how privileged you are.

Gotta love the sexist-comment-apropos-of-nothing you managed to throw in at the end there.

baddox 13y ago

Yes, claiming that personality and ability is more important than cleavage and a cute face is definitely sexist.

cantankerous 13y ago
If it's not sexist, it sure is still apropos of nothing given the context. Whenever I watch Twitch, I'm rarely looking at somebody's face on the stream (because there isn't one). If there is, it's surely not a face made to "look cute". It's usually a guy with his mouth hanging open because he's concentrating on a game. Using "cleavage" intimates that it's only women (or typifies women as some "other") that try to use their looks on Twitch to get far because they don't have any personality or ability. OP could have just said "good looks" to get the point across.
- macNchz 13y ago
  I went on Twitch for the first time ever tonight as I was reading the linked article, clicked on World of Warcraft at random, and 6 of the 11 featured streams visible above the fold included a picture-in-picture of a cute girl with lots of cleavage. I clicked one out of interest and she wasn't even playing a game...she had the twitch chat up on her screen and was soliciting donations while people spammed the chat with "I wanna cum on your tits" like I was on some awful video game camgirl site. Anyway, clearly you're not watching WoW videos, but statement above was not 'apropos of nothing'.
  - baddox 13y ago
    There you go again, being sexist and privileged in your reporting of reality.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
Sigh. I should know better than to call these things out on HN. Hey, does it not seem at all odd to you that he focused in on the stereotype that women trade on their looks in broadcasting, ignoring that men do the same? Does it not seem passing strange that he brought it up when nobody was talking about appearance in broadcasting in the first place? Like the thread wouldn't be complete without a negative comment on women? If I randomly said, "Some women are gold-diggers," in a thread unrelated to gold-digging -- say, a thread about amicable divorce, which we have had on here before -- it would be a) true, b) irrelevant, and c) probably sexist. Do you understand that? If not, I would say you are probably suffering from an over-abundance of privilege and a serious deficiency in empathy.
- baddox 13y ago
  > Hey, does it not seem at all odd to you that he focused in on the stereotype that women trade on their looks in broadcasting, ignoring that men do the same? No, because on Twitch it is much more prominent for women, and even if it wasn't, there's a 50% chance for either. > Does it not seem passing strange that he brought it up when nobody was talking about appearance in broadcasting in the first place? No. People bring up new things all the time. > Like the thread wouldn't be complete without a negative comment on women? Sounds like a straw man argument. I don't think he or anyone else claimed that the goal of the comment was to "make the thread complete." > If I randomly said, "Some women are gold-diggers," in a thread unrelated to gold-digging -- say, a thread about amicable divorce, which we have had on here before -- it would be a) true, b) irrelevant, and c) probably sexist. I disagree with b) and c). > Do you understand that? I understand and disagree. > If not, I would say you are probably suffering from an over-abundance of privilege and a serious deficiency in empathy. That sentence is preposterous, and inappropriately aggressive and accusatory. I'd prefer that you refrain from judging my "privilege" (which is a meaningless concept that just means "you're bad") and empathy levels when you have essentially no information about either.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    > have essentially no information about either Well, you just denied that privilege exists, and were unable to recognize a sexist comment as sexist. That gives me plenty of entropy to make a strong guess about how privileged you are.