Quote from: Snowman0147;794132What demanding evidence to back up your statements is a game now?  What makes you think your above evidence?  So far I had seen the gamergate people, or those that can agree with them showing evidence to support their claims.

All you done was show a comic which isn't evidence.

No, no - you're doing it wrong! Since he's "not going to play your game" anymore, that means he wins, and nothing you say going forward makes any difference so you may as well not even try.

Shut up, relax, and just go with it, baby - it'll all be over soon....

Quote from: Warboss Squee;794147High level judgement? The fuck does that even mean?

'This is a deciduous forest.'

I gotta say that Will has finally convinced me. I mean, his arguments are logically sound. Furthermore, the statistics also back him up, just read it for yourselves:



Which clearly proves that



and therefore Gamersgate has a consistent policy of



All that proves that GG is all about promoting misogyny. Will was clearly right all along, and we should apologise for ever doubting him.

As an aside, funny statistical correlations:
http://twentytwowords.com/funny-graphs-show-correlation-between-completely-unrelated-stats-9-pictures/

Quote from: Haffrung;794097Yep. Outside certain zones of the internet, they're largely irrelevant.

Unless you're a college student in California, where they just passed a "yes means yes" law.

Quote from: Will;794121Of course feminism means a bunch of different things. That's one reason there's a range of what you can define 'GamerGate' as.

And yet your only definition of GG seems to be anti-feminist, that's not a range.

QuoteThe point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, however you define feminism, more than it's about anything else.

Okay Will, this right here, this is a CLAIM, in fact it's 2 claims:

1. The point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, ... more than it's about anything else. CLAIM 1: GG is more about anti-feminism than anything else.

2. however you define feminism, CLAIM 2: GG will meet CLAIM 1 regardless of how you define feminism.

A CLAIM by itself is empty of meaning, it is nothing but a bald assertion, anyone can claim anything. In order to make an argument you need to move on to step 2, GROUNDS. What EVIDENCE do you have to support your CLAIMS? In order to make your cases, and since you have CLAIM 2 you do in fact have "cases" rather than "case", you will need to provide evidence for CLAIM 1 for several definitions of "feminism". You will also need to provide WARRANTS for you GROUNDS, that means you need to JUSTIFY why the EVIDENCE you are using is GROUNDS for accepting you CLAIMS*.

Come back when you've done your homework.  

QuoteThe primary drive of GG is ideological warfare, not 'man, EA are being duplicitous dicks.'

If GG is an ideological stance, then it implies that feminism is an ideological stance, just another political ideology, rather than a moral or ethical system that should apply regardless of political ideology. Is that what you meant to imply?


Can you actually respond to one of my posts, or do you have so little faith in yourself and your beliefs that you will again take the cowards way out and talk around them without addressing me directly?


*Stephen Toulmin, Argumentation. There is a decent discussion on wikipedia; if you have to make arguments in an academic or professional setting you would be well served picking a copy up and learning to use it. By the way, this note is GROUNDS for the paragraph it is attached to, which is a CLAIM.

Quote from: Will;794136All I can say is, even if you all are right about what GG 'really' is, if you think you're winning the argument, you are huffing fumes. Felicia Day gets better airtime.

So does Rush Limbaugh.

Quote from: apparition13;794161And yet your only definition of GG seems to be anti-feminist, that's not a range.

Except as people have commented a bunch of times, 'feminism' constitutes a bunch of different things. So... it IS a range. Just around a given topic.

Quote from: apparition13;794161Okay Will, this right here, this is a CLAIM, in fact it's 2 claims:

1. The point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, ... more than it's about anything else. CLAIM 1: GG is more about anti-feminism than anything else.

2. however you define feminism, CLAIM 2: GG will meet CLAIM 1 regardless of how you define feminism.

A CLAIM by itself is empty of meaning, it is nothing but a bald assertion, anyone can claim anything. In order to make an argument you need to move on to step 2, GROUNDS. What EVIDENCE do you have to support your CLAIMS? In order to make your cases, and since you have CLAIM 2 you do in fact have "cases" rather than "case", you will need to provide evidence for CLAIM 1 for several definitions of "feminism". You will also need to provide WARRANTS for you GROUNDS, that means you need to JUSTIFY why the EVIDENCE you are using is GROUNDS for accepting you CLAIMS*.

Ok.
GG is not about a lot of things. It's not, for example, about the influence of Islam or Pokemon or Cosmic Rays on journalism. I can tell that by the lack of such topics being discussed by most people involved.

On the other hand, here and elsewhere, when people say 'it's not about feminism' they then proceed to say a bunch of stuff about how feminism is involved. It's happened many many many times in just this thread.

So, hey, evidence: read this thread.

Quote from: apparition13;794161If GG is an ideological stance, then it implies that feminism is an ideological stance, just another political ideology, rather than a moral or ethical system that should apply regardless of political ideology. Is that what you meant to imply?

The fact that you start with 'ideological' and then slip in 'political ideology' as if they were the same term is dishonest, to put it mildly.

Ideology doesn't have to be political ideology. It often isn't.

Of course feminism is an ideological stance. 'Women should be treated equally to men' is an ideological stance. From there, well, you get a bunch of other permutations and corollaries people argue about.

Quote from: apparition13;794161Can you actually respond to one of my posts, or do you have so little faith in yourself and your beliefs that you will again take the cowards way out and talk around them without addressing me directly?

It's your ability to discuss things rationally and honestly that I have very very VERY little faith in, even moreso after this post.

Oh and Will, one more thing. This ones an observation;

If your side is the one making blanket statements, and the other side is the side making nuanced statements, your side is the one exhibiting prejudice.

The "sombunall" statements all seem to be coming from the GG side, the "tar everyone with the same brush" statements are coming from your side.*




*I'm not a gamer, so I don't identify directly with either side. I am a liberal social scientist, but an empirical one not a postmodern one, so I'm aware that SJW "concerns" are controversial, not settled in academia, and I'm not on the PM side of that debate. The only direct exposure I have to the any of the anti-GG figures is a couple of Sarkeesian's vids, and since I've personally been boycotting CSI** et al. for similar reasons (I grew entirely fed up with the "kill the hot chick, and if she's not the murder victim then she's the killer" trope) I'm sympathetic to her viewpoint. On the other hand, I don't think people who like CSI et al. are broken or immoral, and see no point in trying to get producers to stop making the shows they like they way they like them.

Quote from: Will;794163Except as people have commented a bunch of times, 'feminism' constitutes a bunch of different things. So... it IS a range. Just around a given topic.

So pick a definition and make an argument.

QuoteOk.
GG is not about a lot of things. It's not, for example, about the influence of Islam or Pokemon or Cosmic Rays on journalism. I can tell that by the lack of such topics being discussed by most people involved.

Much better, a claim, and some reasoning toward evidence.

QuoteOn the other hand, here and elsewhere, when people say 'it's not about feminism' they then proceed to say a bunch of stuff about how feminism is involved. It's happened many many many times in just this thread.

So, hey, evidence: read this thread.

So use the multiquote function and make your argument.

QuoteThe fact that you start with 'ideological' and then slip in 'political ideology' as if they were the same term is dishonest, to put it mildly.

Ideology doesn't have to be political ideology. It often isn't.

I'm a political scientist, of course ideologies are political. "Two sides" is political, arguments over policy are political, arguments over what society should look like are political arguments. This whole tempest in a teapot is steeped in politics, politicking, political ideologies, and political arguments.

QuoteOf course feminism is an ideological stance. 'Women should be treated equally to men' is an ideological stance. From there, well, you get a bunch of other permutations and corollaries people argue about.

Very good, this is actually progress. When you say "permutations and corollaries" which ones are you including and which are you excluding when you are talking about feminism? Since you're not going to get anyone to (openly) disagree with "women should be treated equally to men", what policy package do you identify as feminist?

QuoteIt's your ability to discuss things rationally and honestly that I have very very VERY little faith in, even moreso after this post.

I got fed up with the way you were ducking my posts, so I decided to be an asshole. It seems to have broken the ice. Let's see where it goes, shall we?

Quote from: jhkim;794115So, Arroz, hypotheticals aside, do you identify as a feminist? Or would you say no, for example because you think feminism has been co-opted and is now harmful?

All I know is that I'm pro choice, pro equal pay, Pro equal opportunity, against domestic violence, sexual harrassment (depending on how it's defined, so no 'male gaze' bullshit), etc.

However, I'm not sure that in current feminism that would be enough to qualify me as an ally since I believe, for example, in due process even in accusations of rape. I don't believe that alleged victims get my belief unconditionally, etc. That is enough for a lot of people to consider me problematic at best, if not an outright woman hater.

I'd like to call myself one, but I doubt I've drank enough of the koolaid to be considered one by feminist activists.

QuoteMore broadly, how many pro-GamerGaters here identify as feminist?

There is at least two. Zack ( I think) and someone else whose username escapes me.

QuoteAs for the hashtag, I think it's a tricky to identify with a hashtag unless it has some sort of defined set of values or definitional statement. I consider the tag name itself stupid, like most "Gate" tags such as D&D5's ConsultancyGate. Nathan Grayson's supposed corruption in covering Depression Quest is in no way comparable to Watergate, especially since his positive mentions predate his relationship with the author. I'm willing to believe that there are some well-meaning people posting under the tag, but that's not going to get me to sign up to it.

Meh, the name is silly, as is DoritoGate, but that is irrelevant to the issues. I think that journalistic integrity is enough as a statement. The more one look into it, the more one may realize that this goes beyond Literally Who and Grayson. They're just one more point in a line of cases of conflicts of interest and sketchiness that stretches behind them and beyond them.

It bears mentioning, as well, that the people who have made this about their brand of 'social justice' are generally the same people involved in the sketchiness.

Quote from: apparition13;794167you're not going to get anyone to (openly) disagree with "women should be treated equally to men"

I guess I'd like to see everyone openly agree with this, without slipping a "but..." in after it.

Quote from: Will;794163On the other hand, here and elsewhere, when people say 'it's not about feminism' they then proceed to say a bunch of stuff about how feminism is involved. It's happened many many many times in just this thread.

Gee, i wonder which faction has generally tried to paint the whole movement as misogynist from the beginning-- what with accusations of slut shaming, woman hating and comparisons to Sarkeesian.

Quote from: apparition13;794167So pick a definition and make an argument.

His argument amounts to: "Because The Rock said so."

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794171His argument amounts to: "Because The Rock said so."

It's not a rhetorical question. Will said feminism includes a bunch of things, you listed a bunch, I'd like to see his bunch. I'm curious to see how much overlap there is; I anticipate it will be significant.

One of the problems I have here is that as it is used "feminist (and feminism)" is presented as an undifferentiated whole, ie. something one is or is not, rather than as a differentiated melange, ie. something one can be to more or less extent.

Some elements of GG are more in agreement, some less; anti-GG stereotypes them all as "not" rather than treating them as individuals. E.g. GG are harassers, rather than GG Jo(e) Blow is a harasser because he/she said X, while GG Chris Blow is pretty decent because he/she said not-X.

A lot of gamergate people are for equality, right to choose, hate abuse, and generally hate harassment.  Well actual harassment and none of that made up bullshit that social justice warriors made up.  Some youtubers who support gamergate are condoning trolls that make gamergate look bad.  Many gamergate people support some feminists too so it isn't a anti-feminists thing.  If it is anti-anything it is anti-social justice warrior because they constantly prove they do not support justice of any kind.