Brianna Wu / John Flynt - Original Thread

What are you opinions on GamerGate and Brianna Wu / John Flynt?

  • I am of no opinion towards either.

    Votos: 104 8.6%

  • I am neutral on GamerGate, but think that Brianna Wu is a bad person.

    Votos: 631 52.1%

  • I am neutral on GamerGate, and think that Brianna Wu is just trying to get by.

    Votos: 9 0.7%

  • I am ANTI-GamerGate, but still think that Brianna Wu is a bad person.

    Votos: 112 9.2%

  • I am ANTI-GamerGate, and think that Brianna Wu is just trying to get by.

    Votos: 37 3.1%

  • I am PRO-GamerGate, and think that Brianna Wu is a bad person.

    Votos: 309 25.5%

  • I am PRO-GamerGate, but still think that and think that Brianna Wu is just trying to get by.

    Votos: 9 0.7%
  • Total de votantes
    1,211
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
IJustWantToSeeAttachments dijo:
This comment posted back in February does an even more thorough job of explaining why the statistic is bullshit:

I’ve cracked this case at last!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/05/murder-statistics-of-transgender-people/

does a great job of tracing the ultimate known source back to a statement by Kay Brown seminar in 1999. But what data was she quoting? Seems odd that a nearly two decade old study that has apparently disappeared would be accepted over any estimate since. The problem, of course is that all (admittedly questionable) data that demonstrably exists supports vastly lower estimates.

I conclude that Kay Brown simply calculated a number herself. Here’s how:

1. The important thing to keep in mind is that in 1999 (and arguably until maybe 5 years ago) the most commonly regurgitated estimate of transgender incidence was 1 in 15,000. [Reported as 1/10,000 mtf, 1/30,000 ftm–15,000 being the combined total].

2. Dividing total late 90s US population by 15,000 produces an estimated US trans population of about 18,000 individuals.

3. Next she must have come up with an annual number of reported murders approx. 19. [This figure is not unreasonable. Transgender Day of Remembrance data show 14 in 1999. Perhaps Brown had a better source, or maybe multiplied some prior year total by 150%–on the assumption of underreporting].

3. Multiplying the one year figure by average life expectancy. Something like 19 x 77=1463… which is used as the lifetime homicide mortality.

4. 1463 x 12 = 17,556. VOILA! That’s close to the total population of 18,000. QED–1 in 12 lifetime trans homicide mortality.

LMFAO!

As awful as the methodology is generally, the principle reason for the absurd result is the use of 1 in 15,000.
Calculations on the back of a napkin could falsify this. Lynn Conway did some work on the matter.
The shame of it is that I doubt an activist like Brown would have believed that population estimate. It was just useful for creating an alarming murder figure.
Using the same methods and current dubious “statistics” one can produce opposite absurd results.
TIME magazine claimed last year a 1 in 200 incidence. Thus, 1.6 million trans-Americans!
TGDoR has been fairly consistentally showing a dozen deaths p.a. in recent years. Again, I’ll presume they missed some, and bump it up to 16 annually.
So that’s 1 per 100,000. Massively better than 4.5 per 100,00 for the general population.
The lifetime death by homicide incidence is 1 in 182. But for transgender folk a mere 1 in 1250 (16 x 80 = 1280, 1.6 mil. ÷ 1280 = 1250).

FINDINGS:
1 in 1250 trans people are murdered.

You are nearly 7 times more likely to be murdered if your cis!



Radical feminists were actually really pissed about Fury Road's "depiction of women". Apparently women taking part in "male-centric violence" is sexist because it presumes that women have to conform to male standards in order to be seen as strong characters.

So there is literally nothing you can do that will appease people who actively look for reasons to be pissed off.
Presiona para expandir...
The math and bad statistics in this 1-of-12-study are all over the place.
Firstly, if you have 1/10000 mtf and 1/30000 that's not 1/15000 it is 1/7500... because why would it be less than 1 in 10000? Do mtf and ftm cancel themselves out?
That amounts to 32700 people, which still sounds really not much compared to 279 million us-citizens, but, since we nearly doubled out fictitious trans-population and because further steps hinge on that number, the number of assumed murdered trans people is down to approx. 1 in 24.

(Some current estimates say that 0.3% of the US population is transgender, which would be 837000 in 1999. So even assuming that the rest of this is correct, the number would shrink further to 1 in 558.)

Another thing is the average life expectancy in 1999: Yes, it was roughly 77 years, but even now no one has any idea what exactly the transition and STS does to a human body. Will transgender people die earlier, because their body has undergone a radical change? Or will mtf live longer and ftm shorter for some other reasons? Nobody knows, we don't even know if our mobile phones will cause Alzheimer, after we've used them for 30 years and so we don't have the slightest idea what the average life expectancy of a transgender person is.
 
Catching up on this thread. A few thoughts after reading about the $23M venture capital drive.

wu dijo:
We have three primary sensors that we’re working on.
Presiona para expandir...

wu-eyes.jpg

wu-language.jpg

wu-voice.png

wu-intent.jpg

I have the feeling her "team" will have some serious mansplaining to do when Brianna asks why her playthroughs end in disaster.
 
Brianna Wu, of course, being socialized to think the wealthy and socially connected's input is valuable and required, all other's being suspect.
 
Cynical dijo:
Ver archivo adjunto 62434
Presiona para expandir...
Tweetstorm incoming? What's different to her normal rate of tweeting?

Translation:
"Listen members of my former gender. You can't possibly understand what sexism is, because you are men. As we all know, you need to have survived a war, before you can even grasp the concept that "combative action" is bad. This means that you have no right to add anything to a discussion about sexism, as you see, I really don't want you to talk back to me. Just let me talk, eat up everything I come up with and be good doggies and do as I say. As we all know, productive discussions that are about the relationship between two parties only need input from one side, especially when I am talking.

Also let me use a football analogy here, I am perfectly right using that, although I would probably cry misogyny, if a man would say something similar with "women" and "shoes". You are all just bad people, all of you, and disagreeing with me means that you assume to know more than I do. Please don't even try to question what I say, because you are wrong, wrong, wrong, ya know? It is a flawless conclusion that I know more about sexism because I identify as a woman, and therefore I have the right to speak for every woman in the world.

But it is not your fault! Society trained you to think with you dicks, and now you are simply too mentally disabled to get women. Yes, I am saying that you are dumb by default. I am also saying this in this condescending, inflammatory manner, just to attract more trolls, because my tugboat is really, really about to capsize."
 
Cynical dijo:
Ver archivo adjunto 62434
Presiona para expandir...
I've always been particularly peeved by this type of reasoning. Of course it's always nice to have valued input from the actual subject in question but sometimes it's completely impractical. By this reasoning, should we only let babies decide the proper rights for infants? Should we interview fetuses for abortion rights? Are all animal rights invalid because no one thought to interview Spot, the lovable little Labrador?

This isn't even addressing the fact that usually when people make this kind of bullshit argument, they intentionally tailor it to only apply to a select group of people so that discussion is basically limited to a hugbox. Women's rights are important, but you're only allowed to talk about them if you're a woman, in tech, a person of color, have twenty different psychological disorders, and have been oppressed by those dirty men, otherwise you're asserting your privilege when you don't know anything and are proving that you're a shitlord.

If an argument was truly legitimate, you wouldn't have to lock out everyone else.
 
Cynical dijo:
John being a catty bitch:

[MEDIA=twitter]675033579320160256[/MEDIA]
http://tweetsave.com/spacekatgal/status/675033579320160256

I need a good joke game to play, look forward to it:

[MEDIA=twitter]675034557897396224[/MEDIA]
http://tweetsave.com/spacekatgal/status/675034557897396224

Wu, do you have any fucking clue how to make your lighting not look like a bad acid trip?

[MEDIA=twitter]675034270205927425[/MEDIA]
http://tweetsave.com/spacekatgal/status/675034270205927425
Presiona para expandir...
It's like watching a toddler run around showing people what a good job they did coloring in their drawing. Only I'm sure the toddler would probably be more competent with the colors.
 
Cynical dijo:
John being a catty bitch:

[MEDIA=twitter]675033579320160256[/MEDIA]
Presiona para expandir...
What a coincidence. The condescending elitist in me is going to ask which school of engineering you graduated from, Bri.
I've always found this trend of "I am [professional title] because I say so!" fascinating, because it seems exclusive to the tech industry. Like, if someone enjoyed doodling on graph paper and suddenly claimed to be an architect, we'd think they needed a helmet. And yet, it seems like you can just kind of show up in tech, claim to be a designer, and if you have some marginal programming skill no one will question it.
I feel bad for people who spent four years and a fuckton of money working their ass off to actually learn their trade.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo