Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Tagaziel]

Akratus, to help you along, here's a helpful image:

EDIT: Oh, linking to GamerGhazi, I see? You do realize that it's a discussion board, not a movement, right? It isn't an organized movement any more than NMA is. Hell, it's even in the goddamn SR description:

We reject the label "Anti-GG," as we are not a movement in the same sense GG is. We are simply Gamergate's critics along with those directly threatened by the mob.
Pointing and laughing is not a "movement."

 

[Akratus]

It's weird how the thread jumps to page 30 without an actual post being made.

Anyway, i'd like to make a point here: You guys do see what this entire thread and forum spanning discussion is, right?

I thinks it's kind of hard not to see, after participating in or reading the discussion for dozens of pages, what it amounts to.

It's my and others' libertarian views on the rights of the self, versus the conservative liberalism Sander and Tagaziel have taken to heart. This is the reason we hold so different views, why we do not concede anything to one another (mostly), and why this was, and always will be, an impasse.

It's not that either of us is more right than the other, but that we disagree on a fundamental level.

 

[Sander]

I've also said that we disagree on what constitutes harassment.

And this is why people say GamerGate condones harassment. Because you idiots will defend a ridiculous amount of harmful behavior and then go "but we don't condone harassment" even when everyone else sees that behavior as harassment. Because you'll defend the inciting of a hate mob toward Randi Harper over her painting her dog for a hospital charity with pet-safe dye. And then you'll repost that here and go "what? I'm just reposting things. Nothing wrong with that! I'm not the one digging into her personal life, that's just the person whose content I'm copy-pasting and I have absolutely nothing to do with that!" Thus you're participating in spreading noxious bullshit whose only purpose was to incite harassment.

When you go "that's just the internet" you are perpetuating the problem by normalizing and rationalizing incredibly toxic behavior. That is why people see GamerGate as a heap of terrible with no redeeming qualities. And yes, you have the right to be all "but I don't think that's harassment". And everyone else gets to think you're delusional asshole for it. People being inundated with hateful messages should not be normal!

And yes, StopGamerGate2014 and GamerGhazi are both things. If people posting things in GamerGhazi do bad things, it would be natural to go to other people in GamerGhazi and go "Hey folks, this person is a shitbag and he's doing terrible things". And then those people in GamerGhazi get to kick that person out. And if they don't, you get to judge everyone who stays in GamerGhazi for associating with a known terrible person. But GamerGate can't do that and frequently refuses to do that because it's a decentralized hashtag. And thus everyone who joins that movement is joining a movement with a long history of toxic behavior and harassment. That's a bad thing! If you want to not be associated with that, don't join a movement with that history. Start an actual organized something where you can kick people out and regulate behavior.

However, neither GamerGhazi nor StopGamerGate2014 is anti-gamergate. They are specific, identifiable groups that people voluntarily join, like GamerGate. People can stop being a part of GamerGhazi or StopgamerGate2014 very, very easily. But they can't stop being a part of anti-GamerGate because that's an opinion. It's like asking people to stop being a part of Star-Wars-is-a-good-movie because some other people who think Star Wars is a good movie are harassing folks.

Do you still not see the difference between a movement you join, and an opinion?

 

[Tagaziel]

It's my and others' libertarian views on the rights of the self, versus the conservative liberalism Sander and Tagaziel have taken to heart. This is the reason we hold so different views, why we do not concede anything to one another (mostly), and why this was, and always will be, an impasse.

Suuure, you're all about the rights of the self, just how the Confederacy was about the rights of the states.

 

[TheWesDude]

you know, i used to enjoy an odd assortment of movies:

Cecil B DeMilles Ten Commandments
A Walk to Remember
Bridge to Terebithia
Princess Bride
The Professional ( Leon )
Shawshank Redemption
Contact
Network
Tango & Cash
Grosse Pointe Blank
Stargate
The Avengers
Serenity
Legion
Firefly
Red Dawn
Monty Python movies
Yes Man
Liar Liar

but now, thanks to feminists, i know these are bullshit movies so full of tropes and misogyny and sexist discrimination that we should just ban all of them and burn them. hell, how many of them can pass the simple Bechdel test? NONE! BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND!

 

[Akratus]

I've also said that we disagree on what constitutes harassment.

And this is why people say GamerGate condones harassment. Because you idiots will defend a ridiculous amount of harmful behavior and then go "but we don't condone harassment" even when everyone else sees that behavior as harassment. Because you'll defend the inciting of a hate mob toward Randi Harper over her painting her dog for a hospital charity with pet-safe dye. And then you'll repost that here and go "what? I'm just reposting things. Nothing wrong with that! I'm not the one digging into her personal life, that's just the person whose content I'm copy-pasting and I have absolutely nothing to do with that!" Thus you're participating in spreading noxious bullshit whose only purpose was to incite harassment.

When you go "that's just the internet" you are perpetuating the problem by normalizing and rationalizing incredibly toxic behavior. That is why people see GamerGate as a heap of terrible with no redeeming qualities. And yes, you have the right to be all "but I don't think that's harassment". And everyone else gets to think you're delusional asshole for it. People being inundated with hateful messages should not be normal!

But that's the thing. Regardless of how I feel about it it won't go away. Social Justice has never stopped anyone from being a dick on the internet. Regardless of whether I condone it it is the reality. Shouting at it does nothing. When people do bad shit on the internet, sure I dislike it. Heck, i've made many comments on twitter to gamergaters about how one shouldn't be too quick to antagonize. Can you guess how many people I've impacted that way?

My question to you is: Why waste your time with moral panics that do nothing, instead of promoting actual good will where it can actually be fostered?

you know, i used to enjoy an odd assortment of movies:

Cecil B DeMilles Ten Commandments
A Walk to Remember
Bridge to Terebithia
Princess Bride
The Professional ( Leon )
Shawshank Redemption
Contact
Network
Tango & Cash
Grosse Pointe Blank
Stargate
The Avengers
Serenity
Legion
Firefly
Red Dawn
Monty Python movies
Yes Man
Liar Liar

but now, thanks to feminists, i know these are bullshit movies so full of tropes and misogyny and sexist discrimination that we should just ban all of them and burn them. hell, how many of them can pass the simple Bechdel test? NONE! BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND!

Sander, Tagz, look closely. THIS is a strawman.

Although I will admit I've seen social justice warriors equating media to garbage for the tiniest betrayal of their ideals. It's quite funny actually.

http://canonicalmomentum.tumblr.com/post/103318149812/blood-and-vitriol-snow-anne

 

[Sander]

But that's the thing. Regardless of how I feel about it it won't go away. Social Justice has never stopped anyone from being a dick on the internet. Regardless of whether I condone it it is the reality. Shouting at it does nothing. When people do bad shit on the internet, sure I dislike it. Heck, i've made many comments on twitter to gamergaters about how one shouldn't be too quick to antagonize. Can you guess how many people I've impacted that way?

My question to you is: Why waste your time with moral panics that do nothing, instead of promoting actual good will where it can actually be fostered?

"That's just the way it is": theme song of defenders of the status quo everywhere. No need to change or condemn anything. That won't do anything! Too bad that's not true, though: social pressure is a very effective tool in changing and limiting behavior, and widespread awareness of harassment and acknowledgement that it's terrible will help in changing attitudes toward harassment, which will help limit it and will help in getting some laws passed -- which only happens with popular awareness. And that awareness has also helped in getting social platforms to be more active in combating harassment, as Twitter and Facebook and others have made policy changes in response to outrage and improved tools for reporting harassment.

Here's a thing you could do about harassment: how about you don't join a movement filled with, defending, condoning and promoting it? How about you stop rationalizing and defending harassment with "that's just the way it is"? Because that is actively making the situation worse.

I love that "libertarian" vs "conservative liberalism" framing, though. Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive. There's no shame in being conservative, though.

 

[TheWesDude]

damnit Akratus, how dare you point out the flaw in my post! i thought we were bro's!

:brokenheart:


now, here is a problem that the "anti-GG" people have. they consider referring to and talking about publicly posted information as harassment/doxxing.

if you post up pictures of you dying your pet, especially with one of the pictures where the pet appears to have a "kill me now" expression... not harassment

if you post up the address for publicity materials to an actresses' agent, not doxxing.

if you talk about tweets someone made without marking them private, not harassment.

if you talk about facebook posts/pictures publicly flagged for everyone, not harassment.

insulting someone on the internet, not harassment.


Tagz, im dissapointed.

you say that GamerGate is about harassment because some people are harassing people.

pro-GG people say that the few people doing harassment are not representative of GG. ill grant you the Scotsman.

the problem is, extending the "blame" or "responsibility" of the harassment/attacks people have received to the entire movement requires a logical fallacy, Ad Infinitum. i keep pointing this out, and you keep ignoring it. you DO know that when we reply with the Scotsman, we are not using that as a scapegoat, but rather to try and point out to you the flaw in your argument. or if you want to think of it another way, you are guilty of the Association fallacy, usually phrased as "guilty by association".

its funny really, anti-GG use a logical fallacy, GG responds with another logical fallacy, anti-GG latches on and focuses on the logical fallacy rather than realizing their initial logical fallacy caused the response.

its face palmage territory really.

 

[Sander]

Yes, TheWesDude, your posts certainly are consistently facepalm-worthy.

 

[BigBoss]

and why this was, and always will be, an impasse.

I've been saying so for the last thirty+ pages. But +rads anyways.

It's my and others' libertarian views on the rights of the self, versus the conservative liberalism Sander and Tagaziel have taken to heart. This is the reason we hold so different views, why we do not concede anything to one another (mostly), and why this was, and always will be, an impasse.

Suuure, you're all about the rights of the self, just how the Confederacy was about the rights of the states.

You're poking into a thick issue here that has been argued about for decades. There are a lot of people who see the issue different. While slavery was one of the large reasons the Union declared war, it's not a primary cause of why the southern populace supported the war. Of course the slave trade was a large business industry in the South at the time that they didn't want to loose, this wasn't the primary reason the civilian population supported the South. Maybe the slave trade was why the South abandoned the Union, but the people of the nation supported it because of state's rights. Not everybody in the South was rich enough to own a slave. As a matter of fact, a large majority weren't. The only people who could afford to buy slaves were people who owned successful plantations, which was a small percentage of the population. Slavery wasn't the sole cause of the populace's support of the state government's decision to defect.

 

[Akratus]

But that's the thing. Regardless of how I feel about it it won't go away. Social Justice has never stopped anyone from being a dick on the internet. Regardless of whether I condone it it is the reality. Shouting at it does nothing. When people do bad shit on the internet, sure I dislike it. Heck, i've made many comments on twitter to gamergaters about how one shouldn't be too quick to antagonize. Can you guess how many people I've impacted that way?

My question to you is: Why waste your time with moral panics that do nothing, instead of promoting actual good will where it can actually be fostered?

"That's just the way it is": theme song of defenders of the status quo everywhere. No need to change or condemn anything. That won't do anything! Too bad that's not true, though: social pressure is a very effective tool in changing and limiting behavior, and widespread awareness of harassment and acknowledgement that it's terrible will help in changing attitudes toward harassment, which will help limit it and will help in getting some laws passed -- which only happens with popular awareness. And that awareness has also helped in getting social platforms to be more active in combating harassment, as Twitter and Facebook and others have made policy changes in response to outrage and improved tools for reporting harassment.

Here's a thing you could do about harassment: how about you don't join a movement filled with, defending, condoning and promoting it? How about you stop rationalizing and defending harassment with "that's just the way it is"? Because that is actively making the situation worse.

I love that "libertarian" vs "conservative liberalism" framing, though. Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive. There's no shame in being conservative, though.

I'm not saying change is impossible. I'm saying change in the unwashed mashes of the internet is impossible. It's always gotta be absolute with you?

I'm anti-feminist, everyone who disagrees with you is conservative, and critics of feminism are mra's. . . .

Sander. You know for a fact,

The world is not that simple.

I suppose I don't know the full meaning of the words libertarian, liberal or conservative. But you have to admit, you're on the far left side of things. You are advocating strict moral code. I am advocating the free spirit of man, ugly-side and all, as far as speech goes. You can't deny, that's the truth of this.

Spoiler

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel progressive.

I'm afraid of migraines again.

---

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s execution-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

 

[Sander]

The Civil War and the Confederacy were both about slavery. Explicitly. That's what every single declaration of secession or equivalent document talked about. The South walked away from the Union because they wanted to preserve slavery. Not because of states' rights -- they had no problem with federal power as long as it supported slavery. But because they believed that establishing a society based on the inferiority of the black race was what they had to do. Because they believed, correctly, that their entire economic structure was built on slavery and would be severely harmed without it -- or at least, the white people in the South would be harmed without it.

Incidentally, this is a clear and obvious consensus among academic historians. It's not remotely controversial. And yet, I know that many high schools (especially in the South) teach, effectively, bullshit history about states' rights. Nope. No state seceded because of federal overreach. You will not find any reference to states' rights in declarations of secession that are not in the context of slavery. It is genuinely that simple.

I'm not saying change is impossible. I'm saying change in the unwashed mashes of the internet is impossible. It's always gotta be absolute with you?

It doesn't have to be absolute, Akratus. But here's the thing: people are trying to limit the damage the "unwashed mashes" of the internet are doing through a variety of means. You, on the other hand, have consistently aligned yourself with them. As has GamerGate. And that is harmful.

Also just to add, you didn't say that at all. You said that, and I quote, "social justice has never stopped anyone from being a dick on the internet". It has, though. It's helped limit platforms for assholes, it's helped sharpen terms of service, it's helped raise awareness both on and off the internet which has led to increased legal means to stop harassment. As I noted above.

But you have to admit, you're on the far left side of things. You are advocating strict moral code. I am advocating the free spirit of man, ugly-side and all, as far as speech goes. You can't deny, that's the truth of this.

Far left and conservative liberal are two completely different things. And yes, I am advocating that people should not behave like assholes. I would not call that a "strict moral code" -- people can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they're not harming others. But mental harm is as real as physical harm, and harassment is no less harmful because it happens on the internet.

Incidentally, you have not been consistently in favor of free speech at all. You've advocated using advertisers to pressure publishers to not publish speech you disagree with.

 

[Akratus]

The Civil War and the Confederacy were both about slavery. Explicitly. That's what every single declaration of secession or equivalent document talked about. The South walked away from the Union because they wanted to preserve slavery. Not because of states' rights -- they had no problem with federal power as long as it supported slavery. But because they believed that establishing a society based on the inferiority of the black race was what they had to do. Because they believed, correctly, that their entire economic structure was built on slavery and would be severely harmed without it -- or at least, the white people in the South would be harmed without it.

Incidentally, this is a clear and obvious consensus among academic historians. It's not remotely controversial. And yet, I know that many high schools (especially in the South) teach, effectively, bullshit history about states' rights. Nope. No state seceded because of federal overreach. You will not find any reference to states' rights in declarations of states' rights that is not in the context of slavery. It is genuinely that simple.

Except for the fact that the south was made up of people of all kinds and it wasn't one big enslaving mob. We can see what is unjust, and not see a grouping of people as a mere force of injustice. Merely as what it truly was. An undefinable mass. You could've talked to two politicians from the south and found many things they disagree on. But otherwise,

"they had no problem with federal power as long as it supported slavery. But because they believed that establishing a society based on the inferiority of the black race was what they had to do. Because they believed, correctly, that their entire economic structure was built on slavery and would be severely harmed without it -- or at least, the white people in the South would be harmed without it. "

The use of "they." strikes me. I use it too, and I dislike that. It does us no good to make history or present issues black and white even in part. There's good people on every side of every war ever fought. Cultural wars too, though I despise the term. We must never forget that under the wrong circumstances, you and me both would resort to vile things. Not saying you don't know any of this, just advising for the sake of it.

I'm not saying change is impossible. I'm saying change in the unwashed mashes of the internet is impossible. It's always gotta be absolute with you?

It doesn't have to be absolute, Akratus. But here's the thing: people are trying to limit the damage the "unwashed mashes" of the internet are doing through a variety of means. You, on the other hand, have consistently aligned yourself with them. As has GamerGate. And that is harmful.

But you're not giving Gamergate enough credit. If you count both genuine trolls and sjw hating idiots as the unwashed masses besides vocal critics like IA, gamergate denounces the majority at least.

I still wonder very much what makes you say that the internet aristocrat's videos, who, rather than for any personal reason, criticizes people left and right, for their actions, is somehow reprehensible.

But you have to admit, you're on the far left side of things. You are advocating strict moral code. I am advocating the free spirit of man, ugly-side and all, as far as speech goes. You can't deny, that's the truth of this.

Far left and conservative liberal are two completely different things. And yes, I am advocating that people should not behave like assholes. I would not call that a "strict moral code" -- people can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they're not harming others. But mental harm is as real as physical harm, and harassment is no less harmful because it happens on the internet.

Nigga. How is cyberbullying real. Close your eyes. Walk away from the screen.

Incidentally, you have not been consistently in favor of free speech at all. You've advocated using advertisers to pressure publishers to not publish speech you disagree with.

I haven't sent any e-mails myself. I don't think I ever sat down and thought about whether sending these e-mails is advisable, or doing any good. However it is clearly a symptom of a consumer with no other options left.

 

[Sander]

The fact that the Civil War and the Confederacy were about slavery does not make any individual fighting for the Confederacy evil, obviously. But this changes nothing about the fact that that's why the Civil War was fought, and that that was the purpose of the Confederacy. A lot of very careful, historical scholarship has gone into determining that. You can go read lots and lots and lots of stuff on it if you want all the nuances and individual tales and whatnot. It is not particularly relevant to general statements of purpose of a movement.


Also, please don't use racial slurs here, Akratus. This is not 4chan or the Codex.

gamergate denounces the majority at least.

1) You are defending harassment in this very post.
2) Once again: GamerGate doesn't get to distance itself from the harassment perpetrated in its name and as a result of its actions, because it can't. Going "yeah but we don't like it" doesn't matter when a part of your movement explicitly engages in it. It does nothing. You can't expel those people because of how you're set up. And you're giving them a platform consistently, by promoting assholes, harassers and stalkers like Mike Cernovich and RogueStar and fartchives. This is how your movement functions. You joined that movement. That is toxic as fuck. You, however, can distance yourself from this: by not being a part of GamerGate!

How is cyberbullying real. Close your eyes. Walk away from the screen.

"We don't defend harassment" /defends harassment. Go ask some mental health professionals about bullying and cyberbullying. Or use Google. It's not that hard.

And maybe stop pretending that all that's happening is cyberbullying, too.

However it is clearly a symptom of a consumer with no other options left.

See? Now you're defending it. Those consumers do have other options. They can go read other things. The demand that those outlets cater specifically to them is ridiculous. There are tons of outlets out there that don't bother with social critiques much. They can go read them! It's not that hard!

 

[Akratus]

The fact that the Civil War and the Confederacy were about slavery does not make any individual fighting for the Confederacy evil, obviously. But this changes nothing about the fact that that's why the Civil War was fought, and that that was the purpose of the Confederacy. A lot of very careful, historical scholarship has gone into determining that. You can go read lots and lots and lots of stuff on it if you want all the nuances and individual tales and whatnot. It is not particularly relevant to general statements of purpose of a movement.

Oh I agree completely. I just squint at your use of, for example, "or at least, the white people in the South would be harmed without it. " There were plenty of people in the south that didn't benefit from slavery.

gamergate denounces the majority at least.

1) You are defending harassment in this very post.

A collective gasp of horror, from the entire nma community, ensues.

2) Once again: GamerGate doesn't get to distance itself from the harassment perpetrated in its name and as a result of its actions, because it can't. Going "yeah but we don't like it" doesn't matter when a part of your movement explicitly engages in it. It does nothing. You can't expel those people because of how you're set up. And you're giving them a platform consistently, by promoting assholes, harassers and stalkers like Mike Cernovich and RogueStar and fartchives. This is how your movement functions. You joined that movement. That is toxic as fuck. You, however, can distance yourself from this: by not being a part of GamerGate!

Say I'm a developer being given a platform on streams to talk very civilly about my issues. And a bunch of gamergaters I have nothing to do with over there are hanging around Cernovich, Roguestar and farchives. Should I just forget about talking about the serious issues that affect me, just because to anti-gg, gamergate is a boogyman? And yes, plenty of developers have been seriously impacted by anti-gg.

How is cyberbullying real. Close your eyes. Walk away from the screen.

"We don't defend harassment" /defends harassment. Go ask some mental health professionals about bullying and cyberbullying. Or use Google. It's not that hard.

I will. As soon as you tell me why a person who can't handle having gamergate respond reasonably and unreasonably and aggressively to them calling their movement every bad word they can think of, can't merely lock down their social media.

And maybe stop pretending that all that's happening is cyberbullying, too.

Some people have lost their jobs, or been doxxed, etc. on both sides. Gamergate as a whole is not responsible for it, as they are individual actions. Neither me nor gamergate as a whole condones it. But idiotic messages on twitter have nothing to do with that. And those messages are mere pixels and binary code. To pretend it can cause mental harm in anyone but an unstable person who makes bad decisions is silly to me.

However it is clearly a symptom of a consumer with no other options left.

See? Now you're defending it. Those consumers do have other options. They can go read other things. The demand that those outlets cater specifically to them is ridiculous. There are tons of outlets out there that don't bother with social critiques much. They can go read them! It's not that hard!

If every. single. mainstream. press. organization. for gaming, is at least in part corrupt, and in support of the same agenda, there are no equivalent places left to go.

 

[Sander]

Oh I agree completely. I just squint at your use of, for example, "or at least, the white people in the South would be harmed without it. " There were plenty of people in the south that didn't benefit from slavery.

White people, as a group would be harmed by the abandonment of slavery. This does not mean that every individual white person would be worse off, obviously.

Say I'm a developer being given a platform on streams to talk very civilly about my issues. And a bunch of gamergaters I have nothing to do with over there are hanging around Cernovich, Roguestar and farchives. Should I just forget about talking about the serious issues that affect me, just because to anti-gg, gamergate is a boogyman? And yes, plenty of developers have been seriously impacted by anti-gg.

No. And I don't see how this argument touches on anything I've said. Now, if said developer was a member of GamerGate they should probably stop being a member of GamerGate.

Gamergate as a whole is not responsible for it, as they are individual actions.

Once again, GamerGate is responsible for everything that happens under its heading, because it has no way of disavowing or excluding *anyone*. The people doing that are a part of GamerGate. Those are the people you are aligning yourself with, explicitly, when you join GamerGate. This is not such a difficult concept.

I will. As soon as you tell me why a person who can't handle having gamergate respond reasonably and unreasonably and aggressively to them calling their movement every bad word they can think of, can't merely lock down their social media.

Because the onus should not be on the person being harmed to remove themselves from public conversations (or any other activity) to stop harassment. The onus should be on the people harassing others to stop doing that.

Again: you are defending harassment. Explicitly.

If every. single. mainstream. press. organization. for gaming, is at least in part corrupt, and in support of the same agenda, there are no equivalent places left to go.

Except this is nonsense. They can go read IGN, which has almost no social commentary. They can go read PC Gamer, which barely has any. They can go read any number of magazines, online and offline. They can go read all of the GamerGate-specific sites that spawned. They can go watch, read and listen to TotalBiscuit. There's plenty of stuff for them to consume. They do not need Kotaku and Polygon to cater to them.

Also, once again, using advertisers to pressure publishers is the exact opposite of fighting corruption.

 

[Akratus]

Oh I agree completely. I just squint at your use of, for example, "or at least, the white people in the South would be harmed without it. " There were plenty of people in the south that didn't benefit from slavery.

White people, as a group would be harmed by the abandonment of slavery.

How is the race harmed specifically?

This does not mean that every individual white person would be worse off, obviously.

Say I'm a developer being given a platform on streams to talk very civilly about my issues. And a bunch of gamergaters I have nothing to do with over there are hanging around Cernovich, Roguestar and farchives. Should I just forget about talking about the serious issues that affect me, just because to anti-gg, gamergate is a boogyman? And yes, plenty of developers have been seriously impacted by anti-gg.

No. And I don't see how this argument touches on anything I've said. Now, if said developer was a member of GamerGate they should probably stop being a member of GamerGate.

Anti-gg in general sees all devs who talk with gamergate as supporting gamergate.

Gamergate as a whole is not responsible for it, as they are individual actions.

Once again, GamerGate is responsible for everything that happens under its heading, because it has no way of disavowing or excluding *anyone*. The people doing that are a part of GamerGate. Those are the people you are aligning yourself with, explicitly, when you join GamerGate. This is not such a difficult concept.

It is not difficult, but it is 100% untrue.

Once again, GamerGate is responsible for everything that happens under its heading

If you believe this you are a moron.

I will. As soon as you tell me why a person who can't handle having gamergate respond reasonably and unreasonably and aggressively to them calling their movement every bad word they can think of, can't merely lock down their social media.

Because the onus should not be on the person being harmed to remove themselves from public conversations (or any other activity) to stop harassment. The onus should be on the people harassing others to stop doing that.

If every. single. mainstream. press. organization. for gaming, is at least in part corrupt, and in support of the same agenda, there are no equivalent places left to go.

Except this is nonsense. They can go read IGN, which has almost no social commentary. They can go read PC Gamer, which barely has any. They can go read any number of magazines, online and offline. They can go read all of the GamerGate-specific sites that spawned. They can go watch, read and listen to TotalBiscuit. There's plenty of stuff for them to consume. They do not need Kotaku and Polygon to cater to them.

IGN is at least in part corrupt, pcgamer is pro-sj, and no youtuber or gamergate website has as much acess into industry information. The big websites are the ones getting the dev interviews, broadcast cons etc. and they are all corrupt, into sj, or both.

Also, once again, using advertisers to pressure publishers is the exact opposite of fighting corruption.

Fighting corruption is the opposite of fighting corruption?

---

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2pwrd0/rejoice_gamerghazi_is_now_officially_a_movement/

 

[Sander]

Didn't see this before

Not everybody in the South was rich enough to own a slave. As a matter of fact, a large majority weren't. The only people who could afford to buy slaves were people who owned successful plantations, which was a small percentage of the population. Slavery wasn't the sole cause of the populace's support of the state government's decision to defect.

And not everyone in the South supported secession. Far from it. For instance, most black people in the South didn't. And there were plenty of white people who didn't. But the poor, white people in the South who did support secession did so mostly because of slavery, for a couple of reasons. One of them was that they tended to aspire to become slaveholders -- the American dream and all. Another one was that while they were poor, at least they weren't black -- that social distinction would be lost with the end of slavery (or so they thought). A third reason was that they understood that the entire Southern economy was built on slavery, and that it would likely collapse without slavery. Collapsed economies are bad for poor people. And we know all this because there are tons of primary sources out there that talk about this, from magazines to speeches to soldiers' letters and more.

Now, I'm sure there were some individuals who supported secession for different reasons. But by and large, poor, white people who supported secession did so because of slavery. Because everyone understood that's what the war was about.

How?

How would white people as a group be harmed by the loss of slavery? I don't know, what do you think happens to a dominant group when you take away an external, free source of labor that their entire economy is built on?

Fighting corruption is the opposite of fighting corruption?

Advertising influencing coverage is the number one most blatant form of journalistic corruption there is. And that's what GamerGate is encouraging.

Just as you continue to defend harassment. I keep pointing this out because you keep insisting that GamerGate doesn't do that. And they're all individuals. Well, your individual ass is defending harassment. And continues to do so.

 

[TorontoReign]

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2pwrd0/rejoice_gamerghazi_is_now_officially_a_movement/

This thread is a farce. Why the fuck is Gamergate being defended again? It's worthless.

 

[Akratus]

How?

How would white people as a group be harmed by the loss of slavery? I don't know, what do you think happens to a dominant group when you take away an external, free source of labor that their entire economy is built on?

It would be bad for those involved with and affected by the southern american economy. Not all white people. And not all american white people either. Most white people in the south maybe. But choosing to mention their race over anything else is. . .

Fighting corruption is the opposite of fighting corruption?

Advertising influencing coverage is the number one most blatant form of journalistic corruption there is. And that's what GamerGate is encouraging.

There's plenty of websites that post social justice articles that aren't targeted by gamergate. The targets of gamergate's emails are not based on whether they support social justice or not. If you believe that, you've been misinformed.

Just as you continue to defend harassment. I keep pointing this out because you keep insisting that GamerGate doesn't do that. And they're all individuals. Well, your individual ass is defending harassment. And continues to do so.

Continue. My feelings will surely be hurt if you continue to repeat yourself. You can do it! I believe in you!