Chat Moderation Changes and Additions Report!

CatboyPrincess · April 4, 2019

6 minutes ago, Sean said:

Anything can literally be used as slur. The facts are that there are people out there that find "trap" to be complementary to both others and themselves.

i applaud you for your continued streak in ignoring the key points of "it's being used as a slur" (and the implication that many people do use it as a slur) and "the overwhelming majority of the trans community experiences it as a slur." it's truly impressive

6 minutes ago, Sean said:

BUT it requires context and something like that should not be on the whims of a bot.

It already has context: Region chat is where the bot functions and it also happens to be where the bot baiters and trolls are. Seems appropriate to me to automate taking out the trash where the trash resides.

Sean · April 5, 2019

2 minutes ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

i applaud you for your continued streak in ignoring the key points of "it's being used as a slur" (and the implication that many people do use it as a slur) and "the overwhelming majority of the trans community experiences it as a slur." it's truly impressive

As I have stated, while it can be used as a slur, it varies on how it is used and on a person's background and history.

You can repeatedly try to be in denial on that, but it does not change that fact.

There are numerous words and phrases that are allowable within Warframe despite also being a "slur" or "insulting" to some groups of people, but they are allowed due to them also having other meanings. You keep saying "overwhelming majority", but even that is not true.

It will vary one what area on the internet you are looking at as there will be those that "echo" the same sentiment, there are also those where the reverse is true.

The facts are that it is a word that requires nuance and context to be handled properly, blanket-banning only assumes the worst and does not help anyone. It is this overreach that created the meme of "nezha is a trap" at all. If it was left, it would have blown over ages ago, instead a mountain was made out of a molehill.

2 minutes ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

It already has context: Region chat is where the bot functions and it also happens to be where the bot baiters and trolls are. Seems appropriate to me to automate taking out the trash where the trash resides.

Context is not something a bot can know and you seem to be ignoring what "context" even means.

You can continue your denial of groups of people and your unwillingness to grasp that that are more sides to this, but I am done with our little back-and-forth. If you want to have the "last word" feel free, but I feel this is enough as it only continues to knock this topic off course.

notlamprey · April 5, 2019

Wow, this thread had another burst of activity.

I'm a little disappointed that things have gotten as heated as they have, since I don't think any of us make our best cases when we're on tilt. That said, it's totally understandable because this is one of those topics that's deeply personal and does seem to demand passion.

One thing I'd probably recommend against is the in-line posting of video links in this thread. It's distracting and I'd rather see someone synthesize their own statements, as opposed to leaning on someone else's. If you have to post the video, odds are you don't yet fully understand the ideas you're trying to convey. That's not meant to be a slam, because of course it's difficult to break something down and put your own personal stamp on it. However, I think we really need to focus on doing just that if we want to keep this thread from becoming excessively polarized and "tribal."

The last thing we want, especially those of us who feel DE is perhaps being too opaque on this topic, is for DE to feel further justified in distancing themselves from this conversation. No argument can win if it isn't heard in the first place.

On the topic of videos, I've seen two posted here that I don't believe do a particularly good job of handling the subject matter. There's a fair amount of cherry picking, misrepresentation, omission and begging the question (I'm specifically referring to Contra on this, she has a habit of affirming the consequent and completely dodged an entire side of the issue that was later addressed by SMonroe).

Let's remember to avoid polarizing language as much as possible. Not gonna name names there, you know who you are.

Jitsuryoku · April 5, 2019

5 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

Good thing video games don't depend on the success of trolls and bigots cheaply disguised as free speech absolutists so personally I'm actually not at all worried about that 🙂

Cash of trolls and bigots cost just as much in bank and I would argue that losing them (even if just losing the actual trolls) the company would take a financial hit. Also, don't automatically brand anyone getting banned as troll or bigot. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the automatic bans are sort of broken. When you're claiming somebody, who was just banned for reasons they don't understand is a troll or a bigot, You're just creating more hate towards your cause.

4 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

i applaud you for your continued streak in ignoring the key points of "it's being used as a slur" (and the implication that many people do use it as a slur) and "the overwhelming majority of the trans community experiences it as a slur." it's truly impressive

This portion is actually really curious to me. There's an objective neutral definition for the word "trap", there's a whole fetish around it so clearly it has to have positive tones to it. That's why claims that using that word to describe an object (not against a person) seem baseless. I am willing to read your sources for the claims you are making. There are so many people claiming that it's a bad word and so far the only "source" I've seen is a Youtuber talking about it (again not a single source is 30min + video, just anecdotal evidence). If it's made illegal in a country, if there's study made on that, or even there was a dictionary entry saying it's a slur, it would be easier to take those claims seriously.

Also, by instantly, demonizing anyone who disagrees (and you seem to do that with every message), you're making them less likely to agree with you and further down the line with the points you are trying to make, even if at some point you back them up with data.

ismellpestilence · April 5, 2019

On 2019-01-31 at 12:00 AM, notbydesign said:

Maybe you people use the word trap too much or perhaps making assumptions because I can think of two or three occasions where I've said it in a non-offensive context, even had people in chat say "inb4" etc, and I've not been booted. I'm sure it happens but how often do you honestly say "i'm setting a trap"??

What does “inb4” even mean ?!

Almagnus1 · April 5, 2019

2 hours ago, Jitsuryoku said:

Cash of trolls and bigots cost just as much in bank and I would argue that losing them (even if just losing the actual trolls) the company would take a financial hit. Also, don't automatically brand anyone getting banned as troll or bigot. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the automatic bans are sort of broken. When you're claiming somebody, who was just banned for reasons they don't understand is a troll or a bigot, You're just creating more hate towards your cause.

That's the big thing, as I'm sure almost everyone in the thread will agree that you should treat everyone else with respect.

However, not everyone is going to agree what that looks like.

CatboyPrincess · April 5, 2019

On 2019-04-04 at 5:10 PM, Sean said:

As I have stated, while it can be used as a slur, it varies on how it is used and on a person's background and history.

You can repeatedly try to be in denial on that, but it does not change that fact.

There are numerous words and phrases that are allowable within Warframe despite also being a "slur" or "insulting" to some groups of people, but they are allowed due to them also having other meanings. You keep saying "overwhelming majority", but even that is not true.

It will vary one what area on the internet you are looking at as there will be those that "echo" the same sentiment, there are also those where the reverse is true.

The risk of harm presented by a word and its usage as a slur is weighed against the probability of its usage being that of a slur.

The context of discourse is Region chat. In Region chat, most players that use the word use it in the "it's a trap" format or "Nezha is a trap" and that is pointedly a statement that is a product of background radiation transphobia and gender role enforcement in society and reflects its more malicious use as a slur.

Yes, people do use it for non-malicious reasons and discussion. I'm not denying that at all.

What I am saying is that the word as used in Region chat is very often used in a transphobic fashion and so there is reason to automate moderation of its usage in Region chat. Region chat in general is a toxic wasteland and I turned it off and I am happy that DE's moderation is addressing one part of this.

There are other allowable words that are slurs and I'm sure they're either an oversight or people don't think to use them in the sense of a slur as often in Region chat.

You are of course allowed to use whatever language you want in a different social setting and you are perfectly correct in that different places have different sentiments about the same words. None of this logically leads to the conclusion that DE should or shouldn't permit certain language in Region chat.

On 2019-04-04 at 5:10 PM, Sean said:

The facts are that it is a word that requires nuance and context to be handled properly, blanket-banning only assumes the worst and does not help anyone. It is this overreach that created the meme of "nezha is a trap" at all. If it was left, it would have blown over ages ago, instead a mountain was made out of a molehill.

The same could be said about a lot of other words blocked by the filter. DE made their choice and they're playing it safe. That's fair.

And no, "overreach" is not at all the cause for the creation of the "nezha is a trap" meme. The cause of the meme is a transphobic society's members interpreting Nezha's character design and it's not at all a surprise that the "it's a trap" meme is applied to Nezha. The "nezha is a trap" meme is just an extension of "[x character] is a trap" meme.

On 2019-04-04 at 5:10 PM, Sean said:

Context is not something a bot can know and you seem to be ignoring what "context" even means.

"Context" means "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed".

In most cases for Region chat, the place where the automod takes place, "trap" is being used as a way to bait people into getting kicked or as troll bait. (Besides that, the bot doesn't blanket ban the word "trap".)

On 2019-04-04 at 8:02 PM, notlamprey said:

The last thing we want, especially those of us who feel DE is perhaps being too opaque on this topic, is for DE to feel further justified in distancing themselves from this conversation. No argument can win if it isn't heard in the first place.

It's not about winning an argument. If winning the argument is what you are concerned about, then I don't think you have any personal investment in the topic at hand.

That said, if it is, then I am automatically winning for every moment DE refuses to budge specifically because I don't want to see a particularly bad meme that spawned as a result of cisgender heterosexual normativity in Region chat.

On 2019-04-04 at 8:02 PM, notlamprey said:

On the topic of videos, I've seen two posted here that I don't believe do a particularly good job of handling the subject matter. There's a fair amount of cherry picking, misrepresentation, omission and begging the question (I'm specifically referring to Contra on this, she has a habit of affirming the consequent and completely dodged an entire side of the issue that was later addressed by SMonroe).

... wow. SMunroe's video was a trainwreck. Especially when he got to discussing the panic defense. The "trap" character research was fine but also irrelevant.

But first, the inline videos that are being referred to:

"Are Traps Gay" By Contrapoints

"Traps" Don't Exist and Here's Why By Pedantic Romantic

All meanings of the word "trap" relevant to this discussion stem from contradictions introduced by cishet normativity. Contra points this out clearly. SMonroe superbly fails to see the larger picture in that the word "trap" and its usage is symptomatic of cishet normativity conflicting with natural human sexuality and gender. He fails to recognize why trans people relate to often-called trap characters, why the term was "co-opted" by trans people, and why some trans people "grow out of it."

Please point to some examples of these fallacies as they apply to Contra's video. As far as I can tell, she's addressed all the relevant points.

The larger picture is that advocating for permitting the use of words that are often used as slurs is less and less helpful and more and more risky when the setting of discourse becomes larger and larger.

Ex. some people use morphed forms of a racial slur for Black people as a term of endearment but the scope of its use is amongst members who mutually understand and respect each other's experiences. Advocating for that particular slur's return to broad usage is akin to advocating for the material conditions that slur is associated with, i.e. slavery.

If I have to explain why slavery or transphobia is bad (or if I have to explain why racism or sexism, etc. is bad), then I'm probably done with this conversation.

On 2019-04-04 at 8:02 PM, notlamprey said:

However, I think we really need to focus on doing just that if we want to keep this thread from becoming excessively polarized and "tribal."

It specifically must be tribally interpreted and polarized in order to make sense of why and how the use of slurs is rendered acceptable or unacceptable between conversant partners. When the tribal configuration forms, it's possible to observe on what axes people disagree on.

CatboyPrincess · April 5, 2019

2 hours ago, Jitsuryoku said:

This portion is actually really curious to me. There's an objective neutral definition for the word "trap", there's a whole fetish around it so clearly it has to have positive tones to it. That's why claims that using that word to describe an object (not against a person) seem baseless. I am willing to read your sources for the claims you are making. There are so many people claiming that it's a bad word and so far the only "source" I've seen is a Youtuber talking about it (again not a single source is 30min + video, just anecdotal evidence). If it's made illegal in a country, if there's study made on that, or even there was a dictionary entry saying it's a slur, it would be easier to take those claims seriously.

Also, by instantly, demonizing anyone who disagrees (and you seem to do that with every message), you're making them less likely to agree with you and further down the line with the points you are trying to make, even if at some point you back them up with data.

Porn is a poor educator for respectable language. Porn often uses language to specifically depersonalize its actors to help viewers self-insert for a quick sexual fantasy. Porn terms, as such, should not be applied to people in interpersonal interactions because productive interpersonal interactions rely on... well. Balanced personal investment.

The "positive" aspect of "trap" is that it can, in the right crowds, grab positive attention which is important because usually people who call themselves "trap" and who permit others to call them as such are often taught that their bodies, presentation, or behaviour is unwanted by cishet normative society.

This doesn't make it okay to use the word in all contexts and it is a safe bet to not use it to describe someone unless they make it specifically clear that it's okay with them.

>>That's why claims that using that word to describe an object (not against a person) seem baseless

I don't think anyone has a problem with "a device or enclosure designed to catch and retain animals, typically by allowing entry but not exit or by catching hold of a part of the body".

It's not the meaning that is considered a slur.

>>If it's made illegal in a country, if there's study made on that, or even there was a dictionary entry saying it's a slur, it would be easier to take those claims seriously.

You'll either have to take my word for it or look it up why or how "trap" can be a slur. Many slurs at the most prominent time of their use as a slur did not have a derogatory dictionary definition and I don't think any country has ever outright made slurs illegal.

When it is used as a slur, it is used towards people who don't conform to cisgender heterosexual normative social standards.

>>Also, by instantly, demonizing anyone who disagrees (and you seem to do that with every message), you're making them less likely to agree with you and further down the line with the points you are trying to make, even if at some point you back them up with data.

Short version: Meh, not my problem.

Long version: Meh, I'm only human. A moderator already removed my worst post(s?). But frankly? Bigots don't live thinking they are bigoted and bigots rarely consider if something they've said or done is actually bigoted. Data doesn't convince bigots because by definition, many of examples of bigotry (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) are the result of irrationality. So for the most part, I've given up on accruing and sharing data.

The most moving arguments in the end are not data-filled arguments but human stories, emotions, and sharing of personal experiences.

Chasue · April 5, 2019

I'm not going to argue that being called a trap makes some people uncomfortable, it does and that is plain to see. Some feel indifferent, or in favor of it, accepting and participating in jokes about it. Others choose to make it part of their persona because they like it, if it is for sexualized reasons or not does not matter. You do not get to deny a person their identity based on this, or straight up assume they were taught to do this, as sexuality plays a big, complex role in anyone's life. You do not get to deny people's personal experiences and emotions because they are excluded from your community due to not finding trap to be a derogatory slur in general.

The entire point of filtering chat is to create an environment everyone can feel comfortable to participate in and I can appreciate that. The current iteration of that filter does not cut it. There are many valid improvements, that everyone would benefit from, already proposed.

I wish we could move away from the "is 'x is a trap' meme acceptable?" discussion, as there is no blanket answer. Filter it for the sake of those that are hurt, I am all for it. But the punishment is, in my opinion, too heavy-handed for first "offense". This last statement is not specific to the trap thing, but any similarly punished ambiguous words, phrases and jokes.

CatboyPrincess · April 5, 2019

17 minutes ago, Chasue said:

I wish we could move away from the "is 'x is a trap' meme acceptable?" discussion, as there is no blanket answer. Filter it for the sake of those that are hurt, I am all for it. But the punishment is, in my opinion, too heavy-handed for first "offense". This last statement is not specific to the trap thing, but any similarly punished ambiguous words, phrases and jokes.

That's fair. A warning at first offense is fair.

19 minutes ago, Chasue said:

You do not get to deny a person their identity based on this, or straight up assume they were taught to do this, as sexuality plays a big, complex role in anyone's life. You do not get to deny people's personal experiences and emotions because they are excluded from your community due to not finding trap to be a derogatory slur in general.

In case this is directed to me:

I'm not denying anyone anything. Likewise, I understand and appreciate these differences.

Actually, I don't really care much at all about how the bot works. It won't change the fact that Nezha is beautiful and adorable and that some people are rude as hell.

It's just funny to see some very specific people claim they have an "argument" against trans people. (Do they have one against Canadians too?) wew

Chasue · April 5, 2019

1 minute ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

-snip-

Both at you and everyone else. I'm glad we agree, on Nezha as well.

Air-mage · April 5, 2019

3 months in I can tell: this sure as #*!% didn't work. or benefit anyone or anything since it was implemented

Almagnus1 · April 5, 2019

8 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

SMonroe superbly fails to see the larger picture in that the word "trap" and its usage is symptomatic of cishet normativity conflicting with natural human sexuality and gender.

When you start doing research into the actual research, it becomes very clear that it's a house of cards as what happens is someone gets a paper published in a journal, then everyone cites that paper and builds off of it... regardless of the validity of the paper itself. It's not that far off of a group that managed to rewrite a chapter out of Mein Kamp into a gender studies article and actually got it published. Do this enough times and you can basically fabricate a branch of science that's really little more than psuedoscience.

I've yet to see a serious paper on the subject that doesn't fall apart once you start scrutinizing the sources and studies it's based on.

notlamprey · April 5, 2019

Warning: Epic-length tree of spoilers and responses. Before embarking, please take a bathroom break if appropriate and secure means of rehydration.

Some of the things - in fact, a lot of the things - written in this thread require specific reply and/or rebuttal. Otherwise, we will have too much bad information and too little good.

I will intermittently make use of a somewhat harsh tone. My intent is to make clear my opposition to some statements, and to indicate where I feel I must stand firm.

First, some brief thoughts after re-watching the aforementioned "ContraPoints" video:

Spoiler

"Trans women have little influence in society" - not true. Major global corporations and governments are now regularly drafting policy according to what they perceive to be the wishes of "trans women," and with an eye toward the potential hazards of dealing with the topic in general. That's a significant amount of influence, whether it's being wielded intentionally or just passively experienced.
From the beginning, Contra's assumption is that "traps" = "trans women." This is also not true, and never was. It risks undermining the rest of the video, because people could interpret this as an attempt to sneakily insert oneself into a discussion.
Misleading and out-of-context murder statistics - Contra never names a country, and doesn't compare this rate with the rates for any other groups over the same time period. That means we don't have anything against which to compare this for the sake of evaluating the implied premise that "trans women" experience a wildly disproportionate rate of violence (specifically murder). It seems important to note that no amount of murder is acceptable, but we really should be using statistics more responsibly if we wish to do the topic justice.
The treatment of the "trans panic" defense - men who would murder people in an attempt to protect their social status would not restrict their violence to "trans women." We see this all the time, as men murder other men without regard to sexuality for reasons stemming from a core need to protect social status. A good example might actually work here, but Contra doesn't set it up or follow it through properly. What's more, statements of the kind that Contra is referring to would be a matter of public record if they were said in a US courtroom. That's a pretty big pool to go fishing in, if you want examples. If examples existed, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to search for them and provide them within the video. No such examples are given.
The alleged twitter thread. If Contra found it and knew where it was, why not anonymize as much detail as possible and show it to us? If, for reasons of sensitivity or privacy, she couldn't do that... why even bring it up? At that point, it's a purely emotional appeal.
Statements that would seem to imply Contra wants us to treat "trans women" as monolithic in their opinion of the term trap. Immediately after, Contra indicates a personal reaction that looks pretty darn positive to me. At best, this point is confusing. At worst, emotionally manipulative. You can't have it both ways, treating "trans women" as a collective or as individuals however it best suits your conclusion. That's exploiting them, like it would be for any group.
Still, how many people are unironically and intentionally calling "trans women" traps? Why is Contra acting like it has already been decided that the two terms are equivalent? That's textbook begging the question.
Contra's misidentification of the term's origin - the transcript of the video reads like an attempt to retcon it to some point that predates the internet. Again, no examples or evidence of any kind are provided to support Contra's theory of origin.
Contra's oversimplified in-passing reference to the North Carolina bathroom law. It's actually a much more complex issue, and mentioning it only briefly enough to call it "transphobic" is not helpful to anyone. A lot of vague and unarticulated public concerns contributed to the passage of a controversial and reactionary law whose effects aren't even discussed. Does Contra care about examining the law and its effects in any more detail? I guess it's enough to just call the thing "transphobic" for another emotional appeal. I'd really like to be able to agree on some of this stuff, but it would do a disservice to everyone if I just accepted this bit as presented in the video. It probably deserved its own stand-alone video, and giving it a throwaway mention here doesn't really help Contra's case.
The Astolfo in the room - what was the point of including that framed picture? It's never brought up, and that felt like a missed opportunity - or again, possibly a bit of manipulative iconography.
"Protect all trans women of color, at all costs" - to me, this is an unacceptable degree of absolutism. If we are to take the statement at face value, the consequent negative externalities would be devastating to everyone. It sounds like a noble sentiment, to a point. The problem for me is that Contra never attempts to identify that point, and could so easily have chosen a better way to word the thought.
References to Markus Meecham that seem to only be included for the sake of winning assorted internet points, and aren't really connected to any line of argument. Your mileage may vary depending on how you interpret this, but again I thought it just felt tacked-on and hollow.

Now, the previous block of quoted material:

Spoiler

Not kidding, this post will be super long and not for the faint of heart. _{or the faint of butt.}

I will be breaking down, at great length, all the things wrong with some very long posts. There will be lots of spoilers to keep things visually manageable.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

The risk of harm presented by a word and its usage as a slur is weighed against the probability of its usage being that of a slur.

Based on the variety of meanings and usages, plus the intentionality one specific derogatory usage, I can't even agree that it's a "slur." It's just a word that can be used as an insult.

Functionally, it's no different from "redneck," a term I quite like (and happen to embrace where appropriate).

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

You are of course allowed to use whatever language you want in a different social setting and you are perfectly correct in that different places have different sentiments about the same words. None of this logically leads to the conclusion that DE should or shouldn't permit certain language in Region chat.

This is contradictory. If "none of this" can lead to any conclusions about how DE drafts and implements policy, then why are you here discussing it? Why discuss anything at all?

Unless you're actually saying that because you believe DE's position aligns with yours, and you simply want discussion not to matter because you want nothing to change. A lot of people are very bravely pushing back against the unhelpful, polarizing misinformation that you and others have been spreading here. I hope they continue to do that.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

The same could be said about a lot of other words blocked by the filter. DE made their choice and they're playing it safe. That's fair.

Their choice was ill-informed. They deserve to know that, and some of us who wish to appeal to DE's reputation for listening to the players are trying to let them know that.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

The cause of the meme is a transphobic society's members interpreting Nezha's character design

This is still wrong, and I point out that it's wrong because if I don't then people will continue to be misled by it.

It's eminently non-constructive to paint people you haven't met and haven't spoken to as your enemy. This linguistic fence of yours doesn't just separate others from yourself, it also separates you from everyone else. How long before you're too isolated to interact with the rest of the world?

It's not a good plan to casually (and in this case, incorrectly) call anything x-phobic.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

It's not about winning an argument. If winning the argument is what you are concerned about, then I don't think you have any personal investment in the topic at hand.

I should probably clarify a bit here. When I use the term "argument," I'm using it in the same technical sense that would apply to mathematics. In this context, "winning" simply refers to any outcome that's better than the initial state - something benefiting all parties, at least in theory.

It's not so much a competition as it is a collaboration.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

That said, if it is, then I am automatically winning for every moment DE refuses to budge specifically because I don't want to see a particularly bad meme that spawned as a result of cisgender heterosexual normativity in Region chat.

It's too bad you feel that way. As far as "normativity" is concerned, I think you're failing to see that it's actually a good thing. A norm must exist, and it makes sense for the norm to describe the majority - in this case, the overwhelming majority - of individuals. It would actually be a net societal negative to try and disrupt that norm. We can be compassionate and accepting of people who fall outside the norm without attacking the norm itself.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

... wow. SMunroe's video was a trainwreck. Especially when he got to discussing the panic defense. The "trap" character research was fine but also irrelevant.

Could you perhaps be a little more specific? Without more info to go on, it would be easy for people to assume you just reacted badly to information you didn't like.

I'm sure that's not true, but you didn't really give us anything to work with. Maybe you can also explain why you think the research was "irrelevant." It seems important to point out where other people might have either innocently gotten something wrong (and misinformed by accident) or intentionally twisted the truth (and misinformed on purpose).

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

All meanings of the word "trap" relevant to this discussion stem from contradictions introduced by cishet normativity.

Wrong. It's a natural and unpredictable terminological drift that coincidentally (that's key, coincidence) happened in a world where people who are both attracted to the opposite sex and whose bodies broadly match their felt identity just so happen to constitute a majority.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

SMonroe superbly fails to see the larger picture in that the word "trap" and its usage is symptomatic of cishet normativity conflicting with natural human sexuality and gender. He fails to recognize why trans people relate to often-called trap characters, why the term was "co-opted" by trans people, and why some trans people "grow out of it."

Also wrong, and you're manipulating language to make implications. That's misleading at best, and deceptive at worst. First, let's deconstruct your use of disease metaphor. The term symptomatic implies something is the result of a disease process. You chose to pair that with your term for the normative (that is, majority and most frequently occurring) human experience. If you can't see how divisive and unhelpful it is to use that language in an already-charged discussion, you should take a deeper and more critical look at your approach here. People are going to read what you wrote and infer that you believe the vast majority of human beings are somehow part of a disease. You are doing something wrong here.

I think he understands the situation quite well, and correctly avoids narrowing the focus to any "minority" group. We are all human, and our conversations will be most productive when they begin at that level - taking advantage of shared understanding. You have human needs that supersede any subgroup membership, and you should be focusing on that instead of mentally dividing us into subgroups that are supposedly in conflict.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

Please point to some examples of these fallacies as they apply to Contra's video. As far as I can tell, she's addressed all the relevant points.

I actually will re-watch it (yes, re-watch it) and see if I have a different response. Again, there's that little hint about "relevance." Are you seriously going to sit there and preach about what facts do and don't matter, governing yourself and those with whom you disagree by different rule sets? I know of at least one other prominent personality who made himself quite infamous by doing that.

You are so badly and so comprehensively wrong here that it's worth every minute making the most complete rebuttal possible, so I will watch Contra's video again and edit this post with my response when I've done that.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

The larger picture is that advocating for permitting the use of words that are often used as slurs is less and less helpful and more and more risky when the setting of discourse becomes larger and larger.

Ex. some people use morphed forms of a racial slur for Black people as a term of endearment but the scope of its use is amongst members who mutually understand and respect each other's experiences. Advocating for that particular slur's return to broad usage is akin to advocating for the material conditions that slur is associated with, i.e. slavery.

That's wrong, and not just wrong in the abstract but clearly and demonstrably wrong. You almost couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Restricting the use of words also restricts the landscape across which people can share ideas and experiences. That sounds like the opposite of what you should want, especially if you happen to be a member of a "vulnerable" subgroup. When people stop communicating, they tend to start resenting each other. At that point, they become primed for conflict.

Further, your assertion about "morphed forms of a racial slur" is just flat wrong. The word to which you're referring has so many derivatives that are used so widely as to be almost universal. I have encountered it everywhere, except in the most sanitized and controlled spaces.

You're also wrong in speculating about the possible implications of its broad usage - there is no "return" here, because it never left the common discourse. Slavery was (and is) not unique to parts of the world there this term and its derivatives are used. Slavery existed long before it, in many places across the globe. Slavery continues to be practiced in places where the word is not even used.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

13 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

It specifically must be tribally interpreted and polarized in order to make sense of why and how the use of slurs is rendered acceptable or unacceptable between conversant partners. When the tribal configuration forms, it's possible to observe on what axes people disagree on.

This is also wrong. Those axes of disagreement will naturally be revealed as discussion moves beyond initial places of agreement. Making things tribal just removes our opportunities to start with shared agreement. It increases the difficulty of reaching a productive conclusion because that shared understanding doesn't happen, and because no shared goal is put forward.

Most frequently, the people who seek to make things tribal have nefarious or destructive motives. That's surely not the case here, but you need to be aware that people will tend to be suspicious of you when you espouse intentional tribalism.

Chasue · April 5, 2019

20 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

When you start doing research into the actual research, it becomes very clear that it's a house of cards as what happens is someone gets a paper published in a journal, then everyone cites that paper and builds off of it... regardless of the validity of the paper itself. It's not that far off of a group that managed to rewrite a chapter out of Mein Kamp into a gender studies article and actually got it published. Do this enough times and you can basically fabricate a branch of science that's really little more than psuedoscience.

I've yet to see a serious paper on the subject that doesn't fall apart once you start scrutinizing the sources and studies it's based on.

Godwin's law will forever be in effect. 😉

Validity of any papers or research aside, someone who portrays and seeks genuine acceptance as their gender identity, no matter the cause if opposite to their biology, could be made uncomfortable by calling them, or a fictional character they identify with, a trap - as if they were trying to trick someone with ill intent. Regardless of anyone's belief if this matches reality, is this not something that we can agree upon? Equally this does not apply to all such people, who also personally find it humorous, harmless or even endearing for the same or similar reasons. People have voiced their experience and opinions both ways in this thread. Neither make a bigot.

Feelings can be deemed irrational easily and justifiably, but to me, they are much harder to invalidate.

But again, those who actively seek to upset people of any group will find ways to do so in spite of any catch-all filter. There are solutions suggested here that would improve the experience for everyone without pushing any group to the margins or arbitrarily assuming ill intent.

After all, we're all here for the escapism one way or another.

Almagnus1 · April 5, 2019

11 minutes ago, Chasue said:

Validity of any papers or research aside, someone who portrays and seeks genuine acceptance as their gender identity, no matter the cause if opposite to their biology, could be made uncomfortable by calling them, or a fictional character they identify with, a trap - as if they were trying to trick someone with ill intent. Regardless of anyone's belief if this matches reality, is this not something that we can agree upon? Equally this does not apply to all such people, who also personally find it humorous, harmless or even endearing for the same or similar reasons. People have voiced their experience and opinions both ways in this thread. Neither make a bigot.

Feelings can be deemed irrational easily and justifiably, but to me, they are much harder to invalidate.

But again, those who actively seek to upset people of any group will find ways to do so in spite of any catch-all filter. There are solutions suggested here that would improve the experience for everyone without pushing any group to the margins or arbitrarily assuming ill intent.

After all, we're all here for the escapism one way or another.

Yeah, that circles back to the respect thing. I mean, if we're talking about a random person IRL, I'm going to address (generally speaking) as they wish to be, which includes using the name they introduce themselves as, and generally using the pronouns of best fit that I'm familiar with. That said, for someone that's very androgynous, I'm prolly gonna screw up as I'm having trouble correctly parsing their gender.

In game, aside from the memes around certain warframes, the only time gender really becomes an issue is if someone is making it one.

But, again, it's all about respect.

CatboyPrincess · April 6, 2019

WARNING: i tripped halfway through the writing and revision of this post so the grammar and stuff will be spotty

---

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

"Trans women have little influence in society" - not true. Major global corporations and governments are now regularly drafting policy according to what they perceive to be the wishes of "trans women," and with an eye toward the potential hazards of dealing with the topic in general. That's a significant amount of influence, whether it's being wielded intentionally or just passively experienced.

...wut. This turnaround is (1) exceptionally recent and (2) the result of significant concentrated activism and reporting. This turnaround largely takes the form of anti-discrimination laws and policies. I don't think successfully making the case for not being discriminated against in housing, work, and law is a particularly high bar for "influence." Other forms of influence include leadership positions economic (ex. CEO), scientific, and political (ex. mayor -- direct representation) stations. These stations are largely not possessed by trans people in general, including trans women. Also, why are you putting "trans women" in quotation marks? Major global corporations and governments aren't exclusively listening to trans women on these matters. Other trans people and cis people also support these efforts for non-discrimination.

Do you think asking governments and global corporations to fairly treat people counts as influence? When compared to "influence" including aspects like being in positions of leadership not involved specifically in anti-discrimination, as point of reference?

Yes, if you look specifically at ant-discrimination policy and law, trans women have some degree of influence. If you include positions of leadership and authority, then no, the answer is easily that mostly cis people occupy such positions (which is fine except when there is very sparse record of trans people in general in positions of leadership and authority).

In short, no. Trans women do have little influence in society (more than 10 years ago, and virtually none at all 30+ yrs ago (not counting historical societies)).

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

From the beginning, Contra's assumption is that "traps" = "trans women." This is also not true, and never was. It risks undermining the rest of the video, because people could interpret this as an attempt to sneakily insert oneself into a discussion.

She doesn't make that assumption.

03:20 -- "the word trap refers to either a male crossdresser or a trans woman, especially in the context of [anime]"

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Misleading and out-of-context murder statistics - Contra never names a country, and doesn't compare this rate with the rates for any other groups over the same time period. That means we don't have anything against which to compare this for the sake of evaluating the implied premise that "trans women" experience a wildly disproportionate rate of violence (specifically murder). It seems important to note that no amount of murder is acceptable, but we really should be using statistics more responsibly if we wish to do the topic justice.

07:08 -- "trans women, in my country almost entirely trans women of colour, are murdered at a disgracefully high rate, reaching a record of 29 deaths in 2017."

Contra's Youtube channel lists her location as "United States." So she names her country.

Why do you keep putting "trans women" in quotation marks?

Contra doesn't make any other claim than "disgracefully high rate." She makes no mention of "wildly disproportionate rate of violence." In other words, there is no statistics being used whatsoever.

here you go:

16.9 assaults per 1000 (~1.69% of the US's general population) in 2017 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf

13% of trans people (respondents) have experienced physical assault in 2017 https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS Full Report - FINAL 1.6.17.pdf

33% of those trans people are trans women.

So ~4.29% of trans women have experienced physical assault assuming consistent proportionality between violence experienced by trans people and trans women specifically.

~0.6% of US's population is transgender.

So from the proportion of US's population being transgender and the rate of assault for the population of US in general, we'd expect that ~0.6% of cases of assault to involve trans people. Except, when we look consider the napkin math we just did, we can see that ~13% of trans people have experienced physical violence and that ~4.29% of trans women have experienced physical assault. The numbers 13% and 4.29% are higher than 0.6% of cases of assault and can be explained in part by the USTS's nature as a volunteer survey vs. the NCVS which is randomized.

However, the World Health Organization (WHO) quite plainly recognizes that transgender people (and gender and sexual minorities in general) experience violence at a higher rate than the general population and across the material they look at, they find a range between 11% and 69% having experienced violence at some point in their lifetime, making the yearly numbers of 13% and 4.29% look fairly tame.

That said, it's an incredibly unsurprising conclusion to draw (that trans people and trans women especially) experience violence at an increased rate and isn't really a wild leap of any sort.

If no amount of murder acceptable, then why even bring up "using statistics more responsibly?" If no amount of murder is acceptable, then what sets the standard for doing the topic "justice" as you say?

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

The treatment of the "trans panic" defense - men who would murder people in an attempt to protect their social status would not restrict their violence to "trans women." We see this all the time, as men murder other men without regard to sexuality for reasons stemming from a core need to protect social status. A good example might actually work here, but Contra doesn't set it up or follow it through properly. What's more, statements of the kind that Contra is referring to would be a matter of public record if they were said in a US courtroom. That's a pretty big pool to go fishing in, if you want examples. If examples existed, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to search for them and provide them within the video. No such examples are given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans_panic&redirect=no

There you go. Pretty simple. 10 seconds googling for "trans panic defense". Further reading: https://lgbtbar.org/programs/advocacy/gay-trans-panic-defense/

The reason why she brings this up is to help illustrate why a trans woman might be upset by being called a trap and how the word "trap" might be perceived by someone who doesn't live off of anime memes and how that perception is the same sort of perception that is sometimes used in trials.

"doesn't set it up or follow it through properly"? What do you call 07:25 up to 08:15?

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

The alleged twitter thread. If Contra found it and knew where it was, why not anonymize as much detail as possible and show it to us? If, for reasons of sensitivity or privacy, she couldn't do that... why even bring it up? At that point, it's a purely emotional appeal.

She literally did anonymize it as much as possible and show it to us!

why is it a big deal for it to be a purely emotional appeal when the whole idea of whether you should or should not be allowed to use certain words and language is based ENTIRELY off of emotional appeal? If someone asked you not to swear in front of their children then you should respect that. Unless you don't believe in doing that I guess. I don't know what's left to be said or argued after that.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Statements that would seem to imply Contra wants us to treat "trans women" as monolithic in their opinion of the term trap. Immediately after, Contra indicates a personal reaction that looks pretty darn positive to me. At best, this point is confusing. At worst, emotionally manipulative. You can't have it both ways, treating "trans women" as a collective or as individuals however it best suits your conclusion. That's exploiting them, like it would be for any group.

Still, how many people are unironically and intentionally calling "trans women" traps? Why is Contra acting like it has already been decided that the two terms are equivalent? That's textbook begging the question.

Contra's misidentification of the term's origin - the transcript of the video reads like an attempt to retcon it to some point that predates the internet. Again, no examples or evidence of any kind are provided to support Contra's theory of origin.

Contra's oversimplified in-passing reference to the North Carolina bathroom law. It's actually a much more complex issue, and mentioning it only briefly enough to call it "transphobic" is not helpful to anyone. A lot of vague and unarticulated public concerns contributed to the passage of a controversial and reactionary law whose effects aren't even discussed. Does Contra care about examining the law and its effects in any more detail? I guess it's enough to just call the thing "transphobic" for another emotional appeal. I'd really like to be able to agree on some of this stuff, but it would do a disservice to everyone if I just accepted this bit as presented in the video. It probably deserved its own stand-alone video, and giving it a throwaway mention here doesn't really help Contra's case.

The Astolfo in the room - what was the point of including that framed picture? It's never brought up, and that felt like a missed opportunity - or again, possibly a bit of manipulative iconography.

"Protect all trans women of color, at all costs" - to me, this is an unacceptable degree of absolutism. If we are to take the statement at face value, the consequent negative externalities would be devastating to everyone. It sounds like a noble sentiment, to a point. The problem for me is that Contra never attempts to identify that point, and could so easily have chosen a better way to word the thought.

References to Markus Meecham that seem to only be included for the sake of winning assorted internet points, and aren't really connected to any line of argument. Your mileage may vary depending on how you interpret this, but again I thought it just felt tacked-on and hollow.

Contra is attempting, in good faith, to explain something complex and personal in an entertaining way. I need you to timestamp your claim. 10:40? Is it when it goes into a black and white filter? That scene was sarcasm. I believe it's meant to communicate that being called a "trap" feels like being given an insulting compliment like "WOW, you're really this for a [your type of person] huh??" There's a term for that but I can't remember.

As for the North Carolina bathroom law: whoah... no. That bill was transphobic and really bad.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Based on the variety of meanings and usages, plus the intentionality one specific derogatory usage, I can't even agree that it's a "slur." It's just a word that can be used as an insult.

Functionally, it's no different from "redneck," a term I quite like (and happen to embrace where appropriate).

You've completely ignored all of what I said immediately following the quotation you took out of context. Important bit: REGION CHAT.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

This is contradictory. If "none of this" can lead to any conclusions about how DE drafts and implements policy, then why are you here discussing it? Why discuss anything at all?

Unless you're actually saying that because you believe DE's position aligns with yours, and you simply want discussion not to matter because you want nothing to change. A lot of people are very bravely pushing back against the unhelpful, polarizing misinformation that you and others have been spreading here. I hope they continue to do that.

Neither of your points are true.

Here's why:

(1) it is 100% true that one is ALWAYS allowed to use ANY language that they wish at ANY time at ANY place.

(2) It is NOT 100% true that one is ALWAYS allowed to use ANY language that they wish at ANY time at ANY place without repercussion.

(3) Neither of the above two points are contradictory.

(4) None of the above three points necessarily factor into the decision-making regarding what language is considered a part of acceptable discourse and what language is not.

(5) The only thing that factors into the decision-making regarding what language is allowed and what isn't in a single instance of discourse is mutual agreement between parties on what is agreeable and what is not.

(6) The mutual agreement that all Warframe players who post on the Warframe forums adhere to is the terms of service and code of conduct as written and interpreted by DE.

(7) DE is under no obligation to even consider any of our inputs regarding the mutual agreement.

(8) In drafting and implementing such an agreement or policy, the only thing that matters is how each contributor feels about each atomic element of language (each word, in this case).

(9) Each social circle and universe of discourse agrees on policy based purely on utterly arbitrary rules and feelings.

(10) The trappings of "logical reasoning" and "freedom of speech" and "decency" or "to prevent bigotry" are similarly utterly arbitrary appeals to emotional response (perhaps this is unintuitive to understand -- that is understandable).

(11) Hence why no amount of superficially "logical" reasoning can conclude whether this or that element of language is acceptable.

(12) Hence why no amount of populist support for this or that filter to be removed or employed is in itself reason for DE to do anything.

(13) (Because DE can decide to do anything they want as they are the sole contributor and enforcer of any code of conduct and the sole party holding any final influence whatsoever)

(14) So when I say that "You are of course allowed to use whatever language you want in a different social setting and you are perfectly correct in that different places have different sentiments about the same words. None of this logically leads to the conclusion that DE should or shouldn't permit certain language in Region chat" in response to "It will vary one what area on the internet you are looking at as there will be those that "echo" the same sentiment, there are also those where the reverse is true", what I am saying is that what is acceptable and unacceptable in any corner of the internet other than this corner of the Internet called the Warframe official forums has nothing to do with whether or not any one particular word or phrase should be acceptable or unacceptable right here in this corner of the Internet called the Warframe official forums.

(15) In other words, "it will vary depending on what area of the internet you are in" as an argument amounts to using "well they can do [xyz] so why can't we do [xyz]?" as an argument.

(16) In other words, if DE internally decides that "No, we ARE (NOT) going to allow [word]," no amount of protest is going to change that unless their reason for allowing or forbidding any one word or phrase actually takes into account populist opinion

(17) i.e. I'm pretty confident that the most effective way to get DE to allow or block a word or phrase with a filter is simply to show that most players want to use that word or phrase in DE's channels of discourse except that a lot of the demand for "trap" being totally removed from the filter boils down to "you're not letting me and muh politics" and personally, that's not a reason I would accept and all the other publicised cases of "moderation overreach" has in the large majority of cases been literally just "why can't I bash DE" and/or "why can't I use this one specific meme to bash trans people".

(18) I don't care about the word "trap" for the most part except that when it comes specifically to Region chat because it's pretty obvious that the intent is not a cursory and harmless "I wanna meme" or "I wanna discuss androgynous bodies with penises in a light-hearted manner" and instead mostly just a lot of trolls crowding around responding to each others' "dogwhistling"/"virtue signalling" (these two words/phrases mean the same thing -- the vernacular you choose to use largely depends on if your beliefs are more consistent with one group's than another's).

--

Aside

Look. I've read through a lot of these sorts of threads ("but muh filter, modz r bad, DE evil") here on this forum and on Reddit. The number of outright, blatantly obvious transphobic posts is pretty big and it's even more disheartening to see that a lot of those extremely disparaging and hateful (either overtly or subtly) posts get a lot of upvotes. The mods have done a lot of work removing a lot of the worst offenders. I literally saw one of these such posts get removed from this very thread yesterday. And for me, that's what it comes down to: a LOT of people railing about "filter this" and "filter that" have ulterior motives. The fact that so few of you arguing against the filter recognize this prevalence of transphobia and/or actively dismiss it is telling to me then that a lot of people are going to abuse it (specifically "abuse," and not just "legitimately innocently meme") the moment DE decides to stop filtering it.

In other words: I'm not buying it cuz I ain't stupid and I hope that DE doesn't buy it either OR that they have enough perspective to see that my perception is in error and that it's fine to go through with it.

There are good reasons for why certain filters and practices should stop being exmployed. I just think there is a better reason not to.

And for the record: I am glad DE hasn't already gone through with stopping their automodding. That said, I'd be very happy to satisfy my curiosity as to what sort of stuff is getting modded and their contexts, since I think that would be very revealing and I'm happy with transparency and data collection.

---

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Their choice was ill-informed. They deserve to know that, and some of us who wish to appeal to DE's reputation for listening to the players are trying to let them know that.

I've addressed this. I do believe there are people who aren't going to be jerks about it. But there are definitely jerks who would be and are barely held in check anyway (see OP).

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Wrong. It's a natural and unpredictable terminological drift that coincidentally (that's key, coincidence) happened in a world where people who are both attracted to the opposite sex and whose bodies broadly match their felt identity just so happen to constitute a majority.

*facepalm*

The fact that cisgender heterosexual people constitute the majority does not alone make such a term as "trap" a result of coincidence. (Although I understand why in our world that would be a common belief.)

That fact also requires a cultural myth that all the people one would come across are going to also be cisgender heterosexual people and that it's always going to be obvious. In our instance of possible universes, this cultural myth is called "cisgender heterosexual normativity."

The simple counterproof is that if every single person in the world knew that any person they meet may not be cisgender and heterosexual, then it would never be a "safe" bet to assume as much and it would always be wise to be forward, honest, and direct by just asking. As a result, people who are androgynous and without any obvious performances of sexuality would more than likely go under a different term with different connotations other than "trap."

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

This is still wrong, and I point out that it's wrong because if I don't then people will continue to be misled by it.

It's eminently non-constructive to paint people you haven't met and haven't spoken to as your enemy. This linguistic fence of yours doesn't just separate others from yourself, it also separates you from everyone else. How long before you're too isolated to interact with the rest of the world?

It's not a good plan to casually (and in this case, incorrectly) call anything x-phobic.

uhhhh no. You misunderstand me or I'm not explaining myself correctly.

People have a phobia about calling things x-phobic and being called x-phobic because most people perceive "x-phobic" as to mean THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD OMG IM GONNA GO TO HELL.

Calling something x-phobic can have a range of severity. From not at all x-phobic, to "wow what in the world is wrong with you" and then you get ostracised x-phobic, to what I call "background radiation x-phobic" that is an unfortunate consequence but our world's history but nothing to lose sleep over.

In this case, I mean to say that society today is mostly "background radiation x-phobic" that is an unfortunate consequence of our world's history and nothing really to lose sleep over (unless you're the one affected, in which case, that's understandable) except with plenty of pockets of atrocious examples of x-phobia.

North Carolina's bathroom bill and the moral panic that has seized the USA regarding trans people land at the "pretty bad" transphobia level.

Most of us in Canada don't give a Kubrow's poop about it, so what results is mostly "background radiation, unfortunate consequence" transphobia.

tl;dr people have fears. You don't need to assume anything about me.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

I should probably clarify a bit here. When I use the term "argument," I'm using it in the same technical sense that would apply to mathematics. In this context, "winning" simply refers to any outcome that's better than the initial state - something benefiting all parties, at least in theory.

It's not so much a competition as it is a collaboration.

Okay but this isn't mathematics. This is thread in a forum for a video game about a chat channel in that video game. It doesn't require anywhere near the same amount of rigour, accuracy, or precision. I'm sad I even have to go to this whole extent, though I have no one but me to blame for wasting my own time.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Also wrong, and you're manipulating language to make implications. That's misleading at best, and deceptive at worst. First, let's deconstruct your use of disease metaphor. The term symptomatic implies something is the result of a disease process. You chose to pair that with your term for the normative (that is, majority and most frequently occurring) human experience. If you can't see how divisive and unhelpful it is to use that language in an already-charged discussion, you should take a deeper and more critical look at your approach here. People are going to read what you wrote and infer that you believe the vast majority of human beings are somehow part of a disease. You are doing something wrong here.

I think he understands the situation quite well, and correctly avoids narrowing the focus to any "minority" group. We are all human, and our conversations will be most productive when they begin at that level - taking advantage of shared understanding. You have human needs that supersede any subgroup membership, and you should be focusing on that instead of mentally dividing us into subgroups that are supposedly in conflict.

3d chess. i have a vocabulary and im gonna use it to maximum effect. tl;dr google "define symptomatic". It has more than one meaning than as it applies to medicine. Except that that's pointless: would you have been happier if I had chosen "indicative"? Is that less "metaphorical?" Or does that not simply apply a facade of logic and rationality?

^ because this right here? This idea of lingual choice and use of metaphor to create misleading or deceptive language? is exactly the same "manipulation" as you call it, that's going on with the word "trap" and why... y'know...... generally/usually it's polite not to call trans women that.

And I wouldn't want people who don't know better to associate "trap" with trans women. And I think it's pretty fair to say that that possibility to associate traps with trans women to be fairly realistic. It's happening -- otherwise, why are we even discussing this?

No, he's kind of an ass and completely missed the point. "I don't wanna be that guy" -> *proceeds to trainwreck* He gets very narrowly focused very quickly because there's only two possible groups to name.

A human need that I could fulfill is to play Warframe instead of spending my time here but instead, here i am!

Also: we are in conflict, you and I. I very much dislike having to demonstrate why something can have different meanings but still also exist simultaneously as a slur, much less contest my right to use a bathroom or whether benefiting from basic rights is a good and reasonable example of having influence in a society.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Could you perhaps be a little more specific? Without more info to go on, it would be easy for people to assume you just reacted badly to information you didn't like.

I'm sure that's not true, but you didn't really give us anything to work with.

I did. Here it is again:

On 2019-04-04 at 11:33 PM, Gwyndolin-chan said:

Especially when he got to discussing the panic defense.

and

On 2019-04-04 at 11:33 PM, Gwyndolin-chan said:

All meanings of the word "trap" relevant to this discussion stem from contradictions introduced by cishet normativity. Contra points this out clearly. SMonroe superbly fails to see the larger picture in that the word "trap" and its usage is symptomatic of cishet normativity conflicting with natural human sexuality and gender. He fails to recognize why trans people relate to often-called trap characters, why the term was "co-opted" by trans people, and why some trans people "grow out of it."

Oh, to add to the above: part of the reason why lots of trans people identify with supposedly trap characters is because they often are the closest characters to a relatively positively presented and written character who is in some way shape or form gender nonconforming. Right? So it's largely an argument between lots of youth and young adult weebs. Like, I don't think anyone over the age of like... 30-35 even knows what a trap is or how it's contextualized by frickin ANIME.

As far as I'm concerned, to start with, anyone who knows this much about traps as a concept basically doesn't t have a say in whether trap is a slur or not to the eyes of the general public because there's no way to know for sure how the general public will react and interpret some new (irrelevant) piece of vernacular.

---

hot damn this stuff's makin me thirsty

this sure is hard work, posting high

so maybe i might stop early.

---

and so basically, to start with, this is a stupid conversation no one cares about. talk about it with your weeb friends in your d1sc0rd servers, n00b.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

I actually will re-watch it (yes, re-watch it) and see if I have a different response. Again, there's that little hint about "relevance." Are you seriously going to sit there and preach about what facts do and don't matter, governing yourself and those with whom you disagree by different rule sets? I know of at least one other prominent personality who made himself quite infamous by doing that.

i don't know what you're talking about relevance actually i think i might have to stop lul hooooo boy it kickin in

like

what i am saying is:

(1) just because other people say that in other circles doesn't mean we also have to say that in our circle

(2) ok now im really OTHER thirsty

(3) and basically like. so that's not a good reason for why we should or shouldn't say trap in our warframe circle

they're just cuties... leave them alone

well i don't want to come across as being governed by a different rule set. that said, i probably am because my context of learned ideas, social interactions, and overall human experience informs my ideas so like... of course I'm going to have an idea of what sort of ruleset i and others follow, if we follow the same ruleset at all, or if my ruleset only comes across as being different cuz my ruleset features others' i disagreee with rulesets as subsets of a flowchart of my ruleset

like being a fascist or communist or anarchist or democrat or monarchist, like, the belief of how power should flow is the domain of each of these rulesets and belief systems.

So, if my ruleset happened to contain as a subset someone else's ruleset, then I'm sure that would certainly make it seem like I operate under a completely different ruleset.

--what i am saying is

please explain what you mean by "governing myself vs other people" with different rulesets

cuz i think like, if someone believes in a terrible awful ruleset

and part of my experience is that that ruleset is awful

(like if you think we live in a geocentric orbital system, and i think we live in a heliocentric orbital system, then we clearly interpreted data differently.)

asdfasdf

LIKE

dude.l,,,,,,,,,, no...... i can't do this....

i believe that people's feelings inform all of their reality, purer than mathematical logic

right?

so what it comes down to is.......

if a lot of people would feel bad, hurt, upset, angered, saddened, or other negative emotion if people actually casually used "trap" (or any other word) as part of the common Region chat vernacular, then we should ban the use of that word (and like, a chat ban for only that is too much but also that doesn't happen, probably deleting and adding a warning point is sufficient to curb behaviour)

and I think there are a lot of people in Region chat who would be hurt because not all the people there will be familiar with anime trap subculture and that word's exact origins

and I think this is the crux of the problem:

(1) people who don't know the slur's exact origin and context wouldn't understand that it might not be meant as a slur so they only can infer its meaning through context and lingual metaphors

(2) the word "trap" does invoke deception

(3) so people who don't already know the slur's exact origin and context would interpret the metaphorical element and connotation of "trap", which is deception per (2).

(4) and since people who aren't in the know are going to inevitably interact with people who are in the know and use that "in the know" language,

(5) that's rather inevitably going to involve into a situation where there are multiple meanings for that word practised by different people

(6) and due to the nature of the different meanings... they cause friction

We're already at the friction step!!! The two worlds have collided!

(7) and either all people gotta be in the know or not all people gotta be in the know, and it's a race to see which group consumes 100% of the Region chat population

that means we gotta COMPETE!!! grrrrrrrrRRRRRRAAAAAAA

(8) meanwhile, DE watches us fight and die like animals over our idols cackling as their capitalist death machines murder swathes of corpus and grineer alike

(9) it doesn't matter to them, our wallets are all gonna die

so that's it then. You and I must duel to the death, unless in the midst of tragic violence we brush up sensually against each other, cupids trading arrows, it's 20 years later "hi honey"

IS THIS MANIPULATION? IS THIS QWHAT YOU WANAAANNTTTTTTTT BABBYYYYYYYYYYYYY O MOMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OOOOOOOoooooooouuuwuUUUUUUOOOOOOO

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

That's wrong, and not just wrong in the abstract but clearly and demonstrably wrong. You almost couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Restricting the use of words also restricts the landscape across which people can share ideas and experiences. That sounds like the opposite of what you should want, especially if you happen to be a member of a "vulnerable" subgroup. When people stop communicating, they tend to start resenting each other. At that point, they become primed for conflict.

Further, your assertion about "morphed forms of a racial slur" is just flat wrong. The word to which you're referring has so many derivatives that are used so widely as to be almost universal. I have encountered it everywhere, except in the most sanitized and controlled spaces.

You're also wrong in speculating about the possible implications of its broad usage - there is no "return" here, because it never left the common discourse. Slavery was (and is) not unique to parts of the world there this term and its derivatives are used. Slavery existed long before it, in many places across the globe. Slavery continues to be practiced in places where the word is not even used.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

.... dude, no

Canadian and American corporate culture really does not allow use of the N word. DE's a Canadian company and there are a lot of US and Canadian customers/players.

"sanitzed and controlled spaces" -> yes, dude, that's exactly the point. Region chat is that sanitized and controlled space to DE. That's exactly why DE does this! Region chat is one of the first player-to-player interactions in Warframe, a game that will be rife with player interaction. Of course they want it to be sanitized and controlled! The forums are too! (even stricter, I might add)! Letting players say the N word would be a DISASTER for DE!!

Likewise for "trap" specifically because of the in-know-out-know group dynamic!!

like, people still get shot over the N word, it's seriously not safe to just blurt out the N word depending on where you are. people carry their grudges and prejudices into cyberspace and it feels as though you interpret this in a vacuum. it's not safe

anyway I see this as a case of harm reduction being the method.

18 hours ago, notlamprey said:

This is also wrong. Those axes of disagreement will naturally be revealed as discussion moves beyond initial places of agreement. Making things tribal just removes our opportunities to start with shared agreement. It increases the difficulty of reaching a productive conclusion because that shared understanding doesn't happen, and because no shared goal is put forward.

Most frequently, the people who seek to make things tribal have nefarious or destructive motives. That's surely not the case here, but you need to be aware that people will tend to be suspicious of you when you espouse intentional tribalism.

okay well what are our initial places of agreement?

and like, in the process of moving beyond the initial places of agreement,

you just get looped back into tribalism.

it just happens, like a helix. drill.

People are in a constant loop of shared agreement achieved, people begin to stray because of natural mutations and natural selection of ideas, people stray too far and start disagreeing, then you do have to just bring it back but you can't ever stop it. You need to just flow and march onwards. time can't be reverrsed.... probably.

Like, we already are tribal. we're right now CALCULATING the shared agreement by posting back and forth together! wow, isnt that fun? seems fun to me. aahhhhhhhh

yes... i am... very nefarious......... muhahahahahaha UHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OOHOHOHOHOOO OOOOWWOWOWOOOOWOOOOO

"That's surely not the case here" SUUUUURE. /s why even ask this if you're so sure?

If you honestly think I am being nefarious or destructive, just so say. You sound coy to me

EvilChaosKnight · April 6, 2019

On 2019-04-05 at 1:49 AM, Gwyndolin-chan said:

Good thing video games don't depend on the success of trolls and bigots cheaply disguised as free speech absolutists so personally I'm actually not at all worried about that

> Bigots
> Trolls
Pffft. That's a lot of buzzwords. You might want to think before throwing them around.
As for the game success and all. Let's see how your "progressive" types help the industry... *Looks at BF5 absolutely tanking the sales* Oh gee. What a surprise. Get woke, go... you know it. Perhaps, catering hard to less than 3% of the population at the expense of annoying a lot more others, many of whom (like me) are libertarians who otherwise don't mind whatever you are up to... It's just not a good idea.

I'd much rather deal with "trolls" who can be reported/muted/otherwise dealt with easily than with self-righteous automated (bot) thought police with vague definitions and unclear rules.
Remember. "Don't tread on me." And your types seem to be all too happy to do just that from what I can see so far.

(PSN)Triaurum · April 6, 2019

On 2019-01-30 at 9:37 PM, [DE]Rebecca said:

In summary, the changes we have added to the system have had an effect that we find to be positive and functional. When mistakes are made (usually from simple, human error), they are corrected and reverted. In all, the changes to the program have put it in a place that we are happy with, and we are seeing a much more structured response to the various issues that can arise with in-game chat. And of course, based on that screen shot, you can see why we need to Moderate chat in the first place and what type of stuff we're focusing on.

I will quote this, I certainly hope that things gets better. A long time ago I was chat-banned for a week, because I defended myself after getting bad mouthed. I reported the happening, but didn't get help. What I experienced:

Contacted support inorder to remove my ban, I was the one who recieved the slurs after all.
I provided screenshots of the conversation.
Asked that other person get the chat-ban instead, since he was the one slurring.
Apparently some people are in prioritized over others, he claimed he was with D.E. (the design council/founder, don't know much about warframe affiliates besides youtubers).
My ban was not lifted. The harasser got away.
I got response from support 5-7 days into the ban, then got replied with:
"Sorry we can't help you" or something.
The details are a bit vague as I cannot concretely pinpoint what exactly happened at what specific time, since it has been so long.
If someone of staff want to verify this, it should be in the support ticket archives-server thingy (If DE has this).

Overall I think that this is a dejavu, I think I wrote about this before too as response to DE. What made me write this again is the video on youtube video recently. It seems that things hasn't progressed as much since then. I hope that DE take this seriously than just scuff us off and say that we the players are just "harrasing DE staff" even if we have proof and evidence.

Letter13 · April 6, 2019

3 hours ago, (PS4)Triaurum said:

My ban was not lifted. The harasser got away.

Going to have to take your claim with a real, real big grain of salt.

Specifically, is that DE does not disclose moderation/punitive action taken against others. How do you know they got away? Did DE tell you, specifically "We are not going to punish this user"? Or did you just assume this to be the case because they did not lift your chat ban a day or so before it lifted on its own? "Sorry, we can't help you" is not evidence of inaction against another user.

When a user is moderated or punished for violating the rules, that is a private matter between that user and support. Information regarding how a user is punished or moderated is never disclosed to other users. Assuming that DE isn't taking any action against users who violate the rules simply because you are not privy to the details of said actions is, simply put, a bad assumption. Claiming your assumptions as facts to try and reinforce your arguments is even a worse move.

In your case, if you got chat banned for 'defending' yourself, did you violate the rules in the process? "But I was defending myself" does not grant you immunity to the rules. If anything, violating the rules in order to defend yourself lowers you to your harasser's level. Instead you should:

Take a screenshot and report the user if they are violating the rules
Put the user on your ignore list
Move on

This is how you deal with users who are harassing you or violating the rules. It is never okay to violate the rules in return.

Sean · April 6, 2019

32 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

Want to add on to that briefly... because yeah... there's a few "gaps" in the story of it.

Tickets don't just suddenly vanish.

If it was said in a ticket, then the ticket will still exist, and it can be accessed by both the person who submitted it and DE Support. Just looking at the page with all my support tickets, I can see all of them, even the oldest which was in June 2014.

If the things that were said did in fact occur, then a screencap of the ticket will be all the "proof" that would be needed and it could always be added into the post itself to provide that documentation (though preferably in a SPOILER tag to not take up much space).

All tickets created will be accessible on this page:

https://digitalextremes.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests

(PSN)abbacephas · April 6, 2019

9 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

"progressive" types

Get woke,

libertarians

self-righteous

thought police

"Don't tread on me."

9 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

Pffft. That's a lot of buzzwords. You might want to think before throwing them around.

Irony.

Rhekemi · April 6, 2019

This thread. It just won't die.

The longer this thread goes on, the more it circles back to whether or not DE has the right to enforce rules that grew out of a worldview a vocal majority/minority in the community disagrees with.

No matter how many valid suggestions are offered to actually fix and improve the system, no matter how civil anyone tries to keep the debate, and no matter how many valid points are made about the system's harshness and lack of transparency, that's one of the things that will keep stirring people's emotions up.

It's one of the reasons why there is salt on both sides and it remains firmly rooted at the core of this episode in Warframe's history.

But unlike other parts of this that stir up people's emotions (accusations of "corruption", targeting staff members with "personal attacks", DE turning a blind eye for years and not holding bad apples accountable, improper conduct on the part of said bad apples), the issue of DE having an "agenda" and "forcing it down the community's throat" is one that I don't think can properly be addressed.

DE stopped short of taking responsibility for the actions of the bad apples on and off Warframe premises (which they've a right to do, but I think the better approach would've been to take responsibility for not stepping in when they should have).
DE can improve the system (and I hope they will).
They've taken some steps toward improving it.
DE has also shut down the previous Guides program.
They can create and implement better tools to prevent the meme's use and explain what/why got people booted in the first place.
They can fine-tune the filter's sensitivity (which Rebecca said they're still trying to do, if I recall).
They can use any number of good suggestions posted in this thread by members on both sides of the argument.

But DE will not address this underlying issue of an "agenda." Nor should they have to. They aren't going to budge on exercising their right to moderate their chat according to their rules (which, among other things, forbids the use of the trap meme).

As for why I think that, I'll just quote myself:

On 2019-03-02 at 12:13 AM, Rhekemi said:

DE's priority is to remove the possibility for offense if they deem content offensive. It's very possible that DE is wrong and the word is never intended in an offensive manner when used in the chat. But it's still true that it has offensive meanings and offends others. If it's still true, then DE defaults to its first priority: maintaining as inoffensive a community space as possible.

We can apply this logic to any number of subjects. Consider open discussions of consensual sex. There's nothing offensive or illegal about sex, it's a normal part of human existence. But there is something wrong with openly talking about it in a moderated space. It has the potential to offend others, even if you don't even intend to be offensive.

If the moderation team deems discussions of a sexual nature off-limits, then someone's intent (to just talk about sex without any intention of offending others) is immaterial.

Another example would be the n-word. It's off-limits, so it's even more applicable. Many African Americans use this word in their daily lives. They use it as a reclaimed word and a term of endearment. They've used it all their lives. It's normal. If they use it in the chat, it would be filtered and they'd be suspended/banned.

It is immaterial if they didn't mean to offend anyone. It is immaterial if they were literally using the word to speak to their friend in Region who they know and love in real life (and is also African American).

Their use of the word within the chat, without thinking about how others would view it or whether it was allowed, would be ignorant. They wouldn't be banned because they intended to offend anyone, or because they are a bigot, but because they used a word that DE deemed offensive based on the word's actual, multiple meanings.

Do you see my point?

4

I believe every company has the right to create rules in good-faith conjunction with worldviews they believe in.

If anyone's argument is that it's unjust for DE to enforce rules in association with worldviews you do not subscribe to, that is a losing argument. You can challenge DE on it, but it's a losing battle.

I'll quote myself one last time and return to lurking.

On 2019-03-02 at 12:13 AM, Rhekemi said:

It's DE who ultimately decided to ban the meme. Nah, I'm not naive enough to believe that the chat moderators didn't share their opinions about the word/phrase with DE. Of course, they did. They had every right to. [Note: As mentioned earlier in the thread, the only problem was going on a crusade about it on and off Warframe premises.] From there, it was up to DE to review and assess the word (and its meanings). I don't think DE was wrong to make the choice to filter it. I do think they should have fine-tuned or found a better solution.

Worldviews, or social agendas as some put it, inform all our choices, whether we admit it or not. They inform our judgment. The chat mods and DE have a right to their worldview. I'd stand by that even if I disagreed with filtering the trap word/phrase/meme. (But I don't disagree with it.)

In the US, we peruse conservative and Christian establishments. Even if they are mainstream and mass-market outlets, their owners can still be conservative and Christian. So, when their rules are informed by and created in accordance with their world views and social agendas, we abide by them for as long as we peruse their service or establishment.

Whether or not we agree with their social agenda or worldview is irrelevant: it's their establishment and as long as their wishes are reasonable (no smoking, no swearing on the premises, etc.) we abide by those rules.

And yes, we challenge where it's unreasonable just as many are challenging now.

[...]

There's a great quote I read once about the term "off the reservation."

"The issue with 'off the reservation' and similar phrases is that these things are said without any thought. They become a part of the common vernacular. Freely they move from mind to mind, mouth to mouth. Maybe the meaning of these sorts of phrases never should have been the issue. Maybe living lives without thinking about what we say and do is of greater concern." -- Andrew Bentley, Partnership with Native Americans

It's from this article. It doesn't line up perfectly with the debate, but there are viewpoints and opinions worth considering that might be outside your own viewpoint on language, usage, and intent.

CatboyPrincess · April 7, 2019

15 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

> Bigots
> Trolls
Pffft. That's a lot of buzzwords. You might want to think before throwing them around.
As for the game success and all. Let's see how your "progressive" types help the industry... *Looks at BF5 absolutely tanking the sales* Oh gee. What a surprise. Get woke, go... you know it. Perhaps, catering hard to less than 3% of the population at the expense of annoying a lot more others, many of whom (like me) are libertarians who otherwise don't mind whatever you are up to... It's just not a good idea.

I'd much rather deal with "trolls" who can be reported/muted/otherwise dealt with easily than with self-righteous automated (bot) thought police with vague definitions and unclear rules.
Remember. "Don't tread on me." And your types seem to be all too happy to do just that from what I can see so far.

...wat

"troll" isn't a buzzword in the slightest. I don't know how you get this idea. It's been around since the start of internet forums. Nor is "bigot" a buzzword, despite its popularity. It has a specific meaning and sadly, some people who have posted on this subject have demonstrated in no uncertain terms that, yes, they indeed are obstinately intolerant of specific groups of people -- and then promptly have had their posts deleted by mods because their posts fit the definition to a T.

oh, am I a "progressive" type? thank you. i'm pretty proud of the effort i've put into researching common biases and prejudices.

I actually had to look up what you were talking about with BF5's sales and "get woke go...". The complete phrase quoted here is written as "get woke go broke." I had never heard of it before your post.

Sure, BF5's poor sales could be explained by "'progressive' types'" influence. Or... it's just a bad game competing poorly in a timeframe it was never meant to compete in. I think you're just cherry picking; Overwatch and Apex Legends are both incredibly successful games that are ostensibly very influenced by progressive types (the devs of each game themselves state as much). But maybe... they're just good games?

Warframe itself I think falls under the category of being influenced by progressive types. As far as I can see, that hasn't made it any less successful. I don't get the impression that this whole chat moderation issue has really affected many people at all. I think Warframe is a really good game and that that's going to be the deciding factor of whether or not it's going to be successful -- not whether or not you can say "nezha is a [meme]" in Region chat.

Social interaction doesn't have clear rules or clear definitions. No amount of rules or clear definitions is going to affect how a person feels about being called this or that word or slur. And since it has proven to be a thing that risks negatively affecting people, much like any other slur with other meanings, it's reasonable to put in a filter to be on the safe side.

If you feel that I've tread upon your rights, well then I'm terribly sorry but it has to be said. Some people, reasonable or not, legitimately feel uncomfortable when they have do deal with certain articles of language.

I just find it annoying -- others find it worse. That's just how it is. It's just as fair to have a filter in Region chat as it would be to tell those people to turn off Region chat.

notlamprey · April 7, 2019

10 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

~snip~

Hey, you could've at least been polite and spoilered all that so as not to take up so much of this thread page 🙃

Nevertheless, I will endeavor to read and respond to it all because that is the respectful thing to do. As with my previous post, I will make copious use of spoiler formatting to try and cut everything down to a visually digestible form factor.

Spoiler

...wut. This turnaround is (1) exceptionally recent and (2) the result of significant concentrated activism and reporting. This turnaround largely takes the form of anti-discrimination laws and policies. I don't think successfully making the case for not being discriminated against in housing, work, and law is a particularly high bar for "influence." Other forms of influence include leadership positions economic (ex. CEO), scientific, and political (ex. mayor -- direct representation) stations. These stations are largely not possessed by trans people in general, including trans women. Also, why are you putting "trans women" in quotation marks? Major global corporations and governments aren't exclusively listening to trans women on these matters. Other trans people and cis people also support these efforts for non-discrimination.

Do you think asking governments and global corporations to fairly treat people counts as influence? When compared to "influence" including aspects like being in positions of leadership not involved specifically in anti-discrimination, as point of reference?

Yes, if you look specifically at ant-discrimination policy and law, trans women have some degree of influence. If you include positions of leadership and authority, then no, the answer is easily that mostly cis people occupy such positions (which is fine except when there is very sparse record of trans people in general in positions of leadership and authority).

In short, no. Trans women do have little influence in society (more than 10 years ago, and virtually none at all 30+ yrs ago (not counting historical societies)).

Contra used the present tense "have," and I am responding to that statement's truth content with present tense in mind. At present, the statement is untrue. It's that simple.

Spoiler

She doesn't make that assumption.

03:20 -- "the word trap refers to either a male crossdresser or a trans woman, especially in the context of [anime]"

You're kinda leaving out the other places in the video where Contra completely conflates the two terms and treats them as equivalent. Either the video is inconsistent from lack of editing (which can be forgiven but does weaken it a lot), or it's a conscious construction made to mislead and manipulate the audience.

Either way, I'm not feeling it here.

Spoiler

07:08 -- "trans women, in my country almost entirely trans women of colour, are murdered at a disgracefully high rate, reaching a record of 29 deaths in 2017."

Contra's Youtube channel lists her location as "United States." So she names her country.

Why do you keep putting "trans women" in quotation marks?

Contra doesn't make any other claim than "disgracefully high rate." She makes no mention of "wildly disproportionate rate of violence." In other words, there is no statistics being used whatsoever.

here you go:

16.9 assaults per 1000 (~1.69% of the US's general population) in 2017 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf

13% of trans people (respondents) have experienced physical assault in 2017 https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS Full Report - FINAL 1.6.17.pdf

33% of those trans people are trans women.

So ~4.29% of trans women have experienced physical assault assuming consistent proportionality between violence experienced by trans people and trans women specifically.

~0.6% of US's population is transgender.

So from the proportion of US's population being transgender and the rate of assault for the population of US in general, we'd expect that ~0.6% of cases of assault to involve trans people. Except, when we look consider the napkin math we just did, we can see that ~13% of trans people have experienced physical violence and that ~4.29% of trans women have experienced physical assault. The numbers 13% and 4.29% are higher than 0.6% of cases of assault and can be explained in part by the USTS's nature as a volunteer survey vs. the NCVS which is randomized.

However, the World Health Organization (WHO) quite plainly recognizes that transgender people (and gender and sexual minorities in general) experience violence at a higher rate than the general population and across the material they look at, they find a range between 11% and 69% having experienced violence at some point in their lifetime, making the yearly numbers of 13% and 4.29% look fairly tame.

That said, it's an incredibly unsurprising conclusion to draw (that trans people and trans women especially) experience violence at an increased rate and isn't really a wild leap of any sort.

If no amount of murder acceptable, then why even bring up "using statistics more responsibly?" If no amount of murder is acceptable, then what sets the standard for doing the topic "justice" as you say?

First, it's very common practice for the owners of YouTube channels to list their channel location as a country that doesn't match their actual location. Why not simply mention it in the video? That's what I would have expected.

I use the quotation marks because I'm attempting to work with a term inside a controlled space. I'm trying to understand it and use it in a manner that matches how the other person is using it. It's as much for me as for anyone else, and the goal is to help ensure that more people are working with the same operative meaning of a given term.

No statistics being used? What about that bit with 29 deaths in 2017? As for disproportionality, there's no other reason to mention any numbers in support of a claim that violence against trans people is any more a problem than violence against people in general. In other words, if the rate of violence isn't disproportionate then there is no particularly worrying problem here that would be worthy of special attention. Attention, yes. Special attention, no. Again, in case it needs to be said: any amount of violence is troubling and we should look for ways to eliminate it.

All the math you put in here shows a lack of sensitivity to intersectionality, which is ironic. It would be foolish to conclude that any differential impact of violence on trans people is due only to a single factor, i.e. merely being trans. Geographical distribution (urban versus rural) and socioeconomic factors (income, race, age, etc.) also play a role, as do many other things that someone else will probably point out I have missed. Again, to use terminology you will probably recognize: we're talking about an intersection.

That WHO item is interesting, by the way. Did you look into it at all? This thing deserves its own section! It's not even a study, it's a shoddy excuse for a meta-analysis!

Who gave you this thing? Were they trying to make you look bad? Please distance yourself from this stuff, because people will think you're a snake oil merchant:

Spoiler

"Peer reviewed and grey literature" uh oh.

Junk science is enough of a problem already, without including grey literature.

" Studies had to be published from 2000 to the search date, refer to data collected after 1995 and include at least 50 participants." uh oh.

So we have a sample size issue and a recency problem. No mention of why studies were filtered in this way, although good reasons may have existed. I would have liked to know those reasons.

Did you notice this part:

Spoiler

After initial screening, we appraised the included studies for quality. The criteria were: sampling method, sample representativeness, description of the population, completeness of the data, description of the methods, reliability of the data, and controls for confounding. We categorized studies as high quality if six to seven criteria were adequate, medium quality if three or five criteria were adequate and low quality if none to two criteria were adequate. None of the studies were excluded based on this quality assessment. We minimized publication bias across studies by including grey literature and consulting with experts.

Holy fricking confounds, Batman. "No studies included based on quality assessment" - that's code for "we deliberately constructed this assessment so as to give us complete freedom over what we wished to include."

They literally just said they were being selective and then they were entirely indiscriminate. What a joke!

"We minimized publication bias across studies by including grey literature and consulting with experts."

How exactly does including non-peer-reviewed material and consulting with unnamed, uncredentialed experts minimize bias? Ah, do they think they're minimizing the bias of "establishment science" maybe? If that's the goal then they have failed, likely without even knowing it.

Spoiler

Types of physical violence

Different terms for physical violence were used in different articles. Some used “physical violence”, others combined “physical” with “attack”, “assault”, “victimization”, “abuse”, “aggression”, “mistreatment” or “injury”.

One article used a longer definition: “the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury, or harm; some examples: scratching, pushing, shoving, throwing, grabbing, biting, choking, shaking, slapping, punching”. Another used the term “criminal victimization”, including specific incidents of physical violence: “experience of a crime against their person (hit, beaten, physically attacked, sexually assaulted)....”.

Similarly, most articles included specific violent acts or a combination of actions: “thrown some object”, “hit”, “knocked down”, “injured with some weapon”, “punched”, “kicked”, “beaten”, “hurt with a knife, gun, bat, or some other weapon”, “assault/robbery with violence”, “assault with a weapon, assault without a weapon”, “grievous bodily harm”, “attempted murder” and “violent assault”.

One article used an extensive scale to measure physical violence. Physical violence was surveyed making use of 11 items, ranging from “an object was thrown at me”, “I was being pushed or pulled”, “someone hit me with his or her hand” to “someone tried to strangle or suffocate me”.

Types of sexual violence

Several different terms were used in different articles to define sexual violence: “sexual violence”, “sexual assault”, “rape”, “sexual aggression”, “sexual victimization”, “sexual abuse” and “other sexual violence”.

In some publications definitions for sexual violence or similar concepts were applied: “ever been forced to engage in unwanted sexual activity”, “any sexual act that is perpetrated against someone’s will; some examples: completed non-consensual sex act, an attempted non-consensual sex act, abusive sexual contact and non-contact sexual abuse”, “sexual aggression: sexually molested and/or forced to have sexual relations with penetration” and “sexual victimization: ever been sexually abused or raped”.

Ok, so they didn't create their own definition for "violence" but instead used the full set of all definitions employed by the studies cited. This isn't how you science.

Spoiler

Discussion

Our review found a high prevalence of physical and sexual violence motivated by perception of sexual orientation and gender identity experienced by sexual and gender minorities, particularly among transgender people. These values suggest that such violence accounts for a large part of all the violence encountered by sexual and gender minorities. Nevertheless, it remains to be researched whether such violence explains the higher prevalence of violence against sexual and gender minorities in comparison with the rest of the population. The higher prevalence in transgender people might be partly explained by a higher risk of being involved in sex work.

Oh my god, seriously. To paraphrase, they're saying that "all the violence accounts for a large part of all the violence." Well done to you.

It gets worse!

Spoiler

The quality of our data was relatively poor due to a lack of standardized measures and sometimes small and non-randomized samples. The evidence base needs to be strengthened. More and better research on the prevalence and adverse outcomes of violence motivated by perception of sexual orientation and gender identity is needed across many different geographical and cultural settings (especially outside the USA) and different socioeconomic and age groups. Community organizations should be empowered to add scientific value to their existing efforts to map such violence. A consensus is needed on definitions and measures of violence motivated by perception of sexual orientation and gender identity and how to operationalize them to allow for comparisons across studies.

Poor quality of data, you say? Do you think some of that came from ignoring the decades of work done prior to your inclusion cutoff? Maybe it came from the inclusion of "grey literature." Maybe it came from failing to create any independent measures, and simply using the broadest possible net for everything.

I'm going to go with all of the above.

"A consensus is needed on definitions and measures of violence motivated by perception of sexual orientation and gender identity and how to operationalize them to allow for comparisons across studies."

Pray tell, then: what exactly was the point of your whole exercise? You had an opportunity to begin the process of operationalizing, and you literally just had a bunch of studies across which you could have made comparisons. You mean you didn't do any of that?

Good grief, this helps no one.

Spoiler

Some limitations of this review are that most studies used a non-probability sample, mostly a convenience sample, and provided little information on the representativeness of the sample, the potential impact of non-participation, or the study power. The reliability and comparability of studies were limited, as it was not possible to compare between countries, regions or cultural backgrounds. The studies relied on the participants’ self-reports to determine whether they had been a victim of violence and whether that violence was motivated by their sexual orientation and gender identity. Without increased understanding of respondents’ narratives about violence and its motives, research in this field will be vulnerable to criticism^.

Despite these limitations, our review shows that high proportions of sexual and gender minorities experienced physical and sexual violence, motivated by perception of sexual orientation and gender identity, which might have an effect on their health and well-being. National violence prevention policies and interventions should include such violence, integrating it into national health surveys and health promotion efforts and improve data collection and reporting of incidents.

You don't say.

This whole thing just looks like a bunch of wheel-spinning and puffery. I take no joy in saying that, because I don't dispute the underlying premise that violence is a bad thing and we should be attempting to reduce its prevalence.

Unfortunately, all these words don't really support anything beyond that.

Spoiler

If no amount of murder acceptable, then why even bring up "using statistics more responsibly?" If no amount of murder is acceptable, then what sets the standard for doing the topic "justice" as you say?

Measured and careful use of statistics helps us zero in on potential "best" solutions to a problem. Better methods and data yield better options. As for "what sets the standard," how about something a bit better than a YouTube video from someone who makes entertainment a comparable (or perhaps higher) priority to informing the audience?

If you can't imagine any better standard than a single crumb of math sitting atop the tablecloth of Contra's video, then I'd suggest you take another look at how you approach this discussion.

What's really interesting to me is that there is an inherent contradiction in treating "trans women" as a single group requiring special help (as though their problems were unifactorial, due only to the fact of being "trans women"), within a belief system dependent on the rhetoric of intersectionality. Somehow, this contradiction goes unnoticed by its exponents. Of course we should be looking to address the real problems faced by the disadvantaged. However, we won't make any true progress if we rely on internally contradictory systems of rhetoric and skewed half-analyses of the problem. We'll only get illusory advancement of one group at the expense of many others. That's a huge net negative, and it's unacceptable to me.

You say "incredibly unsurprising." Unsurprising to whom? To you and the small number of people you regularly interact with? In case you hadn't noticed, the consensus here runs counter to your opinion.

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

How about instead of just linking to things and asking us to do all the work, you actually cite the specific material you think supports your argument and let us examine it here together? My eyes get tired, you know.

"The gay panic defense is generally invoked in cases where the guilt of the defendant is unquestioned, but only to strengthen a more "traditional criminal law defense such as insanity, diminished capacity, provocation, or self-defense" and is not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own. While using the gay panic defense to explain insanity has typically not been successful in winning a complete acquittal, diminished capacity, provocation, and self-defense have all been used successfully to reduce charges and sentences. Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted in the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences."

Oh, so it's generally used as part of an affirmative defense! For those of us who don't know, an affirmative defense is one that includes an admission of guilt in the part of the defendent. Note the part that reads "not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own." That means the "trans/gay panic defense" is not being used as a way to excuse the actions of a defendent, but instead as part of a defense that concedes the defendent's actions were criminal.

Spoiler

"doesn't set it up or follow it through properly"? What do you call 07:25 up to 08:15?

What do I call it? I call it one flavored example and some generalizations.

I can't find any examples of that quote "I can't be f------ g--" anywhere in independent publications or news articles. The only places where that quote appears are special interest publications that serve "LGBT" or "transgender" groups. It isn't even in the official court transcript, and do you know how court transcripts are made?

I can tell you. There would have been video and audio recording inside the courtroom, and in addition a court reporter would have been taking a shorthand record of everything said by counsel + the judge + the witness. I can find no evidence of this ever being said by the defendants at trial. The closest match would be from the testimony of Nicole Brown, who was the person directly responsible for outing Gwen. For sensitivity, this will go in its own spoiler.

Spoiler

I thought I felt a penis," Brown testified. Brown then screamed and ran into the hallway shouting, "I can't believe this is a f -- ing man. I can't believe it. I can't cope with this," she said.

Troubling to read, but it doesn't match the version Contra repeats and it wasn't said by a male defendant. We owe it to vulnerable people to be as accurate as possible when documenting their real problems. Distorting those problems or creating illusory ones isn't the best way to help.

Spoiler

She literally did anonymize it as much as possible and show it to us!

why is it a big deal for it to be a purely emotional appeal when the whole idea of whether you should or should not be allowed to use certain words and language is based ENTIRELY off of emotional appeal? If someone asked you not to swear in front of their children then you should respect that. Unless you don't believe in doing that I guess. I don't know what's left to be said or argued after that.

I'm watching again at 8:38 and I see no part of the mentioned twitter thread on screen. What's more, if the alleged victim was punched, that's assault (potentially aggravated assault). The victim should file a police report, and the perpetrator should be punished.

Was the alleged victim too afraid to file a police report? That's tragic and awful, but it means the justice system can't help. Was the police department incompetent or negligent in following through on the victim's case? That would be even worse, but we don't and can't know because we aren't given any more detail in the video. Of course I would want to do everything in my power to help somebody find justice for a crime that really was perpetrated against them, because punching anyone merely because they are different than you inferred based on physical presentation is wrong.

The bit about words and emotional appeal seems a bit misguided. It sounds like you're working toward the conclusion that everything built with language is based on emotional appeal, and that's just not true. Worse, it's potentially a step towards a fascist (ends justifying the means, might making right, "by any means necessary) system of ethics. I don't want to be on that bus. Emotion has its place and purpose, without question. Ideally, emotion powers a call to action in support of a well-crafted and carefully considered plan. That's what I would strive for, anyway. It's not perfect, but I haven't found anything better just yet.

If someone asked me not to swear in front of their children, I would do my best to comply. That doesn't sound difficult for me, under most circumstances.

Spoiler

Contra is attempting, in good faith, to explain something complex and personal in an entertaining way. I need you to timestamp your claim. 10:40? Is it when it goes into a black and white filter? That scene was sarcasm. I believe it's meant to communicate that being called a "trap" feels like being given an insulting compliment like "WOW, you're really this for a [your type of person] huh??" There's a term for that but I can't remember.

As for the North Carolina bathroom law: whoah... no. That bill was transphobic and really bad.

Contra isn't really presenting it in a manner that I find particularly useful. Just how much of that is anybody's fault, I don't think I could really say. It doesn't seem right to put too much of it on Contra. I'm looking to take the topic really seriously and get as close to the bedrock as possible, and that's just not the style of this video. That isn't really anyone's fault.

The 10:40 bit has layers to it. I can recognize that humor is being used, and still try to look at the idea (or question) being implied. I think a lot of the people who continue to use the term trap are pushing back against what they perceive to be an ill-motivated power play mounted against their lexicon by people whom they don't trust with power. It's a valid fear, and you'll understand it if you think back to the last time you saw a food-aggressive animal (or a person who has been abused/starved). Gonna spoiler my thoughts on it:

Spoiler

My first experience with this was with a horse who had been treated very poorly, and was taken to an environment with plenty of food and social contact. Because Ayashe had been so deprived for so long, she didn't know how to properly acclimate to living conditions where everyone had enough food. She tried to guard it, and didn't want any person or animal to get close to her when she was near food. This took a while to smooth over. We did eventually get it sorted out, and she's a great little pony.

Humans share a lot of the same wiring, and again I will speak from personal experience with a person who undertook a very dangerous diet practice for an extended period of time. He eventually lost almost half his previous body mass, to the point where his abdominal wall had atrophied and he was in the early stages of jaundice. With treatment and some time, he did begin to recover. However, to this day he has difficulty managing his food intake and struggles to adapt to a "normal" diet.

Deprivation changes people - whether it's food, money, power or anything else. These days, just about everyone's nervous about being taken advantage of by everyone else. Life isn't fair. We can try our best to make it fair, but I don't think we'll ever do a perfect job. The solution to a perceived imbalance is not to reflexively apply ourselves in direct opposition to that imbalance. We'll just swing endlessly between extremes. We should be working to slow the pendulum, instead of just pushing against it whenever we don't like which way it's moving. If we don't stop and observe where the pendulum is in its motion, we risk amplifying the motion when we don't mean to. Ultimately, I think a lot of this supposed advocacy for "minority" or "disadvantaged" groups is just aimless flailing against the pendulum.

The NC bathroom bill was itself probably tainted by a bit of flailing. Depending on whom you ask, the bill was either "transphobic" or "necessary to protect vulnerable people against predators." Beyond looking at both the good and bad possible motivations for such a bill (as well as any good and bad possible effects), I wouldn't be able to say much without looking at a good deal more information about how the whole thing has played out. Sometimes it's best not to say or do anything when you just don't know what the landscape looks like.

Spoiler

You've completely ignored all of what I said immediately following the quotation you took out of context. Important bit: REGION CHAT.

I promise I didn't ignore it. I considered its truth content, and decided it wasn't true. Not the part about how it's used in region chat, and not the part about how the "overwhelming majority" of trans people experience it. I simply don't believe either of those things is true, and I don't see any compelling reason why I should change my stance on it.

You know that people can pay careful attention to something and still disagree with it, right? Sometimes that's a REALLY good thing, like when you almost sign a contract that would be really bad for you until you read the fine print and notice something really scary.

The next part is long >_>