2015-09-20
If It Looks Like a Bomb.... Check Your White Privilege
Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year old Muslim in Texas, completed a science project which was making a clock but, it suspiciously looked like a bomb because a briefcase was used. The young man is said to have been evasive about the clock when he was questioned by the teachers about it. Authorities were contacted and the young man was arrested for a few hours.
In the video clip below, Bill Maher defends the decision to arrest the boy stating truthfully that there was nothing wrong with people being concerned about their safety. In short, Muslims are known for blowing stuff up around the world. Mark Cuban also chimes in saying that he actually spoke with the boy on the phone and heard the young man's sister feeding him answers to say.
On Twitter, Richard Dawkins has called this boy out as being a fraud. Mohamed had claimed that he invented this clock himself but, this video paints a different picture.
The gentleman narrating the video points out that the components of this clock were not invented at all, instead the parts are all manufactured. The boy simply removed the casing on a regular clock. Was this fraud or a hoax? Was the boy trying to get arrested in order to call attention to himself and gain sympathy? Or was this just a lazy kid who was trying to get an easy A?
Perhaps in the next few days we will get a better grasp on what has occurred here. I guess it just depends on how Mohamed will respond and if we learn anything more about him.
The response to Dawkins has been almost hostile. The Tweets responding to him seem to suggest that the boy's dishonesty should be excused because he's only 14. I find that to be a ridiculous excuse. Why would the boy's age matter when many children his same age are capable of invention? If the video above is true, the best we can say is that Mohamed was extremely dishonest and should not be given praise but rather an F and a scolding.
Comments like, "Don't punish him because he's just curious and took a clock apart" seem to demonstrate that many people in our culture feel that participation is good enough. Yet, if that participation is not met with honestly, how is that good?
I guess we will have to wait and see. What do you think?
In the video clip below, Bill Maher defends the decision to arrest the boy stating truthfully that there was nothing wrong with people being concerned about their safety. In short, Muslims are known for blowing stuff up around the world. Mark Cuban also chimes in saying that he actually spoke with the boy on the phone and heard the young man's sister feeding him answers to say.
“For the past 30 years it’s been one culture that has been blowing s**t up over and over again,” Maher added.
On Twitter, Richard Dawkins has called this boy out as being a fraud. Mohamed had claimed that he invented this clock himself but, this video paints a different picture.
If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn’t have done so https://t.co/LtOFAAmVxK
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 20, 2015
The gentleman narrating the video points out that the components of this clock were not invented at all, instead the parts are all manufactured. The boy simply removed the casing on a regular clock. Was this fraud or a hoax? Was the boy trying to get arrested in order to call attention to himself and gain sympathy? Or was this just a lazy kid who was trying to get an easy A?
Perhaps in the next few days we will get a better grasp on what has occurred here. I guess it just depends on how Mohamed will respond and if we learn anything more about him.
The response to Dawkins has been almost hostile. The Tweets responding to him seem to suggest that the boy's dishonesty should be excused because he's only 14. I find that to be a ridiculous excuse. Why would the boy's age matter when many children his same age are capable of invention? If the video above is true, the best we can say is that Mohamed was extremely dishonest and should not be given praise but rather an F and a scolding.
Comments like, "Don't punish him because he's just curious and took a clock apart" seem to demonstrate that many people in our culture feel that participation is good enough. Yet, if that participation is not met with honestly, how is that good?
I guess we will have to wait and see. What do you think?
2015-09-10
Quick Thoughts About Gamer Gate
Over the last few months I have been burying myself into the topic of modern-day feminism, which is commonly referred to as third-wave feminism. My next book will be an attempt to provide subtle advise for young women. As a woman myself and a mother, I want my daughter to grow up to be independent and have a healthy view of men. The current culture we see through the eyes of the mainstream media have me feeling a bit concerned about what types of messages we are sending to young women.
The story that acted as a catalyst for me to venture into this project was the story of Emma Sulkowicz, better known as the mattress girl. The young Columbia student who claimed she was raped in her dorm room eight months after the event occurred and resulted in her obtaining a degree after she chose to carry around the supposed crime scene (her mattress), for 2 years. She even carried this mattress across the stage when she accepted her degree. Little did I realize that this research would lead me to a movement called Gamer Gate. It even has it's own hashtag - #gamergate.
What is Gamer Gate?
The shortest possible answer is a movement dedicated to demanding ethics in gaming journalism.
Ethics in journalism? As a fellow conservative, you may be asking "WHAT? Does that even exist? Is that possible?" as it pertains to mainstream media.
Well, let me back up a bit. Here's the story, (the best I can make out)...a young woman named Zoe Quinn who apparently developed some silly game called "Depression Quest" received accolades and attention over her contribution to the gaming world and ended up being caught by her now ex-boyfriend cheating on him - with several other people. Those people were a part of the gamer media and apparently they had been the moving forces behind the scenes that helped her game to become noticed. Some people argue this point but, this situation was interpreted as Zoe sleeping her way to the top.
The game sucks. You can play a free version on-line but I warn you, it's mostly just reading and then you choose your own adventure based on the options given. Apparently many people became suspicious of how the game was able to garner so much attention but, it did have all the typical elements of what liberals love - awareness of [insert politically correct topic here], depression in this case, and it was developed by a young women. So the discovery of Quinn's special connections to the movers and shakers of the gaming community became a topic of discussion and gamers decided to demand the media reviewing games should be more objective in their analysis and recommendation of games.
Okay but what does this have to do with feminism? Well, I'm glad you ask because the second part of this Gamer Gate concerns feminists attacking the gaming culture and games in general - especially those violent and sexist games. Little did I know that many of these games have sexy women in them. In some games you can even have sex and objectify these women or worse kill them.
Enter Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know much about her personal history or how in the world she became relevant but she's a self-described feminist and she is to feminism what Al Sharpton is to racism. She runs some website and started doing videos attacking gamers and the industry declaring everyone to be misogynists. She also talks about the various effects of being exposed to violence towards women in video games, claiming one can be affected even if they are not aware yet, Anita apparently has a special power that allows her to view these games and they somehow do not affect her.
Oh and just like Sharpton she needs money. She has apparently raised a large sum of money with the promise of producing a series of videos that will be used to educate the masses about the horrors of the video gaming world. So far, she's produced one video - that I know of but, don't quote me because I could be wrong so, feel free to correct me if I am.
Sarkeesian also enjoys playing the victim-card. She and a few others like her have claimed that members of #GamerGate have made bomb threats and other various threats of violence towards her. However, many skeptics find these claims to not be credible.
Let me just say...
I'm not a gamer. I do like some games and back in the day I was damn good at Tetris but, I hardly believes this qualifies me as a "gamer." I am also still a novice as it pertains to this overall subject and I'm still trying to make sense of it all so, please forgive me if I missed something or got something a bit wrong.
The overall movement on Twitter and on YouTube is gamers feeling attacked by the media and by feminists. They are being lied about and attacked from various angles. Generally they enjoy their games and merely want to be left alone. Yes, it does seem as though many of these popular games are geared toward men but, that's hardly a reason to believe that women cannot participate. Nothing is stopping them from developing their own games but, like any true liberal, it's much better to shout at and tear down what others have built rather than build yourself.
Some things never change:
Drunk or not, Kerouac's point is as valid today as it was back then. It has long been the left's tactic to shout down and tear down others, while the right's main message has always been to do for yourself in order to help others.
Here's what I don't understand...
There are a number of YouTube commentators for GamerGate and I've subscribed to a number of them. I'm definitely a new fan of them and very much enjoy most everything they have to say. I also note that many of them are atheists which doesn't bother me. I have yet to let go of Jesus myself but, I can understand their points and concerns over religion. What I can't get over is how they will continually make the most conservative points - they make the case that modern day conservatives make daily and then claim to be left leaning liberals.
WHAT?!
I have even heard some claim they agree with mainstream media but, it's just the "gaming media" they see problems with.
WHAT?!
They see how the media has treated them; they understand their ideas and points have been twisted and quote-mined; they know they have been lied about yet, they seem to have some cognitive dissonance when they try to separate gaming journalism with the general media. How do they not realize this is exactly what conservatives deal with on a daily basis?
Classic liberalism IS modern-day conservatism. Sure we have some crazy folks on the right but, that's the point! We DO tolerate people and we are not all the same, which can be a strength but it's also one of our weaknesses.
Now, of course I don't know for sure. Maybe they are indeed well aware and will never be conservative. Maybe they are just more libertarian. I do know many of them are younger than me so, it's very possible they are like so many of us conservatives when we were young and believed in the left's idea of liberalism. I'm not completely sure but, even if they do still identify more with the left, it's a good feeling to know they still side with general freedom and it's always nice to find points for which we can all agree on.
The story that acted as a catalyst for me to venture into this project was the story of Emma Sulkowicz, better known as the mattress girl. The young Columbia student who claimed she was raped in her dorm room eight months after the event occurred and resulted in her obtaining a degree after she chose to carry around the supposed crime scene (her mattress), for 2 years. She even carried this mattress across the stage when she accepted her degree. Little did I realize that this research would lead me to a movement called Gamer Gate. It even has it's own hashtag - #gamergate.
What is Gamer Gate?
The shortest possible answer is a movement dedicated to demanding ethics in gaming journalism.
Ethics in journalism? As a fellow conservative, you may be asking "WHAT? Does that even exist? Is that possible?" as it pertains to mainstream media.
Well, let me back up a bit. Here's the story, (the best I can make out)...a young woman named Zoe Quinn who apparently developed some silly game called "Depression Quest" received accolades and attention over her contribution to the gaming world and ended up being caught by her now ex-boyfriend cheating on him - with several other people. Those people were a part of the gamer media and apparently they had been the moving forces behind the scenes that helped her game to become noticed. Some people argue this point but, this situation was interpreted as Zoe sleeping her way to the top.
The game sucks. You can play a free version on-line but I warn you, it's mostly just reading and then you choose your own adventure based on the options given. Apparently many people became suspicious of how the game was able to garner so much attention but, it did have all the typical elements of what liberals love - awareness of [insert politically correct topic here], depression in this case, and it was developed by a young women. So the discovery of Quinn's special connections to the movers and shakers of the gaming community became a topic of discussion and gamers decided to demand the media reviewing games should be more objective in their analysis and recommendation of games.
Okay but what does this have to do with feminism? Well, I'm glad you ask because the second part of this Gamer Gate concerns feminists attacking the gaming culture and games in general - especially those violent and sexist games. Little did I know that many of these games have sexy women in them. In some games you can even have sex and objectify these women or worse kill them.
Enter Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know much about her personal history or how in the world she became relevant but she's a self-described feminist and she is to feminism what Al Sharpton is to racism. She runs some website and started doing videos attacking gamers and the industry declaring everyone to be misogynists. She also talks about the various effects of being exposed to violence towards women in video games, claiming one can be affected even if they are not aware yet, Anita apparently has a special power that allows her to view these games and they somehow do not affect her.
Oh and just like Sharpton she needs money. She has apparently raised a large sum of money with the promise of producing a series of videos that will be used to educate the masses about the horrors of the video gaming world. So far, she's produced one video - that I know of but, don't quote me because I could be wrong so, feel free to correct me if I am.
Sarkeesian also enjoys playing the victim-card. She and a few others like her have claimed that members of #GamerGate have made bomb threats and other various threats of violence towards her. However, many skeptics find these claims to not be credible.
Let me just say...
I'm not a gamer. I do like some games and back in the day I was damn good at Tetris but, I hardly believes this qualifies me as a "gamer." I am also still a novice as it pertains to this overall subject and I'm still trying to make sense of it all so, please forgive me if I missed something or got something a bit wrong.
The overall movement on Twitter and on YouTube is gamers feeling attacked by the media and by feminists. They are being lied about and attacked from various angles. Generally they enjoy their games and merely want to be left alone. Yes, it does seem as though many of these popular games are geared toward men but, that's hardly a reason to believe that women cannot participate. Nothing is stopping them from developing their own games but, like any true liberal, it's much better to shout at and tear down what others have built rather than build yourself.
Some things never change:
Drunk or not, Kerouac's point is as valid today as it was back then. It has long been the left's tactic to shout down and tear down others, while the right's main message has always been to do for yourself in order to help others.
Here's what I don't understand...
There are a number of YouTube commentators for GamerGate and I've subscribed to a number of them. I'm definitely a new fan of them and very much enjoy most everything they have to say. I also note that many of them are atheists which doesn't bother me. I have yet to let go of Jesus myself but, I can understand their points and concerns over religion. What I can't get over is how they will continually make the most conservative points - they make the case that modern day conservatives make daily and then claim to be left leaning liberals.
WHAT?!
I have even heard some claim they agree with mainstream media but, it's just the "gaming media" they see problems with.
WHAT?!
They see how the media has treated them; they understand their ideas and points have been twisted and quote-mined; they know they have been lied about yet, they seem to have some cognitive dissonance when they try to separate gaming journalism with the general media. How do they not realize this is exactly what conservatives deal with on a daily basis?
Classic liberalism IS modern-day conservatism. Sure we have some crazy folks on the right but, that's the point! We DO tolerate people and we are not all the same, which can be a strength but it's also one of our weaknesses.
Ludwig von Mises wrote in prescience,
“In the United States “liberal” means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.”Liberalism (1929)As the Socialist Party candidate for president, Norman Thomas said in a 1944 speech:
So I guess for myself, I'm a bit confused because I'm just not sure if any of them are truly aware of this? Do they understand conservatives or do they understand conservatives from the perspective of a liberal viewpoint? For example, if someone were to only read about Gamer Gate from feminists, they would have a distorted view of the movement. Could this be what is going on? Is their view of conservatives distorted?
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
Now, of course I don't know for sure. Maybe they are indeed well aware and will never be conservative. Maybe they are just more libertarian. I do know many of them are younger than me so, it's very possible they are like so many of us conservatives when we were young and believed in the left's idea of liberalism. I'm not completely sure but, even if they do still identify more with the left, it's a good feeling to know they still side with general freedom and it's always nice to find points for which we can all agree on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)