4 ms·

That would be true in a perfect world, but there's much truth in the notion that we're a victimizing culture [1]. [1] http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/03/off

by m52go 12y ago

That would be true in a perfect world, but there's much truth in the notion that we're a victimizing culture [1]. [1] http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/03/offended-by-everything http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/03/offended-by-everything

beat 12y ago
The solution to that is the one I offered - actually talking to the people who are on the other side, and asking them sincerely what is going on and what to do about it. So if, say, someone is getting called out on "rape culture" language for demanding "full disclosure" from someone talking about sexism... instead of retreating into the comforting arms of "victim culture" and "1984" references, try asking some women what they think. Don't tell, don't lecture, just ask. Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? It's a simple feminist film critique. In a movie, is there at least one scene where two women who have actual names and roles have a conversation that is not about men and what the men in the movie are doing? It's shocking how few movies pass that test (as Playboy just pointed out, The Avengers doesn't pass Bechdel Test, and a lot of the sexist language directed at Black Widow can be traced to that). I think there's a corollary to Bechdel somewhere... does a man have multiple female friends with whom he can openly and honestly discuss their experiences of sexism as women? I'll bet a lot of men don't have that at all. Their opinion of women's experiences is formed almost entirely from their own experiences, and the observations of other men. No wonder they don't get it.
- m52go 12y ago
  You're right again. Your method is especially powerful on the personal level. When it comes to propaganda and the media, however, this method doesn't work. Sensationalism and click-bait rule, and that calls for conflict and sound-bites. Some times this conflict is manufactured, sometimes it isn't...but it's always sensationalized. I'd argue this trend has played a significant role in the destruction of our collective abilities to tolerate negativity, and it's also (in some remote way) been a factor in creating these filter bubbles we're discussing right now. TLDR: why do a proper, level-headed discussion exploring why women feel a certain way, when you could have a high-stakes, emotional, back-forth debate with highly-quotable 1-liners?
  - beat 12y ago
    I'd argue that it's actually not that bubbles are forming with new technology, but rather that bubbles are dissolving. I think race rather than sex is the more media-conscious way of looking at it. Why are we suddenly, as a society, arguing about police brutality against black men? It's not like it wasn't happening before. But it wasn't visible before, except to eyewitnesses. For your average white middle class suburbanite, they don't go to black neighborhoods, don't experience black culture, don't have friends who live there. It's an alien experience. It might as well be in Timbuktu for the relevance it has to their experience. But suddenly, everyone has smart phones with cameras and internet access, and this stuff is being filmed and published everywhere. Now, we can't not know about it. We can't pretend it doesn't exist. We have to talk about it - something immoral and wrong is clearly happening, and as a society, we have to face that. This really started with Rodney King, back 20 years ago now. That was a home video camera, with footage given to a tv station, but the result was the same. Now, it seems almost weekly. And I have no doubt that things will change. Brutality will be reduced, and justice will become fairer. Propaganda is much harder to do when contradictory facts are right there in our faces. It's become much more subtle. Now, it's not about just pushing an official version, but crowding out alternative views in a noisy environment. The trick isn't to prevent other points of view (that's how propaganda works), but rather to drown them out. Click bait will always be a problem. We can't help but rubberneck at violence and sex. But undeniable facts are coming to the fore faster and easier than ever, and the way of fighting those facts, right now, is to try to drown them in reverse-victimization arguments (Gamergate, #notallmen, etc). It won't work, not in the long run. Propaganda is less valuable now than it's ever been.
- lmm 11y ago
  > So if, say, someone is getting called out on "rape culture" language for demanding "full disclosure" from someone talking about sexism... instead of retreating into the comforting arms of "victim culture" and "1984" references, try asking some women what they think. Don't tell, don't lecture, just ask. Listening uncritically amounts to accepting the other person's worldview uncritically; it's a very bad practice that will lead to believing a lot of nonsense (e.g. it makes it easy to fall victim to a religious cult). If an idea or ideology is sound, it should be able to explain itself in plain language to an actively skeptical listener. > Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? It's a simple feminist film critique. In a movie, is there at least one scene where two women who have actual names and roles have a conversation that is not about men and what the men in the movie are doing? I've never understood what this is supposed to indicate. I tend to watch more animé than western cinema, and you'll often see cases that would fail the reverse Bechdel Test - i.e. a movie or series that never has two men having a conversation that's not about women. But Japanese culture is if anything more sexist than western culture. (Heck, I can think of more than one borderline-porn piece that contained several women who had substantial conversations with each other, but one or no male characters.)

by m52go 12y ago

beat 12y ago

The solution to that is the one I offered - actually talking to the people who are on the other side, and asking them sincerely what is going on and what to do about it. So if, say, someone is getting called out on "rape culture" language for demanding "full disclosure" from someone talking about sexism... instead of retreating into the comforting arms of "victim culture" and "1984" references, try asking some women what they think. Don't tell, don't lecture, just ask. Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? It's a simple feminist film critique. In a movie, is there at least one scene where two women who have actual names and roles have a conversation that is not about men and what the men in the movie are doing? It's shocking how few movies pass that test (as Playboy just pointed out, The Avengers doesn't pass Bechdel Test, and a lot of the sexist language directed at Black Widow can be traced to that). I think there's a corollary to Bechdel somewhere... does a man have multiple female friends with whom he can openly and honestly discuss their experiences of sexism as women? I'll bet a lot of men don't have that at all. Their opinion of women's experiences is formed almost entirely from their own experiences, and the observations of other men. No wonder they don't get it.

m52go 12y ago
You're right again. Your method is especially powerful on the personal level. When it comes to propaganda and the media, however, this method doesn't work. Sensationalism and click-bait rule, and that calls for conflict and sound-bites. Some times this conflict is manufactured, sometimes it isn't...but it's always sensationalized. I'd argue this trend has played a significant role in the destruction of our collective abilities to tolerate negativity, and it's also (in some remote way) been a factor in creating these filter bubbles we're discussing right now. TLDR: why do a proper, level-headed discussion exploring why women feel a certain way, when you could have a high-stakes, emotional, back-forth debate with highly-quotable 1-liners?
- beat 12y ago
  I'd argue that it's actually not that bubbles are forming with new technology, but rather that bubbles are dissolving. I think race rather than sex is the more media-conscious way of looking at it. Why are we suddenly, as a society, arguing about police brutality against black men? It's not like it wasn't happening before. But it wasn't visible before, except to eyewitnesses. For your average white middle class suburbanite, they don't go to black neighborhoods, don't experience black culture, don't have friends who live there. It's an alien experience. It might as well be in Timbuktu for the relevance it has to their experience. But suddenly, everyone has smart phones with cameras and internet access, and this stuff is being filmed and published everywhere. Now, we can't not know about it. We can't pretend it doesn't exist. We have to talk about it - something immoral and wrong is clearly happening, and as a society, we have to face that. This really started with Rodney King, back 20 years ago now. That was a home video camera, with footage given to a tv station, but the result was the same. Now, it seems almost weekly. And I have no doubt that things will change. Brutality will be reduced, and justice will become fairer. Propaganda is much harder to do when contradictory facts are right there in our faces. It's become much more subtle. Now, it's not about just pushing an official version, but crowding out alternative views in a noisy environment. The trick isn't to prevent other points of view (that's how propaganda works), but rather to drown them out. Click bait will always be a problem. We can't help but rubberneck at violence and sex. But undeniable facts are coming to the fore faster and easier than ever, and the way of fighting those facts, right now, is to try to drown them in reverse-victimization arguments (Gamergate, #notallmen, etc). It won't work, not in the long run. Propaganda is less valuable now than it's ever been.
lmm 11y ago
> So if, say, someone is getting called out on "rape culture" language for demanding "full disclosure" from someone talking about sexism... instead of retreating into the comforting arms of "victim culture" and "1984" references, try asking some women what they think. Don't tell, don't lecture, just ask. Listening uncritically amounts to accepting the other person's worldview uncritically; it's a very bad practice that will lead to believing a lot of nonsense (e.g. it makes it easy to fall victim to a religious cult). If an idea or ideology is sound, it should be able to explain itself in plain language to an actively skeptical listener. > Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? It's a simple feminist film critique. In a movie, is there at least one scene where two women who have actual names and roles have a conversation that is not about men and what the men in the movie are doing? I've never understood what this is supposed to indicate. I tend to watch more animé than western cinema, and you'll often see cases that would fail the reverse Bechdel Test - i.e. a movie or series that never has two men having a conversation that's not about women. But Japanese culture is if anything more sexist than western culture. (Heck, I can think of more than one borderline-porn piece that contained several women who had substantial conversations with each other, but one or no male characters.)