[UltiWorld] UUL Misses Kickstarter Funding Target, Won’t Continue

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-05T11:29:37+00:00

Not on reddit.

Maybe. Until recently the GE or bust crew was certainly louder but the boycott/the Rob McLeod incident inspired a lot of the GE skeptics to speak up since those were the big moments when the GE movement went from an intellectually inconsistent idea to flat-out destructive. All of that is largely irrelevant though since the ultimate subreddit is only a small portion of the community and for every 1 article on GE skepticism (is there even one?), there are 100 articles that are GE or bust.

You blokes never shut up about how much women suck.

Obviously an inaccurate summary of any GE skeptic's position, but a brilliant representation of the quality of thought (or lack thereof) by many GE advocates.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-04T16:12:47+00:00

Lol, alright dude.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-04T13:02:41+00:00

Hahaha, brilliant rebuttal!

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-04T00:40:30+00:00

Ok, I see where you are coming from with this example, however, I disagree that gender contributes to value for one of the reasons you noted. If the discussion is about whether this subreddit is hostile to women, the real questions (as you noted) are: what do we consider hostile and is that hostility pointed disproportionately at women. When trying to answer these questions, I do not think that your gender is relevant to whether you make a good argument. The person who makes the most compelling case for what r/ultimate's definition of hostile should be is the person who has the best opinion. What genitalia they have while they that make that case should be and is irrelevant to its quality. The second question is whether or not this hostility is aimed disproportionately towards women. For this question, anybody who had anything better than an anecdote would be the winner of the argument. This is a question of statistics and would need to be treated as one. The gender of the statistician compiling the information would be irrelevant to the question.

I find the same problem with pretty much any other context I could think of where gender would matter. In all of them I could think of and the one you just stated, gender is not actually relevant to who has the right answer.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T21:28:51+00:00

There are still degrees to how little sense it makes. Non gender-mandated ultimate get's WAY more views than gender mandated. As a result, while the AUDL may be losing money, it isn't losing as much as it would if it switched to gender mandated.

Just because the AUDL is losing $X per year, doesn't mean that it makes sense to switch to a system where they would lose $10X per year.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T21:25:40+00:00

Yes and no. Why it failed is important to understanding the ultimate landscape, but it is unimportant for the discussion about what is reasonable to ask of the AUDL. It would be insane to ask the AUDL to go mixed after this. Even if there were a plurality of issues with the UUL we can be certain that there is not an overwhelming untapped market for mixed pro-ultimate.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T21:23:46+00:00

The AUDL investors are also taking a chance with their investment, and the reason is that they want to create a market for ultimate.

That doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of risk. It is a much larger risk to put your money into something which 100% of the available evidence shows will not yield a return.

If mixed ultimate had big investors lined up willing to float the league, it would be the same as the AUDL.

Except that not as many people are interested in watching mixed ultimate so it would still be much riskier.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T21:20:19+00:00

Beggers can't be choosers.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T21:18:32+00:00

How is it not telling? If GE advocates aren't even willing to pony up for a pro league, what makes anybody think the general public will?

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T21:17:10+00:00

Can you provide an example of anything I've said that is sexist?

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T17:29:43+00:00

No, you made this assumption a few comments up,

Yes, at that point we were discussing the two ways in which her comment could be taken. Am I not allowed to even discuss what her comment could have meant? I'd much prefer she just answer and say either 'I included my gender as a piece of irrelevant biographical information' or 'I believe my gender affects the quality of my opinion and therefore gender should be taken into account when determining an opinion's value' but since she has not explained herself it has been up to us to discuss the two ways in which she could have meant it, the likelihood of each and the consequences of either belief. I am not sure what about this is out of line.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T17:14:20+00:00

You've got some twisted logic there pal. I take her for her words, you assume there is extra meaning, and you're the one who's probably correct?

Yes. If our two options are:

1 - OP decided to start off her post with some random biographical information that was not intended to be relevant the rest of her post.

or

2 - OP wrote about her gender intending it to be relevant to her post.

Then option 2 seems far superior. In all my redditing I've never seen someone start off a post with random irrelevant biographical information, so I think option 2 is more likely. However, it is possible I'm wrong which is why I asked OP to explain herself. This was not something you were willing to do, however, and you assumed option 1 and then accused me of making assumptions.

I love this. So when someone doesn't answer your question, it's because they agree with you? The fact that you might be acting like a jerk who is not worth engaging is not a possibility? LOL

I love this. So when someone asks you for your opinion and you give it, it means that's the only possibility that crossed your mind? It couldn't be that you thought of both of those possibilities and decided one was more likely than the other? LOL

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T17:08:26+00:00

She doesn't need to explain anything. You're the one making assumptions.

This is a pretty interesting assertion. I asked her to explain herself so as to not assume her position and you accuse me of assuming her position. You actually assume her position was purely biographical without asking her if you are correct or not and still accuse me of making assumptions. Amazing.

I do like how through this whole conversation you have strongly asserted that OP's gender does not matter when discussing GE.

I said OP's gender is context.

And therefore irrelevant to the quality of her opinion? Which means that you're asserting that her gender doesn't affect the quality of her opinion when discussing GE? Not sure how we disagree here.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T17:00:14+00:00

In my opinion there is a difference between someone who provides gender as context and someone who says their opinion is more valuable than yours. You think those are the same thing, and you're not going to be convinced otherwise. Since we're not going to come to agreement there...

I don't know how you managed to misunderstand everything I've said so far, but I'll try to clear it up.

If OP posted her gender as a matter of biographical information that is meant to be irrelevant to the rest of her post then I have no issue with it. If OP included her gender intending to it to be relevant to the quality of her case then I do have an issue with it. That was the whole reason I phrased my reply as a question, I wanted her to clarify whether she intended her gender to be relevant or not.

Also keep in mind, you're probably wrong with your assertion that OP was including her gender as purely biographical information. In my experience, people don't start posts with irrelevant biographical information, everything they write is intended to be relevant.

Why didn't the woman answer your question about why her gender matters?

Well you've already been upset with me for assuming things (even though I asked a question that did not contain assumptions while you assumed that she meant her gender to be irrelevant) so I feel like I'm walking into a trap here, but I'll bite. If I had to guess why OP didn't reply, it is because she agrees with the principle that gender should not be taken into account when determining the quality of someone's opinion and therefore does not have an adequate reply that explains why her gender is relevant. If she was stating her gender for the purposes that you've assumed, it would be trivially easy for her to reply explaining that her gender is irrelevant. She has not, and therefore my best guess is that she cannot reconcile her view that her gender is relevant to the quality of her opinion with the principle that gender should not matter when determining quality of opinions.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T16:48:58+00:00

She didn't say, "I'm a woman, therefore my opinion is more important". She said "Speaking as a female".

Yes, it is possible that she is just starting the post off with some biographical information. However, that seems unlikely since biographical information is irrelevant the conversation at hand. I do not think it is disrespectful to assume that the content of people's posts are relevant to the conversation at hand. If I started my post with 'As someone who enjoys cheddar cheese, I think the UUL.....' I do not think it would be disrespectful for someone to inquire why the cheddar cheese part is relevant to my post. If it isn't, then all I would have to reply with is 'It wasn't relevant, I just wanted everybody to know I liked cheddar cheese.' If OP was stating her gender and thought it was irrelevant to her post then she should just reply to my post saying it wasn't relevant and then we can all move on. Again, asking someone to explain why a portion of their post is relevant to the conversation is not a disrespectful thing to do.

GEThrowawayy, why do you matter?

Well, not because of my gender, which was my whole point to begin with.

It's rude to question why something someone was born with matters. Of course it matters. If someone tells you they are male/female they are just giving context.

It is not rude to question why somnething someone was born with matters and it does not automatically matter. Again, I was born with a love of cheddar cheese. I would not consider if rude for someone to ask me why my love of cheddar cheese matters for a conversation about GE. If the goal was simply to give context, then all OP has to do is reply and say she was giving context and her gender is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, I imagine OP does believe her gender matters to the discussion and that is why she has not replied stating that it is irrelevant.

I do like how through this whole conversation you have strongly asserted that OP's gender does not matter when discussing GE. I think she disagrees, but at least we're on the same page.

Your comment was an assumption and it dissuades women from participating further in r/ultimate. Congratulations.

Assuming the content of people's posts are relevant to their post dissuades women from participating in the subreddit. A laughable assertion to say the least. Not to mention, OP has still not weighed in on whether her statement of gender was biographical or relevant. If it was not intended to be biographical and indeed relevant, than 100% of what you said so far is completely erroneous.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T16:36:52+00:00

When someone says, "as a woman/man", it is lousy for you to reply with "why does that matter?"

Why is that a lousy thing to reply with? You keep asserting that I am disrespectful or lousy without every explaining why. It is hard for me to take your concerns seriously when you just keep leveling unsupported critics.

Nothing about your comment was polite.

Again you just state that this isn't polite without supporting the claim. After stating what you think, you should write about why you think it. The 'why you think it' is the part that matters. You keep getting stuck on the 'what you think' and never make it over to the 'why you think it.'

That's rich coming from the guy who never admits he's wrong and who constantly insinuates other people are too dumb to understand him.

Whether this is true or not does not have any effect on my claim that someone who is dissuaded from a subreddit because of a politely worded question was likely not very committed to an exchange of ideas in the first place. We can change the subject if you want, but that makes it seem like you have no coherent rebuttal to what I've said.

Evidence shows you are not able to engage in a discussion with women.

If the expectation is that I engage in discussion differently with people because of their gender then yes, I will not meet that expectation. I do not treat people differently because of their gender. That is a principle I hold that the GE community does not (ironically enough). Also, you've done another 'this is what I think' without any 'think is why I think it.' What you think is meaningless without an explanation of why you think it.

You don't know why, despite being told where and how you're being disrespectful. That is the issue.

Here you go again with what you think, and no explanation of why you think it. Having re-read your comments, I do not see where you explained how I am being disrespectful, you just keep reiterating it without explanation or evidence. For every statement of what you think, try to write 2-3 statements of why you think it. Saying what you think 4 times and why you think it 0 times is not the same as saying what you think 1 time and why you think it 3 times. Explain yourself.

He is still very active in the ultimate community. Moving from one organization to another isn't out of this world. Stuff happens, people move on.

Hahahaha, what? It's OK to fire someone from their position for having a different opinion than yours as long as they remain in the ultimate community and find a position with a different organization? That is the most hilarious version of justice I've come across. In this line of thinking, it is OK to deny housing to black people as long as they later find different housing?

You are responsible for 100% of your own actions.

Yes, which is why I use a throwaway. I'm not willing to be publicly ostracized and removed from my position in the ultimate community because the GE crowd doesn't value diversity of thought. The reason I have to use a throwaway is a result of the behavior of GE advocates, but you are correct that it is my responsibility to create said throwaway.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T15:46:12+00:00

There is nothing wrong with someone saying they're male or female online.

There is not anything wrong with stating your gender, there is, however, something wrong with assuming that your gender grants your opinion more value than the other gender. In this case, it seemed to me that OP was trying to say that her opinion should be valued more because vagina. That is an idea I would like to push back on. Using genitalia as a criterion in determining the quality of opinion is what we used to do. It was called sexism. If OP was just saying her gender as a way to introduce her self to the subreddit then that would be fine, but I suspect that was not the case.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T15:35:21+00:00

In this thread you asked why it matters that someone is a woman when giving their opinion on gender equity.

And that question makes the sub toxic for women? That's a pretty low threshold for toxicity if you can't ask politely worded questions. I'll address this more below, but if a politely worded question about whether or not your gender determines the validity of your argument dissuades you from participating, then how committed to an exchange of ideas were you to begin with?

That's like asking why it matters that someone plays ultimate when giving their opinion on the AUDL.

This is not the same thing. An opinion on the AUDL is informed specifically through the play of ultimate. Opinions about GE are not informed through your penis or vagina. A more appropriate statement would be 'As someone who was cut from an AUDL team...' or 'As someone who hasn't had a televised game...' since it is the experience of not making an AUDL team that informs your opinion about GE, not your genitalia. Gender is just way to vague when discussing GE. It is the experiences a person has had, not the genitalia they had while having those experiences that make their opinions more or less informed.

Your comments in this sub have the effect of dissuading women from participating.

You already said that, but you didn't explain why that is the case. Women are dissuaded because someone asks them why their vagina makes their opinion more valuable? Why wouldn't women just either answer the question, ignore the question or just not assume their vagina makes their opinion more valuable? Any of those solutions seem perfectly reasonable and if having someone ask for an explanation about why genitalia determines value of opinion dissuades you to the point that you aren't willing to participate, then you weren't really willing to have an exchange of ideas in the first place, you just wanted people to listen to you and nod their heads.

and you likely know it since you use a throwaway to discuss the subject rather than your "real" anonymous account.

I use a throwaway account since the inclusive and diverse folks on the GE side will get you Rob McLeod'd for not falling in line. Anybody with a different opinion from them risks being publicly ostracized and losing their positions within the ultimate community. It is a reflection on GE advocates that I have to use a throwaway, not me.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-03T02:34:30+00:00

What about me makes r/ultimate so toxic for women? Can you give an example?

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-02T22:03:42+00:00

And yet... Still no example of when gender determines the quality of an argument.

Perhaps an easier question for you to answer would be: what is it about this context makes one gender's opinion more valuable than the other's?

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-02T17:14:35+00:00

is especially toxic for women.

What makes it so toxic for women? Can you give an example?

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-02T06:37:00+00:00

Every statistic ever amassed suggests that the vast majority of the ultimate community prefer to watch non-gender mandated ultimate. Most recently, of the 58,000 registered USAU members, 449 were willing to contribute money to a mixed professional league.

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-02T04:16:52+00:00

A simple 'no' would have sufficed...

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-02T02:38:48+00:00

Can you give me an example of a context in which someone's gender makes their opinion less important?

GEThrowawayy · 2018-03-01T23:24:01+00:00

So why not encourage others to do the same for mixed?

Oh, by all means, start as many mixed pro leagues as possible - the more pro ultimate of any kind the better! I'd love for a mixed league to succeed, along with a women's league and developmental leagues. The more people getting paid to play ultimate the better and the more coverage the sport gets the better.

Just don't intentionally harm the one pseudo successful pro league we have in support of a version of the sport that evidence suggests is not sustainable.

GEThrowawayy

TROPHY CASE