Sexism and other forms of bigotry in gaming.

[roflmao]

Insults are always going to based on stereotypes Aron. You cannot change that.

Here, take this less common but still pervasive insult: Stop being such a catholic.

It stereotypes Catholics as being excessively puritanical. And as a Catholic, I don't mind this stereotype one bit. I think it's funny. Yes, we Catholics sometimes take things to an extreme. The insult makes a general statement about Catholics that simply doesn't hold true in many cases. It ignores a lot of nuances and is just based on a stereotype, but I don't think using that insult makes you a bigot.

What I'm trying to say is all insults that target a specific demographic are by definition bigoted, but using them doesn't automatically make you one.

So yeah, "dickhead" and "pussy" are sexist insults, but using them does not necessarily make you a sexist.

Heck, sometimes these turns of phrases make no sense. Have you ever heard "let's go dutch" at a restaurant? Using that turn of phrase doesn't mean you hate dutch people. I don't even know where it came from.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Have you considered that the reason you don't take offence to the catholic stereotype is that you conform to it? I mean, I don't presume to know you or anything, but I think it's fair to say that you're a conservative, even by imperial measurements. Telling people not to be a catholic is probably quite offensive to Catholics who don't conform to the stereotype, and that's not even getting into the issue of religion being a choice.

PS Go Dutch likely comes from the stereotype of the Dutch being stingy, greedy bankers who would never pay for someone else's dinner. (Apparently we ran out of stereotypes at some point in history and decided just to outsource the Jewish ones to Holland.)

[roflmao]

So it is a racist stereotype. But using the turn of phrase does not make you a racist.

So going around accusing people of bigotry and sexism just because of the insults they use seems just as bizarre to me as accusing people of racism for saying "go dutch." Saying "he's kind of a jerk" says absolutely nothing about my worldview with regards to gender equality despite the insult being a reference to male masturbation.

That's my main point.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Perhaps not, but you are still contributing to an environment conducive to racism, which signals to other people that it is okay to judge people based on their race (well, nationality in this case). Of course, one could argue that the specific saying "go dutch" is harmless and you might be correct, because the Dutch have not, historically, been a nation of helpless victims. The same cannot be said of gays or women (or men, if you want to go there).

[Starblade]

So going around accusing people of bigotry and sexism just because of the insults they use seems just as bizarre to me as accusing people of racism for saying "go dutch."

There is, once again, more to sexism and racism than violence.

I think it's funny. Yes, we Catholics sometimes take things to an extreme. The insult makes a general statement about Catholics that simply doesn't hold true in many cases. It ignores a lot of nuances and is just based on a stereotype, but I don't think using that insult makes you a bigot.

I think black people are fleet of foot but cannot swim, and that asians are good at math but suck at having sex. What do you think about that?

[Buguba]

asians are good at math but suck at having sex

Then why are there so many Asians?

/struckbylightning

[Starfisher]

Lots of pointless absolutism here. I'm willing to bet many common turns of phrase are or were massively insulting to some group or another, but have since lost their power through various dynamics. South Park tried to do this with "fag", for example, pointing out that it's meant all sorts of stuff over the years, and has different meanings to different cultures, then trying to redefine using their apparent ability to influence pop culture.

And context matters. Comedians are incredibly racist and bigoted, but we laugh because it's satirical. The moment it becomes clear that it's not, we suddenly stop laughing. I don't think this is some simple black and white issue where a word is verboten if it may rely on stereotyping for its semantics. "Queer" is an example of turning that dynamic around, taking something initially used in a negative way and making it into part of gay identity and pride. Is every gay person happy about that? Probably not, and queer can still be an insult, but "taking back the word" happens too.

Ultimately, an insult is supposed to be insulting. An insult is sexist because otherwise it wouldn't be insulting, or demeaning to some group or else it wouldn't be an insult. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think that modifying how we insult each other is going to solve gender or whatever divide it is the insult exploits. I mean it's so obviously missing the point. The words we use to put each other down are not really the problem.

Maybe, someday, no one will ever attempt to insult someone else. Until you get there, some group is going to be the butt of the joke.

[LoCo]

roflmao: Calling a guy a girl is implying that it is shameful to be like a girl. Sure, you don't think girls should be ashamed of being girls. That's cool. But calling a guy a girl still implies that the guy is less for having qualities that are girl-like. Not that he is different but equal. That he is less.

That reinforces the stereotype that men are better than women. Sure, it's a general stereotype and is true in some cases such as physical strength... but you are focusing on a difference (ie: strength) and saying that one group is inferior. When you make the statement you don't add in the addendum that you believe there is nothing wrong with girls and they are equal to men. You are just saying that this guy is like a girl and that's bad.

It's a way of thinking that leads, naturally, to claiming that some general differences are more important than others. So being strong is more important than being able to drive better. I mean... being an adequate driver is fine, but being weak is bad. Thus, men are naturally more important than women. Thus men are superior to women.

See, the problem is not in the insult itself. I don't care that you are trying to insult someone. But when you put another group down while you are insulting someone, you are insulting a group that has done nothing to deserve that insult and you adding to the general culture of putting that group down.

That general culture is where the nutters come from. It's where their opinions are reinforced, where they gather more fuel for their hate and bigotry, and it is where they retreat to when someone calls them on it "But everyone else thinks this and does this!".

That is why 'sexist' and 'bigot' get thrown around for these things. It's because people thoughtlessly support a culture that is unwanted and harmful by saying those things.

EDIT:
Starfisher: I disagree. One can still insult someone without being bigoted or sexist. Take the "stop being such a girl" insult. Instead, one could say "stop being so weak!" or something similar. That way no random group which does not deserve your insult gets included. Insult the person. Why bring anyone else into the insult? It's needless and thoughtless and sexist and bigoted.

[roflmao]

Starfisher pretty much said everything with five times less words, three times less hyperbole, and ten times times more effectiveness.

@LoCo:
If you want to make a principled stand against insulting in general, that's cool. The world could do with a lot less insulting. Just don't cherry-pick and try to define which are okay and which aren't.

@Starblade:
And as a final note, there are varying degrees of offensiveness with different insults. Saying "don't be a girl" is way less offensive than saying "don't be a n***er." I don't exactly know why, language is weird, but it just the way it is really. A stereotype about mexicans being late (which is actually very true btw ) is less offensive than a stereotype about black men not being able to swim.

[TDATL]

@LoCo: Tisk tisk LoCo. I didn't contradict myself. I never said "calling a woman feminine isn't an insult."

I even pointed out that some people may use it that way.

@why calling a "guy" a "girl" is an insult: Because it is saying you are not what you "should" be. That is the root of every insult. You are saying the subject in question is either defective or not behaving properly.

And before you jump on it, "being a girl" isn't the insult. It is "being a guy but acting like a girl." In other words acting in a manner the insulting party thinks is not "normal."

Furthermore it is important to note that all of these judgements are not necessarily something the person in question believes. It is often simply a way to express anger.

Is every gay person happy about that?

Yes, every gay person is happy. It is in the name

[Starblade]

Saying "don't be a girl" is way less offensive than saying "don't be a n***er." I don't exactly know why, language is weird, but it just the way it is really

It's because of, to link back to earlier, history and context. Both are offensive, one is more so because it is used exclusively as an epithet for centuries. Nothing just "is".

Just don't cherry-pick and try to define which are okay and which aren't.

I'm a fan of the new up and comer "Shitlord".

[Dark_Axel]

Heck, sometimes these turns of phrases make no sense. Have you ever heard "let's go dutch" at a restaurant? Using that turn of phrase doesn't mean you hate dutch people. I don't even know where it came from.

It's because the Brits hated our trading fleet in the 16-17th century. They thought we were a greedy bunch and didn't want to share the trade revenues, thus we fought a few naval wars. Gave them New Amsterdam and lost everything in the end...

The origin of the phrase "go Dutch" or "Dutch treat" can be traced back to a time when England and the Netherlands fought constantly over trade routes and political boundaries during the 17th century. The British used the term "Dutch" in a number or derogatory or demeaning ways, including "Dutch courage" (bravery through alcohol) and "Dutch treat", which was actually no treat at all. The Dutch were said to be very stingy with their wealth, almost miserly, so the British used the word "Dutch" informally to imply all sorts of negative behaviors.

While many of these derogatory Dutch references fell out of common usage, Americans did retain the idea of a "Dutch treat" when a number of German (Deutsch) immigrants arrived. A corruption of Deutsch led to the designation of German immigrants living in Pennsylvania as "Pennsylvanian Dutch". Even though the original British slur was against the actual Dutch, some Americans perpetuated the negative connotation of "Dutch treat" to include the German "Dutch" as well.

The modern idea to "go Dutch" no longer carries the stigma of the term's original intentions. It is simply a recognized bit of social jargon which allows each party to know the financial arrangements of a date or social outing.

Always the Americans who lag behind in their history and stick in their bigotry

[Starfisher]

Instead, one could say "stop being so weak!" or something similar.

What about people who are weak? Why are we stigmatizing physical weakness? The elderly and those with medical conditions are somehow lesser than the rest of us?

You're falling prey to the cultural norms of your time. Not so long ago, "retarded" was a way to describe lesser mental capacity, and so it was a common insult implying stupidity. Now it's rapidly becoming a faux pas to say that word as a insult, as people who are retarded (have a mental handicap) don't want to be stigmatized. I'm not arguing that there's something wrong with people not wanting to be stigmatized - I'm just saying that it's absolutely inherent in human language and interaction that insults rely on negative comparisons to other people. Worrying about the people we're unintentionally insulting with the words we use to intentionally insult each other strikes me as somewhat missing the ball.

[LoCo]

No, that would be saying "Stop being so old!" or "stop being like someone with a certain medical condition".

See, the "stop being such a girl" comment is specifically about girls. Where as "stop being so weak" is discrimination against, specifically, not being strong. Since people have different levels of strength, one would have to specify exactly how weak is weak in order for it to affect any particular groups such as "the elderly" (One would also have to be under the mistaken impression that the elderly are weak).

Your argument seems not just a little bit stretched.

I know what you are saying. And I still disagree with it. I can still call someone an idiot or a moron without casually insulting a whole other group of people. Hell, if you want to nitpick those two too, I can call someone as dumb as a brick and still get my point across without your "absolutely inherent" reliance on negative comparisons to other people.

Just because bigotry is common and easy doesn't make it right and/or necessary.

[Starfisher]

Heh. Idiot is essentially synonymous with retard. It's simply an accident of history that you might think "retard" is insulting to a group while "idiot" or "moron" is not. In fact, idiot used to refer to people of the lowest mental aptitude in psychology, but that fell out of use when it became a common insult.

What does "dumb as a brick" mean? It means less intelligent. It means "of lower mental aptitude". You are inherently stigmatizing the less intelligent or those with lower mental aptitudes with that comparison, suggesting that such a quality is insulting or makes one inferior. It is impossible to insult someone without selecting some trait of theirs and attempting to set it as inferior, less than that of other people, which implies that anyone with a similar trait must also be inferior. You can't call someone stupid without suggesting that people who are actually not very bright are of lesser status. It's inherent in the insult.

And of course, here we go with the strawman about bigotry being right and/or necessary. My argument has nothing to do with necessity or moral rightness, but with inevitability and the somewhat odd focus of political correctness. Humans put each other down as a function of creating social hierarchies. This makes insults and demeaning language inevitable. It just seems that trying to tie the words selected to accomplish that to bigotry is kind of a roundabout way to address the real problem - which is that people feel the need to rip on each other in order to assert dominance. Bigotry and casually demeaning someone else are two different things, or else any negative thing you've ever said about anyone is bigotry.

If people weren't insulting each other, this would be a moot argument. Instead, we're arguing over the non-offensive way to insult someone. Think about that for a second.

[LoCo]

Starfisher: You're reaching so far I'm surprised you haven't fallen over.

Calling someone "dumb as a brick" in no way includes anyone else in the insult. That would be calling someone "as dumb as a retard" etc. You are stretching too far to make your argument work. By comparing someone's intellect to that of a brick, I am saying that there are no other people to compare it with and the comparison is to that of a brick. So therefore there is nobody with a 'similar trait'.

Your argument has everything to do with necessity. Where is the strawman? You are saying that an "absolutely inherent" quality of every insult is that groups other than the target also get insulted. So... in order to insult one person it is necessary to insult entire groups. That's your argument. The bit in quotation marks is a direct quote.

Finally... you've missed my argument entirely.

I never said anything about a "non-offensive" way to insult anyone. I'm not arguing that at all. You're arguing with yourself it seems. Think about that for a second.

You have simply taken it as a universal truth that no insult can insult only the target without insulting a separate group. You have offered no evidence or proof of this, except your own opinion.

And then you have attempted to dismiss my arguments as strawmen, without engaging with them at all simply because you believe you are unquestionably right, and then you started getting snarky about an argument you claim I've been making which has nothing to do with my arguments at all.

[Starfisher]

By calling someone dumb as a brick, you're claiming that lesser intellect (that of a brick) is inferior. This implies that having lesser intellect makes one person inferior to another. Thus, anyone with lesser intellect is inferior to someone of higher intellect.

This is not "opinion", it's a logical deduction based on the definition of "to insult" and the particular comparison you made. You have just created a comparator and value judgement which makes the claim that those of lesser intellect are inferior. Your insult is incoherent without that judgement and comparison. Clarifying question: why is being dumb (wonder where that word came from...) bad?

I took "necessary" to mean somehow morally required by the universe as it was used in conjunction with "right". We don't have to insult each other. Yes, if you want to insult someone, it is necessary for you to create a comparison which insults anyone who matches it. And yes, the human animal seems to use disdain, slights and insults in order to create social hierarchies. But it's not necessary - in plain language, you don't have to be a dick to people, but, for whatever reason, you may often find yourself doing so.

The strawman I refer to is the strawman you introduced here:

Just because bigotry is common and easy doesn't make it right and/or necessary.

This is an argument which, so far as I can tell, not a single person in this thread has made or come close to making. I've done my best to respond to the rest of your points, so I don't know where you're getting that last line from. Unless it's an attempt to insult me without creating a reference class, in which case, bravo.

My argument is that the discussion of bigotry in casual language seems somewhat schizophrenic; we have ~2.5 pages of people arguing over whether certain words are acceptable to use in insults without, before my post, seeming to question the validity of the insult itself. If we accept (as we seem to have done for most of this discussion) that insults are normal, then we need to ask if it's possible to insult someone WITHOUT being bigoted if we're to discover whether or not the label of "bigoted" is useful. My argument thus far is that it's not cut and dried, since any insult requires the assumption that some trait in the other person makes them inferior - which of course applies to many people, not just the person being insulted. Our particular set of labels we use for the butt of jokes is not absolute or universal, as evidenced by the recent shift of "retard" to a no-no and the earlier success of "idiot" being sufficient to force a change in medical terminology (and your apparent belief that it's not a problematic term), or "fag" being a cigarette in the UK but a potentially hateful term in the US.

So before we suggest that anyone who uses a particular insult is bigoted, we need to establish a difference between a simple put down and an actually bigoted statement. Since any insult requires negative external comparison, I think it takes more than just that to make a person bigoted, and more than just that to make a particular statement bigoted.

[Black]

It's very simple. A statement is problematic not when it puts down a group, but when it reinforces institutionalized social inequality and a cultural preconception that a group is inferior.

"John is such a cracker." has virtually no bigoted sentiment involved in it because white people are the dominant group in our society, they are the cultural default, and all discourse centers around them as the ideal social group. Hence the term white privilege (if you don't know what privilege is, the wikipedia article I linked is a very meager introduction).

"John is a n*****." is incredibly bigoted. It is hate speech. This is because of institutionalized racism against black people in the US and the fact that culturally being black makes you second class. The default race is white. Beauty standards are based on white features, for example.

This is where the intention of the speaker does not matter. By saying these things in public, you are normalizing them. You are enforcing the culture that made these things terrible to say in the first place. You are accomplice to institutionalized bigotry and discrimination. It does not matter whether your insult is about women, black people, disabled people, or whatever. So long as it is based on a historical and social reality that these groups have been subjugated, dominated, oppressed, and dehumanized it is hate speech. The more general idea is heteronormativity: a problematic statement enforces cultural norms that are established by the dominant group (e.g. men can't be emotional in public it is unmanly).

There is a succinct way of putting this. Racism is not just prejudice. Racism is prejudice plus [institutionalized] power.

[roflmao]

Right, so saying "John is lame" reinforces the cultural preconception that the physically handicapped are an inferior group. It is therefore bigotry, and since "dumb" and "lame" are insults everyone uses, we're all bigots.

Bigotry, racism, and sexism can't really be reduced to a two variable sum. They're pretty complex phenomenons.

[Black]

No one said they were. Also there are a plenty of people who find the use of the word lame to be unacceptable precisely because we live in an ableist society that marginalizes the handicapped. Fewer people would also find 'dumb' and 'stupid' unacceptable because they believe it stems from the marginalization of the mentally handicapped. This is a harder sell than the fact that 'retard' is extremely offensive and unambiguously rooted in the institutionalized hatred for the mentally handicapped. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. It feels like you're just trying to normalize shitty behavior because it is the status quo which is precisely the problem with society and social groups like gamers where, for example, rape culture is normalized and apparently even considered integral to their social identity. That's disgusting and that's the point.

There are plenty of ways to insult people without relying on institutionalized bigotry. I am a master of insults I can give lessons.

[roflmao]

Where, exactly, is there institutionalized bigotry towards the lame? Last time I checked the handicapped are offered special benefits (and rightfully so). I guess I'm just blind to it.

Lame has formed part of internet trash-speak, but as far as I know, it's been used figuratively long before the internet existed. You can find it used figuratively in great works of literature. It's been used figuratively so long that the target group is only part of the etymology of the word and not part of its everyday usage. No one directly targets the handicapped when they use lame in a figurative sense.

[Starfisher]

Black: Lessons? Sure. But you'd still be being bigoted if you did, as you'd be relying on whatever particular prejudices you have in order to construct your insult.

I have no problem with the argument that using certain terms reinforces negative stereotypes and contributes to a generally hostile environment. The problem I have is in claiming that this "relies on institutionalized bigotry". No, institutionalized bigotry may tenuously rely on the use of those terms in that way, and the existence or usage of an insult doesn't indicate institutionalized bigotry. For example, "dumb" no longer has its original meaning, and while deaf-mutes might find it offensive the wider culture no longer uses it to reinforce a negative stereotype against them. The institution is independent of the term and vice versa, and depending on your time in history their relationship may be strong or weak or non-existent.

When the gay pride movement tried to take back "queer", institutionalized bigotry didn't change in magnitude. It just shifted around a little bit.

"Fag" is an interesting case study. I think over the course of our generation, it could potentially lose its current status. Two predictions need to come true: a continual increase in gay rights in America, to the point where our grandkids will find the entire debate as bizarre as we do slavery, and the continual usage of the term to mean something other than "homosexual" when used derogatorily. The internet will provide us with the second, and I suppose it's up to us to provide the first. But we'll see.

[LoCo]

Starfisher: No, by calling someone dumb as a brick I'm claiming that the intellect of a brick is inferior. Not that someone of lesser intellect is inferior. The only two objects in my insult are the single person, and a brick.

You make the claim, now, that "any insult requires negative external comparison". I can agree with that. That's fine. That assumption comes from even a rudimentary understanding of the term "insult". Where I disagree with you is that you also make the claim that that external comparison has to be (absolutely inherent) "other people".

I'm just saying that it's absolutely inherent in human language and interaction that insults rely on negative comparisons to other people.

That's the part I'm disagreeing with. There is a difference between the statement that "an insult requires negative external comparison" and the statement that "an insult requires negative external comparison to other people".

My using "right" in that line was aimed at others in the thread who have maintained that it's fine to insult whole groups of people as long as you don't really mean it. The "and/or necessary" bit was aimed at you. I'm sorry for the confusion.

[Starfisher]

So why is "dumb as a brick" an insult, then, if being of lesser intellect does not make one inferior? It's impossible to generate the comparison and then turn to the person next to you, who also happens to be less intelligent, and say, "Don't worry, I didn't mean you" and more than I could scream racial epithets at someone and then turn to my shocked friend of the same race and say, "Nah, you're cool." If one person who is less intelligent is inferior to you, then they all are.

[roflmao]

Technically speaking, offering benefits to the handicapped is a form of group discrimination itself. It's discrimination towards both the non-handicapped and the handicapped. By offering benefits to the handicapped, society is acknowledging that they're disadvantaged. By acknowledging that the lame are disadvantaged, society is deeming them to be inferior.

But virtually no one who cares about social equality believes in abolishing benefits for the handicapped. Why do you think that is? You've got to draw distinctions between different types of discrimination and employ a great amount of common sense to determine when discrimination is positive, neutral, or negative.

So, while in the strictest sense using "dumb" and "lame" figuratively are discriminatory words, in practice, they really aren't. Those words have largely lost their meaning and form part of common english, and people use them in a non discriminatory way all the time.

[LoCo]

A brick has how much intellect? Not less, but none.

Bob and Norman are sitting with me. Lets assume that Norman is in possession of a lesser intellect.

So I say Bob is as dumb as a brick. The comparison is between Bob and a brick.

Nowhere is Norman involved. Why would I need to then turn to Norman and say "I meant Bob and bricks, not you Norman."?

Now lets assume that Bob and Norman are there again, and Norman is mentally retarded.

So I say "Bob is a retard".

Now Norman is part of the equation. The comparison is between Bob and retards, and Norman is retarded. In this case, you are right, I can not turn to Norman and say "Nah, you're cool." because in this case the insult is including a group of people who are not the target of the insult.

Both examples adhere to the statement that "an insult requires negative external comparison". But the second example has the addendum "to other people".

It's not one person who is less intelligent than ME (or the majority of people) that I'm claiming is inferior. It is one person who is less intelligent than everybody (humans in general, and thus reaching for an inanimate, nonliving object - a brick) that I'm claiming is inferior. The insult is solely and directly aimed at one person, the target of my insult. Nobody else enters the equation.

No matter how you try to hedge other people in there, they are simply not included in my statement "Bob is as dumb as a brick." There is Bob and the brick. The brick and Bob.

[Starfisher]

You're making intellect a variable which can be judged. Inherent in that judgment is the idea that less intellect makes one inferior. None is still less than some. What you're saying is that Bob is inferior because his intellect is inferior - you're obviously making an extreme and somewhat absurd comparison, since if Bob is human and has his eyes open he's got more intelligence than a brick - but nonetheless you are creating a broad value judgment which applies to Norman as well. You're saying that Bob has no intellect at all, which means that his status is diminished because level of intellect is a determinant of status. Thus, you are judging everyone. You are creating a standard against which all people are judged.

Incidentally, this is precisely how something like "girls are bad at math" works its insidious magic. A standard of performance is created which is predicated on certain expectations. Girls fail to meet that standard for whatever reason (likely not a lack of aptitude), and so is a stereotype born. Inherent in insults like "you're an idiot" is the idea that being an idiot is a bad thing, that not being smart is a bad thing. Not being good at math is a bad thing. If a girl is doing poorly, it's a bad thing, so a common response is to shift away and do something else, because I don't want to look stupid. "Dumb as a brick" only makes sense in the context of a society that values intelligence and denigrates the lack of it. Otherwise, it doesn't make any more sense than me saying, "You're terrible at judging the value of cattle" to a programmer; the insult requires that the judgement generate broad social status for it to have any power at all.

Norman wouldn't react or require placation because no one quibbles about definitions like this in real life; we understand from context when things are properly targeted, which is why the intuitive reaction to the bigotry accusation is to say, "I didn't mean that". But we're talking about definitions and semantics, here. I maintain that there is no difference in principle between calling someone a recognized bigoted term and calling someone anything which relies on relative value judgment (which is any insult intended to put someone down, since the entire goal is to make them less than you) - the difference in practice lies in your historical and cultural context, as Black pointed out. We can get away with calling someone an idiot or dumb, not because those words do not contain relative judgments, not because they don't refer to groups of people, but because our current historical and cultural context makes them broadly acceptable and generic enough that no one challenges it.

[Starblade]

Technically speaking, offering benefits to the handicapped is a form of group discrimination itself.

..
But virtually no one who cares about social equality believes in abolishing benefits for the handicapped. Why do you think that is?

Because privilege exists. Take affirmative action and black people in the US for example. Centuries of slavery and discrimination and Jim Crow laws and about a hundred other things have lead them to be, as a whole, less well off than white people. Any given white person in all probability has it easier than a black person in a similar position because of this systemic racism and discrimination. Affirmative action and similar practices are an attempt to smooth that over, level the field. You don't really believe we have social equality right now do you?

By acknowledging that the lame are disadvantaged, society is deeming them to be inferior.

One might say that proponents of affirmative action and other attempts to level the playing field for those who are less well off due to historical reasons and centuries of inequality are the true bigots.

[roflmao]

Privilege towards a specific group is still discriminatory in nature. It's just a positive type of discrimination.

I believe in equality of rights, not equality of results. When it comes to rights, white people and black people are equal. So are men and women. When it comes to results, they're not, but I don't think it is the role of government to insure that everyone have the same results. Not because equality of results isn't a desirable goal in essence, but because equality of results is impossible to achieve and the negative side effects of such policies frequently eclipse the benefits. Thomas Sowell is great on affirmative action in particular.

In other words I think affirmative action is well intentioned. I think the goal behind affirmative action is an admirable one. I just don't think affirmative action really produces the outcomes it sets out to produce.

[LoCo]

Again, no.

The value judgment does not apply to Norman as well. Since Norman has some intellect where as I'm implying that Bob has none. Everyone, except Bob and including Norman, is exempt from my judgment because they all have some intellect. Bob is specified, my insult is aimed at him. The comparison is to that of a brick. That does not include anyone except Bob and the brick. Norman, and everyone else, is excluded from the comparison of the intellectual prowess of a brick by virtue of two facts. The first fact is that they were not included in the statement. The second fact is that while they all have attributes connected to intellect, the brick - something mentioned in the statement - has no intellect. So there is no relation to anyone not specifically mentioned in the statement.

If it was worded differently like so:

Bob has the equivalent intellect of a brick.

Then there is a negative external comparison to the equivalent intellect of a brick. That says nothing about anyone with more intellect than a brick.

The implication for Bob is that it is implied that he has no intellect. So the wider implication is that anyone with no intellect is being considered inferior. While anyone with > 0 intellect is not part of the statement, the implication or the equation in any way at all.

"Dumb as a brick" only makes sense in the context of a society that values intelligence and denigrates the lack of it. Otherwise, it doesn't make any more sense than me saying, "You're terrible at judging the value of cattle" to a programmer; the insult requires that the judgement generate broad social status for it to have any power at all.

Yes. Anything without intelligence is considered of less value. There is a difference here that you are not spotting and I don't know how to make it clearer. "lack of" is completely and utterly different to "less than". An empty glass is completely different to a glass which is full and a glass which only has a small amount in it.

A) Empty glass
B) Half full/empty glass
C) Glass with trace amounts in it
D) Full glass

Out of those, the one that is odd is? A.

It is not like the others. B, C and D all have something in common.

A) 0 IQ = brick
B) 90 IQ = Bob
C) 30 IQ = Norman
D) 110 IQ = everyone else

In order for one to make a statement which includes B, C and D, one must make a statement about IQ > 0. If one makes a statement about IQ = 0 then one is excluding anyone with QI > 0.

If I say that Bob's value has been lowered to = brick, I am not making a statement about Norman or anyone else. Nothing else is in the equation.

So with the given values above, we now change Bob's value.

Bob = brick

Since brick = 0, now Bob = 0.

Now we have values that read like this:

brick = 0
Bob = 0
Norman = 30
everyone else = 110

Now we put in the value judgment which rounds off the insult which states that:

* > 0 = Good.
* = 0 = Bad.

That leaves us with:

brick = bad
Bob = bad
Norman = good
Everyone else = good

Where, exactly, do you get the idea that there is anything else in the equation? The only values that were used in the equation were that of brick and Bob. And even if you had to somehow insist that Norman's values and that of everyone else was involved in the equation, their values remain unchanged, and the value judgments did not reflect any change in them. The only change is that Bob has gone from "good" to "bad".

I'm failing to see where the problem is.

[Aron_DeTomado]

You know, all of the European monarchies appoint their Head of State by using affirmative action on the royal families, and at least some of them live on (generous) public benefits. Do you really mean to imply that royalists are bigoted against royalty? (And no, I don't support affirmative action, not even for the King.)

[Starfisher]

If one makes a statement about IQ = 0 then one is excluding anyone with QI > 0.

That's not how natural language and human interaction works. I don't get to say, "He's completely black so he's dirty" then say to someone of somewhat lighter black skin and say, "Don't worry, I'm only talking about completely black people." I have selected "blackness" as a negative trait, and I don't get to invent magical boundaries on that negativity.

You are insulting someone's intelligence. That only works if intelligence matters to social status. By insulting his intelligence, you are reinforcing the idea of intelligence as conveying power/status and a lack thereof doing the opposite. There is no way around this. It's inherent in insults (attempts to lower social status) and whatever trait you select, which, in this case, is intellect. And so by diminishing Bob, you diminish Norman and anyone else who goes through life feeling intellectually inadequate, or being directly told "you're as dumb as a brick." The "intellect value" of a brick is irrelevant to the fact that the comparison creates/requires class status based on intellect.

Imagine that you actually insulted Bob in this way, and then Norman got angry and said, "Hey, I'm not as smart as you, so what about me?" Would you launch into this rationalization? Try to explain that no, you see, bricks have no intelligence so it's ok to say someone is as dumb as one, I'm really not saying that being less smart is bad, just that bricks have no intellect and so does Bob, but that doesn't mean being less smart is bad? And what would you say if both continued to be offended, because in their eyes it doesn't matter what you compared Bob to, because the comparison itself inherently puts them at a lower level than you?

[Codex]

Bob has the equivalent intellect of a brick.

Then there is a negative external comparison to the equivalent intellect of a brick. That says nothing about anyone with more intellect than a brick.

If "being of lesser intellect" wasn't a negative thing, how insulting would it be to say they have the intellect of a brick? What if intellect wasn't a favoured trait, but instead strength and dominance was? For examples, I'm thinking of times when intelligence wasn't very important, in the time of warrior societies.

"Well, you're as dumb as a brick!"
*Spartans look at each other, and burst out laughing*

Would Spartans care if someone was stupid? Probably not, comparison with the intellect-less brick be damned, and especially not if they were great warriors, which is on their list of values.

If intelligence isn't of value, then the insult based in saying they lack it loses force. That implies that the force of the insult comes directly from the statement of lesser intelligence, not so much the fact that the object of comparison is a brick.

Oh and while I'm at it, great post 107, Starfisher. It made me look at the whole thing differently, as I could see both sides of what roflmao and Starblade were saying, but I couldn't see the overall picture.

[LoCo]

Codex.: It's Fisher talking about "lesser intellect". Please, tell me you know the difference between "none" and "some".

Also... what?

And then, again, what? It appears you don't understand the difference between "none" and "some". You use "lack of" and "lesser" interchangeably. They do not mean the same thing.

Starfisher: Your "black" value argument doesn't work in this case. Some black is still black. Do I have to go back to the glasses explanation?

You are selecting an attribute to insult that other people have. No other people have a lack of intellect.

You are insulting someone's intelligence. That only works if intelligence matters to social status. By insulting his intelligence, you are reinforcing the idea of intelligence as conveying power/status and a lack thereof doing the opposite.

No. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I'm saying that Bob has none. At all. And not having any is bad. Norman has some. Norman is good. Bob bad, Norman good.

Bad good bad bad, good bad good good bad... bad.

Why would Norman get angry? He could only get angry on Bob's behalf. Otherwise it doesn't involve him at all. If Norman magically (Just because you say he would so he would...) got upset and asked that, I'd tell him he has more intellect than a brick, so he is better than Bob and then we'd go get a beer while discussing the implications of Bob's lack of intellect.

If Norman is still magically upset, then that's his problem because I haven't offered any insult at him either directly or indirectly. However I might then amend my original statement to state that both Bob and Norman have the intellect of a brick.

Neither has me insulting others indirectly. My insult is still specific and offers no insult to anyone outside of my target(s) in my statement.

[Mirage Knight]

Basically the strength of a given insult is based on what is valued highly and what certain terms mean within a given culture and / or social group.

Say I live in a society where pure heterosexual behavior is considered to be extremely prudish and a sign of weakness. Within that society, if I were to say to someone "wow, you're so hetero" that would considered an insult. Used outside that society, people would probably respond "Um, yeah...your point being?"

[Starblade]

It's just a positive type of discrimination.

That's a contradiction. Also, discrimination against the disabled is also a thing and the US has laws against it, to point that out.

I believe in equality of rights, not equality of results.

The past affects the present. Yes, the law should treat everyone equally (it doesn't, there's a lot of institutionalized racism in the US). Yes, there should be equal rights for everyone (there isn't, just ask some homosexuals). No, that doesn't mean everyone has an equal chance. This is because of the past. This is because of slavery. This is because of Jim Crow. This is because of a lot of things. I can see arguing against its current implementation but arguing that its not necessary is a joke.

[roflmao]

On the definition of discrimination, fair enough. But institutionalized racism in the US? Huh? What laws exist that discriminate against black people? I mean our horrible public school system prevents blacks from getting the education required to prosper, but that isn't the same thing as institutionalized racism. Or what are you referring to with institutionalized racism?

The best form of affirmative action is to remove stumbling blocks that prevent black people from prospering through their own efforts. We live in an amazing world where economic growth is able to erase centuries of poverty in a mere matter of decades. It's truly remarkable. Think free trade, not foreign aid. (In case you didn't catch on, I'm not saying blacks are foreigners. I'm drawing a comparison to the effectiveness of free trade as opposed to foreign aid in eradicating world poverty. There are quite a few similarities that can be drawn)

e: Of all the different progressive policy choices, welfare is by far one of the ones that I most agree with and am most sympathetic towards.


But this is all really off topic so that's the last thing I'll say about it.

[Starblade]

What laws exist that discriminate against black people? I mean our horrible public school system prevents blacks from getting the education required to prosper, but that isn't the same thing as institutionalized racism. Or what are you referring to with institutionalized racism?

Hoo boy. I don't really have the time to walk through this, but drug laws, health care, and wealth disparity are a good start, along with public schooling, not to mention the Native Americans or racial profiling or everyday things like this. Then there's always things like the Southern Strategy, whose legacy remains.

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

Such things are still a cornerstone of right-wing politics in the US, though obviously the strategy itself is no more. This is a big, in-depth topic which I have very little on hand, I'm afraid, and I don't really have time to look and go into detail. The concept is more than just "laws to explicitly fuck over non-whites", though. Far more.

We live in an amazing world where economic growth is able to erase centuries of poverty in a mere matter of decades.

Half of the US is low income, poor, or impoverished and many areas of crushing poverty have been that way for a long time. I do not agree that the free market is the end all be all solution to everything, but that's for another thread, and I don't think you're against the reasons behind affirmative action or trying to level the playing field or whatever you'd like to call it, you just had a poor choice of words earlier, so I'll drop it.

[Codex]

Codex.: It's Fisher talking about "lesser intellect". Please, tell me you know the difference between "none" and "some".

Also... what?

And then, again, what? It appears you don't understand the difference between "none" and "some". You use "lack of" and "lesser" interchangeably. They do not mean the same thing.

If it isn't desirable to be intelligent, it's not insulting to be said to have no intellect. It doesn't matter if the comparison is to a retard, to my pet rock or to a brick.

I understand what you're saying, and I think Starfisher and I understand the difference between no intellect and having lesser intellect. But the practical difference with regard to this argument is frankly illusory on your part. Having no intellect is still being compared on the scale of intellect, because we've made a value judgement there: that having intellect (or lack thereof, or lesser) is worth caring about. If it's not worth talking about, or caring about, then it's not insulting to say they have no intellect.

Spartans would be likely use insults, about sword and spear skill, physical size, comparison to infants, etc... because those are the kind of things that are upsetting to them. It's really that simple.

If you still don't get it, replace "being dumb" with a neutral term like "red". Now say to someone that they're "red as a brick". Is it insulting? No. Okay, what about "sturdy as a brick"? That's a compliment, usually. So, why is "dumb as a brick" an insult in virtue of its comparison to a brick? I take it that it isn't. The reason "dumb as a brick" is an insult is because being "dumb" is an insult. Which means we think being "dumb" is bad.

[Malachi]

I just thought of something regarding my previous posts. Quote for context:

Calling a girl anything implying that the girl is less feminine or, rather, more masculine is considered to be good, or at the very least neutral because you are saying that the girl isstrong.

Not around where I live, and I doubt this is true in the UK or USA either. I'm not a native English speaker, so not sure about the meanimg of such words in English, but in Polish, most words implying male attributes to a female are definitely offensive and degrading.

I think it's a gender role thing. Countries with strong feminist movements tend to be open to the idea of women doing "men's work" ie. opening traditionally male dominated areas to women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Poland a rather conservative country where the Catholic Church is incredibly influential? It is possible that female gender roles are simply more cemented, leading to the attribution of "masculine characteristics" to women being seen as an insult.

Thinking about this for a while, what's the conclusion here? By Loco's way of reasoning, my Polish, conservative society doesn't associate women's "masculine" attributes with strenght and "feminine" ones with weakness, which societies with a more liberal approach to gender roles apparently do.

Which one is the desired approach? If we just decide that specific attributes should simply not be associated with any gender, then I guess it's okay to just value the ones we choose to, deeming Loco's complaint moot.

[Starfisher]

If you still don't get it, replace "being dumb" with a neutral term like "red". Now say to someone that they're "red as a brick". Is it insulting? No. Okay, what about "sturdy as a brick"? That's a compliment, usually. So, why is "dumb as a brick" an insult in virtue of its comparison to a brick? I take it that it isn't. The reason "dumb as a brick" is an insult is because being "dumb" is an insult. Which means we think being "dumb" is bad.

Pretty concise way to sum up the point. Thank you.

1) Society values intelligence, with high intelligence being of high value and low intelligence being of low value.
2) You call someone "dumb as a brick"
3) This only works because of #1
4) By using that insult you reinforce #1 and thus reinforce the reduction of status afforded to the less intelligent.
5) You just "insulted" Norman

Whatever logical/mathematical value your argument may have (and it has none, unfortunately, since one can prove that zero is less than any positive number, thus establishing "none" still occupies a position on a scale and is not a special case), it doesn't make any sense in the context of human conversation or human culture. Codex did a good job explaining why above. Without relative value judgment, insults simply become incoherent or nonsensical. It inescapably follows from the definition of "to insult".

[Flagg]

I heard about it on TYM forum last week. A video was supplied showing the incident which has since been removed. It was a SSF IV tournie I believe, and there was a girl player playing against a guy. One of the commentators called Aris was just making the most cringe worthy, horrible comments to the girl. Asking her how big her breasts were, does she like mud wrestling with other female players, and so forth. All this with a few spectators present and everyone on stream. You could see how embarrassing the girl was finding all of this. I think SRK have taken away a sponsor for some players that were going to be paid to compete at EVO this year due to this.

Stuff like that, those comments, are just not acceptable. It's immature and offensive, and yeah, the few people that came to this guys aid and said "hey he's really nice in real life, he was just playing to the stream monsters"....well then that makes it worse.

It irritates me because I consider myself a fighting game enthusiasts, and out of most the genres there, the FGC usually are regarded as the most annoying and immature. I know Capcom players/fans have bad reps, I can say having watched a few MK (mortal kombat) streams, the MK community is not like that.

You probably find this sort of behaviour in all sorts of genres of gaming. Bottom line is, a lot of game players are young, socially inept males that dont know how to talk to women. They are the same socially inept males that will go onto YouTube, say those heinous things if someone has made a video and they happen to be black. This kinda reinforces my belief, that a lot of people really are just arseholes that have to repress those tendancies in real life. It's when they get on the internet that their true colours are revealed.

EDIT: I just want to add, before anyone comes in and asks why I haven't acknowledged the last few posts, it seems like a lot of someone making a statement, someone refuting it, then the other person saying "you haven't understood what I just said" or "re-read what I just said".

[LoCo]

Codex.: Yeah, but what's your point about the Spartans? I don't think anyone is objecting to what you're saying there, and I don't see anyone objecting to it before. I'm just confused as to why you brought them into it...

Having no intellect is still being compared on the scale of intellect, because we've made a value judgement there: that having intellect (or lack thereof, or lesser) is worth caring about.

Yes and no. Yes, there is a value judgment. Yes, it's on the scale of intellect. Yes, we have made the value judgment that intellect is worth caring about. No, it has nothing to do with "lesser" intellect.

On the scale called intellect where A = -10, B = 0, C = 30 and D = 110:

-------A------B------------C-------D-----

In the statement that "Bob is as dumb as a brick", and a brick is at B, I am making the value judgment that anything B or less is considered inferior and thus bad. It's the arbitrary line in the sand that I'm drawing. B. A brick is bad, anything equal to, or less than, a brick is then by default bad. Anything more than a brick is by default good.

So A and B are bad.

And C and D are good.

It doesn't matter where on the positive side of B you fall, you are still good.

It is only if you are at B or less that you are bad.

That's a value judgment. Anything with an intellect of more than B is good.

If you still don't get it, replace "being dumb" with a neutral term like "red". Now say to someone that they're "red as a brick". Is it insulting? No. Okay, what about "sturdy as a brick"? That's a compliment, usually. So, why is "dumb as a brick" an insult in virtue of its comparison to a brick? I take it that it isn't. The reason "dumb as a brick" is an insult is because being "dumb" is an insult. Which means we think being "dumb" is bad.

Right, red as a brick is not insulting because we place no value judgment on 'red'. Sturdy as a brick is a compliment because we place a value judgment on 'sturdy' AND because bricks are fairly sturdy. The value denoted by the object in the sentence is intrinsic to the statement. Otherwise why use a brick? If one were to say "sturdy as a leaf" ... well, leaves aren't sturdy, that then becomes an insult. Because we have a value judgment that says 'sturdy' is important, and on the 'sturdy' scale we find:

------A-----leaf--------B-----brick-----C----

The value judgment given in the statement is that bricks are sturdy and leaves are not. Not sturdy is bad, and sturdy is good. I don't know how sturdy you would call a leaf, but lets put it at 4. So we are making the value judgment that anything 4 or less "sturdy" is bad. That means that A and 'leaf' are bad. B is not mentioned in the statement about 'leaf' but if it is on the positive side of leaf, then by the statement alone, B can be considered good. brick is good and C is good.

No. Being "dumb as a brick" is not an insult because of "dumb". It is an insult because of the comparison to the intellect of a brick. That's the whole, and entire, and complete and full reason for having "as a brick". It's a comparison.

If the idea was just to denote that lesser intellect is bad, then simply saying that "Bob is dumb" would suffice. But because there is the comparison, the whole statement changes. What happens now is that the statement indicates that the intellect of a brick is bad. Not that "lesser intellect" is bad. Specifically that having the intellect of a brick is bad. Any brick.*

"Dumb" is just a word to refer to the attribute that is being compared. It's a place holder for "intellect". Nothing more.

Bob is as dumb as a brick.

Basic sentence structure here. You can't get it wrong. The subject is Bob's intellect. Bob is having his intellect compared to that of a brick. The comparison is unfavorable because bricks have no intellect. In this statement there is a value judgment placed on having no intellect. This statement does not mention any other objects, attributes or value judgments. Just Bob, the brick, the intellect of the brick and the intellect of Bob.

There is no other information. Any further information will have been brought in by you. So any value judgment about anyone with more intellect than a brick is brought in by you and has nothing to do with the initial statement. What you are doing by inserting further information is called projecting.

*Hence why comparing someone to a girl (becomes any girl) or a mentally retarded person (becomes any retarded person) or an Asian (becomes any Asian) etc. is bad. You are indirectly insulting everyone in that group. But since bricks don't have feelings, comparing someone to a brick, and thus indirectly insulting all bricks, no harm comes indirectly to anybody.

Flagg: Nobody was going to ask you. If you don't comment on it then you don't comment on it. But obviously you wanted to comment huh?

[roflmao]

You're trying to come up with a literal analysis of a metaphorical statement LoCo. Sure, literally speaking "dumb as a brick" refers to someone of zero intellect. But what the statement means literally is actually irrelevant, because it's not used in a literal context. The only thing that matters is how "dumb as a brick" is actually used, and in reality, it's used as a figurative statement to refer to very dumb people, not people of zero intellect.

Sidenote: I love italics.

Sidenote 2: How the hell did we get here.

[Octopus Rex]

...What the fuck is going on here?

[Shoota Fodder]

The way I see it, an insult is and insult and depending on the context it doesn't matter. I have several black friends who I am close with and who I have called 'Ni**ers' just as they have called me 'white trash' and 'short dick' and all kinds of strange things that totally aren't true (I promise). I don't think it's an offensive term and neither do they and it's all fun and games. When it does become offensive is when you are trying to insult on purpose.

For example, there are many old expressions I have never found offensive and laugh when I hear them. For example: a delinquent. Haha, what does that mean? I haven't the foggiest. But if an SMP made a speech in parliament about how all Scottish 17-19 year olds (Me) were delinquents without something to back that up with, I'd be up in arms! How dare he! HOW DARE HE!

So yeah, I really don't think it's the word that counts. I don't believe that certain words should ever be banned or tabooed or anything, they have their places and are after all just words. If a man shouted gibberish at you but went on and on in a condescending tone, even if there were no words there, you'd be insulted. Words are meaningless, it's the meaning and intent behind the words and phrases which is insulting. I'm not saying politicians should suddenly refer to all black people with the N word or doctors should use the C word when discussing the sexual health of women, but I think you know what I mean and I think I know what I'm trying to say.

[Starfisher]

Wow. This is getting surreal and detracting from the thread, so I'm done. If you're reading the thread, you can make your own judgment on the relative merits of my position versus Loco's. My position is simple: insults require social context to have meaning, require relative value judgment to have power, and so any insult you can conceive of both relies on and reinforces some social norm or norms. You do not get to chose how this works, and don't get to chose which insults society marks as acceptable and unacceptable. End statement.

[Mullertime]

Heh... male posturing on games is incredibly intriguing. Whilst the situation itself is pretty grim, I can't help but laugh

The thing is, I'm not viewing this as immature men quashing women. Not by a long shot. This is a group of immature boys attempting to exert control over something they have little-to-no control over... women. And whilst they like to believe that they ARE being powerful, you can tell it's ultimately failing and the majority probably lead single lives or are stuck in an unpleasant relationship. Karma's hit them quickly, I guess you could say

What intrigues me about this whole attitude, is the nature of it. I read this from 'Fire In The Belly' by Sam Keen, one man's perspective on what it means to be a mature, masculine male. He explains how, during teenage years (and for many, beyond), boys will engage in a futile war: A power play over WOMAN. Not a physical woman, but more the essence of 'woman' itself. And you can generally spot amongst teenagers and immature men - that there's often a lot of feminine-hating going on. More specifically - attempts to overpower the very nature of 'female'. This ranges from lewd remarks, rejecting and casting out feminine behaviour as weak ("Big boys don't cry"), homophobia and the general essence of trying to play, manipulate and control women - using them as conquests.

Interestingly, the very behaviour doesn't appear to derive from the fact that men are powerful... but the very opposite. Men love control, and the one thing we pretty much can't control is women (more the essence, shall we say). So the response to this is that many try to overpower women, to compensate for the fact that they're actually scared. Result: The incident this whole thread is based on. I would put money down that 99% of the guys involved in that struggle with women to some degree, be it having relationship problems or not being able to attract the women they like. In other words - Being at the mercy of the fickle nature of femininity. They can't control women they way they want... so they try to overpower it. They try and degrade women, as it's a way of trying to dilute the very fact that they can't control them. If that makes sense...

In essence - It's funny because the guys clearly are immature and scared. And if anything I'd even regard it as flattering to the woman involved - They're all intimidated by her

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Apologies for leaping into this late, I've been without the net for a while. But some of this is specifically bothersome to me.

LoCo: You're identification of male = strong, female = weak would probably be more accurately described as male = dominant, female = submissive. In western (and many other) cultures that's pretty accurate as gender roles go. The flaw I find is your assumption that dominant is positive and submissive is negative. I have pretty wholeheartedly adopted the submissive aspects of my female gender, and I take a lot of offense at anyone suggesting I'm weak or being exploited for doing so. I like being the submissive partner in my relationships. I always have. Being the dominant partner is actually a lot of work and I like the added security of knowing my partner is looking after and taking care of me. I don't think that makes me weak, either. I go with what my partners want most of the time; this means that when I put my foot down on something I'm taken seriously because it's clearly something important. By doing things unasked for them they also become reliant on me; that's power I have over them through submissiveness.

Calling me female terms is a compliment. Calling me male terms is an insult.

[Harmanoff]

In essence - It's funny because the guys clearly are immature and scared. And if anything I'd even regard it as flattering to the woman involved - They're all intimidated by her

That's not funny, that's sad. And it's not flattering to the woman involved, it's just a glaring example of the negative impact male stereotypes actually have on society.

Men love control? The only thing they can't control is a woman? Did you throw that in there as a reference to the male stereotype these gamers are suffering from or do you actually believe that?