Poll of the Day > It's very frustrating how vocal minorities often have the most impact!

(+) Yeah! (+)

For example, when it comes to game censorship, it's very apparent that people who complain the loudest are, in reality, affected the least by the content of the games (just like when Anita Sarkeesian openly admitted that she HERSELF isn't a gamer). This makes it all the more frustrating when companies cave to demands (which seems to happen ALL THE TIME with games these days, from family-friendly Nintendo products all the way to mature-level MMO's).

I mean..., there's nothing wrong with the basic practice of protesting or activism WHEN YOU ARE PERSONALLY AFFECTED by the content being created. It's kinda like non-gay people complaining about gay marriage. Other people getting married doesn't affect them in any way (regardless of sexual orientation).

What do you fellas (and ladies) think? Should vocal minorities be given the level of attention they're getting???
---

I'm just going to post here so you can't delete this topic.

Vocal people are more impactful than silent people. This is new.
---

slacker03150 posted...

Vocal people are more impactful than silent people. This is new.

More like the minority is more impactful than the majority, simply because they are more vocal about it, but yeah.

It's no longer about the merits of the argument. It's about who can scream the loudest (and yes, this is a rather new trend, seeing how the internet is becoming such a powerful "digital megaphone").
---

That's why we have to let men in sundresses use women's locker rooms now.
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

That's why we have to let men in sundresses use women's locker rooms now.

Pretty much. If people can scream loud enough to the right audience, you can accomplish ANYTHING!

Sometimes, it seems that people do realize that it's just a small niche of the population, but we're so terrified of offending anyone, we'll bend over backwards to appease.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

I'm just going to post here so you can't delete this topic.

Lol..., I am pretty bad about doing that sometimes
---

shipwreckers posted...

(just like when Anita Sarkeesian openly admitted that she HERSELF isn't a gamer).

Most profiteering pieces of shit have nothing to do with the thing they try to mess with.
---

shipwreckers posted...

More like the minority is more impactful than the majority, simply because they are more vocal about it, but yeah.

The numbers don't matter. It really does come down purely to vocal people having more impact than silent people. That the vocal group is a minority is irrelevant. Heck, if anything, the vocal group being a minority means it should be easy to drown them out if it's something that actually matters.

Metal_Mario99 posted...

That's why we have to let men in sundresses use women's locker rooms now.

The push toward trans rights has nothing to do with the vocal minority phenomenon. There's VERY vocal opposition to the idea (coming from people like yourself); any progress made is in spite of that vocal minority, not because of it. That progress is a consequence of well-reasoned arguments and decisions made by tolerant, compassionate people, not people yelling louder than the people who don't like it.
---

adjl posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

That's why we have to let men in sundresses use women's locker rooms now.

The push toward trans rights has nothing to do with the vocal minority phenomenon. There's VERY vocal opposition to the idea (coming from people like yourself); any progress made is in spite of that vocal minority, not because of it. That progress is a consequence of well-reasoned arguments and decisions made by tolerant, compassionate people, not people yelling louder than the people who don't like it.

Yeah, progress is letting all dudes - trans or not - use women's locker rooms. That's some great progress you've got there, chief.
---

adjl posted...

shipwreckers posted...

More like the minority is more impactful than the majority, simply because they are more vocal about it, but yeah.

The numbers don't matter. It really does come down purely to vocal people having more impact than silent people. That the vocal group is a minority is irrelevant. Heck, if anything, the vocal group being a minority means it should be easy to drown them out if it's something that actually matters.

That's what makes it frustrating though. If you're trying to counter a minority group like ANTIFA or BLM that's blocking traffic and being dicks to everyone, and you're part of the mass populace that's been taught to NOT block traffic and be a dick, then the majority isn't GOING to say anything, because they've been conditioned to be polite (take the high road, etc.)

In other words, if you wanted to counter a group like ANTIFA, you'd have to become just like them, only even louder (and more obnoxious). I'd like to think the human race can think of a more civilized way to silence / counter vocal minorities, but I'm not sure if that's possible.
---

adjl posted...

That progress is a consequence of well-reasoned arguments and decisions made by tolerant, compassionate people,

hahahahaha, you dont actually believe this shit, do you?

this "progress" is the result of groups of people using emotional arguments, redefining words to lump dissenters in with social undesirables, and threatening ruin upon anyone who dares to oppose them. you think this "progress" would occur if the average person weren't terrified of losing their livelihood and being branded an intolerant bigot for life? of course, the average person doesn't have the time or energy to deal with shit like that, so they just stay quiet while internet justice jockeys with no jobs push for blind progress and circlejerk to how tolerant they are.

Everything is cyclical as a reaction to something else. The vocal minority was ignored or suppressed, then they got more aggressive and found an ear in the middle and we went from there. Now its getting crazy and everyone wants them to shut up and stop taking it too far, but the framework is still lagging and pandering despite nobody caring.
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Yeah, progress is letting all dudes - trans or not - use women's locker rooms. That's some great progress you've got there, chief.

And what's wrong with that? Do you really think a "no boys allowed" sign is currently keeping predators out of locker rooms? Do you really think that saying "it's okay, I'm trans" to a witness is going to make it any easier to get away with committing a crime in a public place? Do you really think public restrooms and locker rooms are currently a popular place for sexual assault (~1/3 of child molestations are homosexual, and there's nothing currently keeping men out of men's rooms)?

shipwreckers posted...

If you're trying to counter a minority group like ANTIFA or BLM that's blocking traffic and being dicks to everyone

How do you want to counter them? As it stands, pissing people off by blocking traffic isn't particularly helping those movements effect any sort of social change, so there isn't much to counter.

KaptainKiro posted...

hahahahaha, you dont actually believe this s***, do you?

Can you present a well-reasoned argument in favour of restricting trans rights? Bonus points if your argument can't be turned into an argument in favour of gun control by replacing a few key words, since logical consistency is a wonderful thing.
---

Zeus posted...

shipwreckers posted...

(just like when Anita Sarkeesian openly admitted that she HERSELF isn't a gamer).

Most profiteering pieces of shit have nothing to do with the thing they try to mess with.

Pretty much. She seen a untapped reactionary group that she knew she could piss off by just existing and went with it. It doesn't matter what she set out to accomplish, in doing what she did basically grants her advisor roles at media companies and UN speaking gigs.

She played gamers hard and they took the bait like the idiots they are.
---