You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 02:57:54 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: UN conference: Zoey Quin and Anita Sarkesian speak to the UN about harassment  (Read 851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Garuss VakarianTopic starter

First off, I want to provide the video's that brought this to my attention.







Oh ya thats happening, The un is considering this. What is Anita Sarkesian identifying as harassment online for the UN to recognize as illegal? "Harassment is not just what is legal or ilegal. It is not just the threats of violence it is also the day to day grind that you are a liar, you suck." Etc. She is trying to get the un to make criticism of any kind, be it in good or bad taste, illegal. I understand threats of violence, but the attempt of extending it to accusations of being a liar? Or something as simple as you suck? Sounds an awful lot like trying to SILENCE, CRITICISM'S. Everything is open to criticism my dear, be it in good or bad taste. If your feelings are hurt, I am sorry. But under the constitution I have every right to say "Anita, You are a liar. You dont actually play games and have openly admitted as such on video years before your non profit organization. Your just trying to manipulate feminists, you suck." But as it seems. For now on, calling out a feminist on their bullshit for saying they are a liar, counts as cyber violence. And this is the same women that thinks, everything is sexist, everything is misogynist, everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out.

The un, and I quote: Concluded the political and government bodies needed to use their  Licensing Prerogative to better protect human and womens rights. (Notice how for some reason they couldn't just leave it at human.) By only granting licenses to those telecoms and search engines whom. "Supervise content, and it's dissemination."

Translated: They will only allow one to connect to content, if it is supervised, and filtered. Like the Chinese government does, with anything that the government does NOT want their people to see or know about. It is a form of THOUGHT CONTROL. So if a search engine does not comply with UN mandated feminist harassment policies, and dont censor out any form of anti feminist content, they will be shut down. Meaning one cant even say a feminist is a liar, with out breaking internet laws. The likes of Facebook, Twitter, or youtube are to quote; Proactively police it's every profile and post. Though this is mainly aimed towards women (And conveniently ignores men on the subject of harassment.) It is to be assumed, by their words, they wish to extend criticisms of femnism as harassment to women.

Here is the LINK to the actual report that was sent to the UN. Any way what do you people think? Do you agree with the policies provided? Or do you hate the policies provided? Do you believe the claims of these women to be accurate? Or do you think they are being emotional, and over simplifying something to be more broad and aimed towards even the most tame comments and criticisms?

Personally I am for free speech. And feel that if anything we should police actual threats of violence, and NOT use this to silence criticisms. As it is clearly being made to extend towards any criticism whatsoever, therefor an attempt to make their own views, and the views of any other feminist, incapable of being challenged. Something I have seen time and time again within the radical sphere of progressive culture. Where the objective is that rather then debating in proper discourse, make criticism impossible, so that no one can challenge your opinions to begin with. (Which is mainly done through Shame tactics in order to debase the other party and discredit their opinions.)  Mind you, SPECIFICALLY, the radicals. (If I see even one person make a no true Scotsman, or people accusing me of painting a broad brush stroke or something. I swear I will break my keyboard over my head, sigh, drive to best buy, get a new one, break that, make the same process, come home, and make a tame response reemphasizing I am not painting a broad brush/tell you it is a no true scotsman. :P lol, im joking. Please dont take that seriously.)

Mind you, as the poster I must emphasize; I would appreciate it if people stuck to the topic at hand. It is fine if you want to speak your opinions of Anita and Zoey as people, but dont drag it on or create an entire sub conversation of it.  The thread here is more so about this conference, their claims, and the agenda they are pushing. (If you feel it is an agenda. Which it is, but thats only my opinion.) So do stay on the topic of this UN conference, and the claims of Anita and Zoey. Further, I will be reading everyone's posts, and will not appreciate Shame tactics or Debasing another of any kind. It doesn't matter if I agree with you. This is civil, logical discussion. We are here to speak ideas, not question another persons morality. To twist something some one said as to appear immoral or to question their morals based on something they said, and anything within that range of discourse, is to Debase some one. Ie: To make them appear shameful, and there for attempt to discredit their argument. It is in and of it'self, shameful to do. Though I can not ban you from the conversation, I will call you out on it. So do reconsider your words, if you feel you must shame the other party for not agreeing with you.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 09:25:18 PM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Ebb

Thanks for the link to the UN report.

I think it's worth noting that although Anita Sarkeesian and ZoŽ Quinn were invited speakers at the launch event of this report, no doubt due to their public profiles in this area, it doesn't seem that either woman was part of the United Nations working group which actually wrote the report. The full list of the members of the Working Group on Broadband and Gender can be found here: http://www.broadbandcommission.org/workinggroups/Pages/bbandgender.aspx  There are 20 commissioners and 21 invited external members, and neither Sarkeesian nor Quinn are mentioned.

That having been said, from my reading of the executive summary, conclusions and skimming the rest of the report my initial impression is that it's drawing a false equivalence between cyber-violence and meatspace-violence, which I think runs the risk of leading to people dismissing the real impact of cyber-violence by concluding that the authors are overplaying their hand. I haven't gone through the report in depth, though, and so this could be an overly casual reading of the material. In part that's just an occupational hazard of this sort of thing -- if you're writing to draw attention to an issue and raise awareness of it, you're likely to lean more toward overstating than understating the problem. I can't say how this compares to other position papers from the UN.

The report, of course, doesn't have the force of law in any country. It's merely an accumulation of suggestions for change along with pointers to existing systems that, in the opinion of the authors, are helpful in combating this issue.


Disclaimer: I didn't watch more than about a minute or so of either of the videos that you posted. I found the tone of both of them rather outrageously insulting. That's really not the sort of material you want to put forward if you're looking for an honest discussion of an issue, in my opinion.


Offline Garuss VakarianTopic starter

Quote
Thanks for the link to the UN report.

I think it's worth noting that although Anita Sarkeesian and ZoŽ Quinn were invited speakers at the launch event of this report, no doubt due to their public profiles in this area, it doesn't seem that either woman was part of the United Nations working group which actually wrote the report. The full list of the members of the Working Group on Broadband and Gender can be found here: http://www.broadbandcommission.org/workinggroups/Pages/bbandgender.aspx  There are 20 commissioners and 21 invited external members, and neither Sarkeesian nor Quinn are mentioned.

That is worth noting, thank you for doing so. As I must have forgot to do so in my initial post. However; It is also worth noting that both women were there, as speakers to represent women everywhere.

That is true, currently it has no force of law. However I never stated it did, and merely stated these suggestions are under the UN's consideration. But the report it'self calls out for a number of things of which are strikingly disturbing. It boils down to basically being, a call for Chinese levels of internet censorship. Which, is, wrong. If this were all about actual online cyber bullying/harassment, such as threats of violence. I would understand. But to openly, and verbally extend it to. Your a liar, or you suck. Is nonsense, as that is not worth jail time for nor is it at all harassment. The Liar part at least, as calling out some one for their bull shit is not harassment. If you put yourself out there as a critic, you are open to others giving you criticism. Anita is under the impression she should be able to say whatever she wants about any subject, and be immune to critics. As if ,a critic should be immune to other critics. She thinks she can speak of controversial things such as Toxic Masculinity being a key reason for men committing mass shootings, as well as stating most mass shootings are done by men, without people turning around and saying. "Hold on, thats a bit much." (Personally I agree most men are mass shooters, but I do not attribute it to masculinity being toxic). And the criticisms there on, be it intellectual, aggressive, or ignorant are all considered by her as harassment. Further, she even turns her criticisms around to say "See, they are against what I am saying. So it must be true." Because in her own words, the more you deny these things are sexist, the more sexist it has made you. Agree with her or not, her views are not the point. The point is she thinks she can be out there in the world and be public with her own views, without any one being allowed to challenge them or talk to her about them. It is a classic, I am right, you are wrong, na na, na na, booboo.  Where as, meanwhile in reality, through free speech, criticism is a right all Americans have. And to put yourself out there, is to make your self open to criticism. Something of which, all are open to. As she has the right to be a critic, so does this right Include the people who speak against her. Perhaps a lot is in bad taste, but a lot is also in good and intellectual taste. Of which is also considered harassment to her. And then there are also those people on youtube she also calls out as harassers, when as far as I have seen, they simply critique her. Ie: Mrrepzion, Thunderfoot, Sargon of Akkad. Every thing is open to criticism, criticism is not harassment. Now as for the real harassment's, these men I have mentioned get their own harassment as well. Id say Mrrepzion gets it the worst out of her critics, because people that dislike his opinions even go as far as sending threatening messages to his parents, and writing bomb threats pretending to be him. Harassment is a real issue yes. But, if this were to extend to men and not focus on women, further if this were to focus on ACTUAL harassment and not include the tame and or mundane, (Such as considering some one openly disagreeing with you, as harassment.) then I would not have so much of a problem with it. But as it stands, Anita and Zoey's speech focused almost entirely on women.  Further, they, with their own words try to consider differing opinions as harassment. This is not smoke and mirrors. Their own words say and allude to these things. Silence, our, critics. Here is the actual conference in it's entirety, as you clearly stated you did not watch the videos I previously put up. (They were there mainly as quick versions, since they hit the bullet point issues without having to watch a 2 hour discussion.)



Videos, no disclaimer needed: I do not appreciate putting a disclaimer towards those videos. Just because you find their tones outrageous, does not mean you should warn people towards watching them, as if their feelings are so fragile they will cry from even the 3 minute one. For one, any one's voice is worth hearing, and if your going to shut your ears down at the slightest incline of anything you do not like then I dont think this part of the board is for you. Both videos are merely put foreword as I have previously mentioned, as the videos that made me aware of the issue, further they are also there because they are not 2 hours long. I wont put a disclaimer and I strongly disagree with you making a disclaimer towards them, as I wont molly coddle full grown adults as children. Watch the video for yourself. And if any of you wish to ignore another's point of view, because you dont agree with them, or like their tone, then by all means that is your prerogative. Just remember any ones opinion is worth your time, and to close yourself down to it is not listening, nor is it learning. And if all you learn is you dont like the persons video, well then, there you have it. It was not a waste of your time however, because, even if you hated the video or dislike the person's views, you were at least willing to hear what they have to say. Which on default, means you further grew as an intellectual.

Quote
That's really not the sort of material you want to put forward if you're looking for an honest discussion of an issue, in my opinion.

First off, Are you suggesting these men are dishonest? I have not always agreed with these youtubers, but watch their videos any way because, I make myself open to any ones side of a discussion. Even if I dont entirely agree with them, I assure you these men, and the entirety of both videos never have by my account, stated anything dishonest. I only ever see them use fact. Now how they use fact's be it disingenuous or wholly factual is up to discussion, but facts they use none the less. Unlike critics such as Anita, who wholly base their ideas on assertions or, really old data that is by all means no longer relevant. Further, how would you know if they were or were not honest, if you clearly stated.

Quote
I didn't watch more than about a minute or so of either of the videos

So as of this comment I am confused? Did you or did you not watch their videos? Or am I just not reading what you said correctly?

Secondly, if thats not the kind of material I should put foreword? Then, what kind of material do you suggest? I personally think every ones opinion is worth noting. Just because you find something immediately inflammatory doesn't mean you cant find something you agree with in their words. But if you feel a different kind of material is in order, then, by all means suggest it. None the less, I listen to all sides. Including feminists. I even listen to MRA's. I listen to Egalitarians, as I am egalitarian. I listen to the broadly named, humanists. I also listen to atheists, Christians, Muslims, a- I think you get the idea. I couldn't possibly agree with all of them, but I listen to them. No matter how inflamatory any become, as many often do. Especially the MRA's and feminists. Whys that? Why do I listen to just about every side I can? Because we can agree, that is how you learn. A social lens is not how learning is done, only by accepting and listening to the opinions of others do we learn. To close yourself off of to other perspectives leaves you only living with your own perspective and that of people who share it. Which only snowballs into ideologies.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 04:57:03 PM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline TaintedAndDelish

I listened to as much as a I could of the first two videos. I found it kind of tiring because they were heavily edited to the point of possibly cherry picking. The first one which i watched to the end, was more mocking in tone than informational. For me, these things send up a red flag. It's not a very good source of information. The second video seemed to be repeating a lot of stuff over and over. I got through about 10 minutes and lost interest. Given these two sources, I did not feel encouraged to sit through the third.

I think what might have been better is to show one of Sarkeesian's persecution fantasy videos from beginning to end and maybe a more factually written article describing her agenda and interaction with the UN.




Offline Garuss VakarianTopic starter

Perhaps so, but it is to late now, to edit it out now is probably disingenuous of me, unless people want me to edit it, to which case, I will. None the less I was merely putting them up as the videos that brought it to my attention. I dont feel thunderfoot was in any way non factual. He is in fact one of the more calm, and easy to listen to out of her critics. At least, that I can find. Cherry picks? Perhaps, but that is something a lot of people do be they for anita or against her, as in the realm of you tube cherry picking certain bullet points is all you can do without making a fourty minute video. To be honest it is one of Thunderfoots worst videos, as I cant really see why he has to spend so much time going into other different clips. But typically, I find him to be pretty factual.

As for the first, I dont see how his was heavily edited. Cherry picked maybe, but there is only so much you can say or show about a 2 hour discussion in only 3 minutes. So I think we can agree to dis agree, the guy was just doing bullet points mainly. None the less, videos have no relevance. We are not talking about thunderfoot, his video, or his opinions. We are talking about the UN conference. Let me know if you find something that is within the realm of 3, 10, or 20 minutes that aptly explains what is going on. And I will thank you, then use it in place of the content I provided. Again, it is mainly there to give you the jist of it all without watching a 2 hour discussion.

Offline Cycle

But the report it'self calls out for a number of things of which are strikingly disturbing. It boils down to basically being, a call for Chinese levels of internet censorship. Which, is, wrong. If this were all about actual online cyber bullying/harassment, such as threats of violence. I would understand. But to openly, and verbally extend it to. Your a liar, or you suck. Is nonsense, as that is not worth jail time for nor is it at all harassment. The Liar part at least, as calling out some one for their bull shit is not harassment.

Help me out here.  Can you give me the page number of the U.N. Report that say people can't call others a "liar" or that "they suck"?


Offline Blythe

Perhaps so, but it is to late now, to edit it out now is probably disingenuous of me, unless people want me to edit it, to which case, I will.

It would be better not to edit, please. Editing the OP too significantly after replies, particularly if you remove any of the original information, would appear disingenuous, yes.

Post a new post instead in this thread if you're going to follow Tainted's suggestion.

Offline Garuss VakarianTopic starter

Help me out here.  Can you give me the page number of the U.N. Report that say people can't call others a "liar" or that "they suck"?

Well if you actually watched the UN speech given by Anita Sarkesian. And Zoey Quin. I wouldn't need to help you out. As they, cleas as day said. "It is not just what is legal or illegal. It is the day to day grind of, your a liar and you suck."

Offline Cycle

Well if you actually watched the UN speech given by Anita Sarkesian. And Zoey Quin. I wouldn't need to help you out. As they, cleas as day said. "It is not just what is legal or illegal. It is the day to day grind of, your a liar and you suck."

Well, I'm interested in the U.N.'s position, not what someone said to the U.N. 

Where in the report did the U.N. say it is taking those positions?  Or did the U.N. issue that statement in a different document?


Offline Garuss VakarianTopic starter

Well, I'm interested in the U.N.'s position, not what someone said to the U.N. 

Where in the report did the U.N. say it is taking those positions?  Or did the U.N. issue that statement in a different document?

Never did they state as such, BUT never did I say they stated as such. If your intentions are to assert I am ignorant, that would be a fallacy as I have never said that the report it'self, intended on using that exact rhetoric.

None the less, It is entirely on Anita that it was ever said. However it doesnt change the fact that if such ideas are put into place, it would be used for thought control. Further, the wild wild west that is the internet is a domain that the UN, for years, have tried to seize control of. They only now have a politically correct cause to back up their actions.

Offline Cycle

Translated: They will only allow one to connect to content, if it is supervised, and filtered. Like the Chinese government does, with anything that the government does NOT want their people to see or know about. It is a form of THOUGHT CONTROL. So if a search engine does not comply with UN mandated feminist harassment policies, and dont censor out any form of anti feminist content, they will be shut down. Meaning one cant even say a feminist is a liar, with out breaking internet laws. The likes of Facebook, Twitter, or youtube are to quote; Proactively police it's every profile and post. Though this is mainly aimed towards women (And conveniently ignores men on the subject of harassment.) It is to be assumed, by their words, they wish to extend criticisms of femnism as harassment to women.

Based on what I have read of the U.N.'s report--and based on your admissions--I would have to disagree with your contentions above.


Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Videos, no disclaimer needed: I do not appreciate putting a disclaimer towards those videos. Just because you find their tones outrageous, does not mean you should warn people towards watching them, as if their feelings are so fragile they will cry from even the 3 minute one. For one, any one's voice is worth hearing, and if your going to shut your ears down at the slightest incline of anything you do not like then I dont think this part of the board is for you.

Actually no. 

You do not get to tell people that the PROC board isn't for them. 

You do not get insult other members.  You do not get to speak to them in a condescending manner. 

You do not get to cherry pick your 'information' and pass it off as fact. 



« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 09:00:28 PM by Mithlomwen »