3
   

Outrage of the Day: VR Sexual Assault.

 
 
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 02:32 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Jesus, you're a lame troll.

You really need to up your game.


... and yet, you can't stop responding Wink . This is like the video game DrewDad. You choose to be here. So do I. Obviously we are both getting something out of it.

I would like to point out that you have made three personal attacks now, one of them was an attack based on gender. I can't do very much about this, the ability to make these types of personal attacks is permitted by the people who run this site. I choose to be here. I have to accept that some of the people here take it personally when their beliefs are challenged.

I am not traumatized by your insults and personal attacks, if I were I would leave. Even if I was offended, it would be silly for me to let our interactions in this virtual world of Able2Know hurt me in my real life. After all, we both choose to be here and anything that happens between us is consensual. As you notice, I am kind of laughing them off (although I am using them to make a point).

You are giving me the opportunity to act out the point that I am making. I don't often get to do this.
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 02:35 pm
@maxdancona,
I will stop posting at this point, unless something interesting happens.... TTFN.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 02:36 pm
@DrewDad,
Bye DrewDad. It has been a pleasure.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 03:51 pm
Here's an interesting perspective on it that seemed to hit the right notes, at least for me: http://www.polygon.com/2015/12/11/9885482/tea-bagging-shouldnt-bother-me-but-it-does
Quote:

....

I love finding my escape by shooting my fellow humans – although honestly it's more like running around getting my head blown off by better players, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is this: When one of my better opponents, or worse, a very lucky lesser opponent, deems my corpse worthy of their ball-bag, it's not just a taunt or them mocking my abilities, it's a moment that breaks the fourth wall of my escape and reminds me that people are dicks, and that there are people in this world who find joy in others' misfortunes.

A teabagging is a human being disrespecting another human being. It's the opposite of a bow before a fight.

.....

This act hints at a reality where more people aren't assholes in public, due to the simple fact that they'll be seen.


This is what I was trying to say (but couldn't quite figure out how to say) when I mentioned the difference between the game mechanics and the player's inclinations. The section I bolded, especially.

I imagine the person who complained felt the same way -- that it was personal in a way that shooting and being shot at in the game isn't.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 05:44 am
@boomerang,
That is an interesting perspective Boomerang. But, you should acknowledge what you are doing. You are searching for, and posting, the perspectives of people who think the way you think. Obviously there are people who don't see things your way.

I was annoyed, but I don't think it is a big deal. I know people (including a preteen gamer girl) who think this sort of thing is funny and is part of the video game culture.

I think the writer is completely wrong about people (and this says more about them then about the other players). People, in general, are not dicks. People who think that "teabagging" in a fictional world is part of the fun of a fantasy world where you blow peoples heads off aren't generally dicks in the real world. It is a fantasy.

The fact that he or she isn't bothered by people blowing off his or her head is interesting.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 06:48 am
@maxdancona,
That was written several years ago by a HE, not a she. It was the first thing that came up after all the "history of gamers teabagging" type articles and one link to a forum where people were talking about it. I was looking around because I thought you posed an interesting question and wondered what was out there.

My 15 year old thought it was ridiculous that anyone would complain about it. He said it was typically only done to people who were being jerks. He typically plays with the same group of people and they don't see it very often anymore.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 07:06 am
@boomerang,
Boomerang, you and I are interacting in a virtual world. Our virtual world has insults, downthumbs and public calls to ignore people. These are all the Able2Know analogues to teabagging. I am not sure if you have ever been the target of these actions (or if you have ever participated) but it is quite common here.

But you and I exist in a community that has these behaviors. I think that counts as a tacit acceptance. The rules of civility in any community are always set by the dominant group in the community. You seem to fit in better than I do which might make it a little easier for you to not see it.

I am certain that the way people treat each other here is quite different than the way they treat people in real life. But is the way things work here... and we all accept it or we wouldn't be here.


boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 07:49 am
@maxdancona,
I treat people here as I'd treat them in real life.

I did leave here for quite a long time based on one member who just nagged at me all the time. I came back just in time to see Hawkeye leave. While Hawkeye and I never agreed on much I thought he was one of the most thought provoking posters to this forum and I was sorry to see him go. I just dabble here once in a while now.

I don't know if I "fit in" better than anyone else but I get along with most people online and in real life.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 11:36 am
@boomerang,
I appreciate that Boomerang. I don't attack people personally either here or in real life.

I am a little more willing to challenge someone here, because it is a public discussion board. I come here for interesting discussions. You don't get that by holding back your opinions. In most places in real life I am less willing to challenge peoples opinions unless I feel strongly, I know them very well, or they are saying something that really needs to be challenged. But it really depends on the environment and why I am there.

Recently I was playing poker in a room of mostly Trump supporters. I did let loose there... but that is part of the game. It was kind of fun for me, I don't think anyone was hurt and it might have earned me a little more money (knocking them off their game).

I have never been thumbed down in real life, and I have never had anyone insult my family (which someone did here). And I have never had anyone in real life announce publicly that they were ignoring me.

There is a lot of teabagging that happens on Able2know. We all kind of accept it.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 12:16 pm
@maxdancona,
I think I'm much more confrontational in real life. I know I'm not forced to engage with people here so it's much easier to walk away.

I come here to have my ideas challenged. I've found it can really help me think about an issue at a much deeper level when I become familiar with the opposing viewpoint. I miss the days of the really heated debates and I miss the really cantankerous posters. It was a good education.

I've been thumbed down and ignored in real life much more than I ever have here!
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 06:23 pm
@boomerang,
I am curious Boomer. What does being thumbed down in real life mean?

My father married a woman with a conservative family. I have gotten into some heated discussions with them about topics like flag burning, and more recently I defended Kaepernack against a group of them at a family gathering. They leaned into me pretty hard about love of country before they decided that I wasn't worth their effort. I am not sure that counts as a thumb down though.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 09:36 pm
@maxdancona,
Do you have netflix? Watch "Black Mirror", season 3, episode 1.

I'm pretty sure I'm the truck driver.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 10:23 pm
@maxdancona,
Oh, yeah... and...

Kaepernack has been a very hot topic at my house with me defending him, and my kid, via his football coach, thinking he'd done a very bad thing. We have fought over this more than once.

I always win by pointing to my brother, a soldier for more than 40 years who retired as a 3 star general. He always said that one of his motivations for joining the military was so that people felt free to disagree.

It's more complicated than that but I'm sure you know what I mean. Free speech, protect the Constitution, yadda yadda.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2016 09:45 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I disagree with you. This is not surprising. The American Revolution, where we separated from British rule, was caused because England didn't respect civil rights. Free Speech, to me, is the most important of human rights. It protects the right of expression from the tyranny of the majority.


And I agree with you on this. The people contrex described were offensive bigots. But I support their right to be so, as long as they don't physically harm anyone.

Still, there could soon be freer speech in Britain than in the United States, and a freer press.

I think this is a case of how not all moral laws need become civil laws. Just because the bigots sinned against our sense of decency doesn't mean it's best to prosecute them for it.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2016 10:03 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I imagine the person who complained felt the same way -- that it was personal in a way that shooting and being shot at in the game isn't.


Maybe the best way to get around this whole dilemma is Robert's way: several separate gaming communities, each with its own rules of netiquette.

Yeah, I'm not really a gamer, but I wouldn't want to be in the same virtual universe as people who get off on virtual sexual assault.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 03:40 am
I don't think cornering a black Muslim woman in a train and yelling at her that she is a "cloth head" and should "get back to her own country" (Britain, incidentally), or a group yelling "faggot" at a gay public figure in the street, or humiliating a black security guard doing his job amidst 1,000 people count as "free speech". (Recent cases where the police have become involved). In our country these things can be seen as assaults (you don't have to hit someone to be guilty of assault in Britain). I am still proud of the way we combat bigotry, and we still have a long way to go.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 03:45 am
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:
The people contrex described were offensive bigots. But I support their right to be so, as long as they don't physically harm anyone.


In Britain, you don't have to touch someone:

Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

Infliction of fear is an assault.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 03:51 am
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

I don't think cornering a black Muslim woman in a train and yelling at her that she is a "cloth head" and should "get back to her own country" (Britain, incidentally), or a group yelling "faggot" at a gay public figure in the street, or humiliating a black security guard doing his job amidst 1,000 people count as "free speech". (Recent cases where the police have become involved). In our country these things can be seen as assaults (you don't have to hit someone to be guilty of assault in Britain). I am still proud of the way we combat bigotry, and we still have a long way to go.


Those are all covered as assault in the US, It's a pretty low level crime, but still a crime. Lay a hand on someone while assaulting them and it becomes assault and battery. Whether you can secure prosecution or not is a different matter.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 03:52 am
Also...

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended)

This Act came into force on 30 September 1998 and created a number of specific offences of racially aggravated crime, based on offences of wounding, assault, damage, harassment and threatening/abusive behaviour. Monitoring had indicated that these types of crime were those most commonly experienced by victims of racial violence or harassment.

To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, (that there is racial or religious hostility) the prosecution has to prove the "basic" offence (e.g. assault) followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. An offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:

a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or

b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.

In DPP v Woods (2002) EWHC 85, the defendant used racially abusive language to a doorman at a nightclub when expressing anger and frustration over being refused admission. It was held [...] that the fact that the primary reason for the offence was other than a racist motivation, the use of racist abuse during the commission of the basic offence made out the test for racial aggravation in section 28(1)(a). The point was made that, ordinarily, the use of racially (or religiously) insulting remarks would, in the normal course of events, be enough to establish a demonstration of hostility.

In R v Rogers (2007) 2 W.L.R. 280, the defendant was involved in an altercation with three young Spanish women during the course of which he called them bloody foreigners and told them to go back to your own country. The House of Lords, in upholding the defendants conviction, held that the definition of a racial group clearly went beyond groups defined by their colour, race, or ethnic origin. It encompassed both nationality (including citizenship) and national origins. The statute intended a broad non-technical approach. Furthermore the victim might be presumed by the offender to be a member of the hated group, even if s/he was not. Also, the fact that the offenders hostility was based on other factors as well as racism or xenophobia was irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 05:54 am
@Kolyo,
This type of Gated Communities has a social cost. In modern society we are building more and more intellectual and cultural gated communities. We, as people, are dividing ourselves into little insular groups with little chance for cross pollination.

I feel we are losing something as a society.

Of course, there is no reason for anyone to be forced into an experience they don't like. But, more and more avoiding the risk of offending someone drives culture and art.

We see this in our politics and in our cultural institutions.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 02:30:16