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

No, that's "because Stone Cold said so."  The Rock is "IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!"

jg

Saying all ideologies are political is not the same as saying all ideologies are political ideologies.

There's a difference between a religion being embroiled in and having a political dimension and Republican ideology.

And, again, it does not fill me with boundless optimism in the ROI on working at this argument if I have to double back and tack down basic stuff like this.

Quote from: Will;794124What fucking sense does that make?

GG: 'It's not about anti-feminism!'
SJW: 'Yes it is!'
GG: 'I'm going to prove it with a lot of chatter about how feminism and SJWs are horrible!'


Acting as a mirror of SJW just proves their point, so if you are trying to show them up, you're... sucking at it.

No idea what you're talking about. You said:

QuoteIf journalistic integrity was the core focus of GG, we'd be seeing a range of views unrelated to Social Justice, liberalism, and so forth. We'd be seeing liberals raging against GOP pro-business, we'd be seeing all sorts of stuff.

And I merely pointed out that you can't critisize one side for something you could equally say about the other side. We've already established this is a war between two groups of slactivists. SJWs don't have any highground as far as that goes. We're not seeing wider views of social equality being expressed, just complaints over "Gamer" as a stereotype and the portrayal of women in videogames.

Quote from: Will;794127There is no evidence that would convince you, so, yeah, not playing your game.

I'm with Hutchinson on this one: "A claim without evidence may be dismissed without evidence". I'm not on either side of the GG thing so evidence WOULD convince me, I have no stake in videogames, I havent seriously played any since Zelda was a cereal. But what I'm seeing is tons of accusations, and nothing damning to back them up.
\
You're not obligated to provide any, of course. But that also means that the default assumption is going to be that you're wrong.

Quote from: Will;794136Evidence for something which is a high level judgement of trends of a largescale movement? How exactly am I supposed to provide that?

Any singular examples can be shot down as anecdotal/outliers, whether by me or you.

Sure, but it was you who made the claim that GG was largely about antifeminism or misogyny. That means that supposedly youve encouuntered those sentiments from the majority of posters using the GG hashtag. Otherwise what you're describing is not " high level  judgement" but prejudgment.

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

Level 15 or above.

Quote from: Werekoala;794085Presented for your consideration:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/25/While-the-Media-Slanders-Gamers-as-Terrorists-GamerGate-Is-Hunting-Trolls-and-Abusers

On one hand, ugh!  Breitbart again!

On the other hand, thanks for the link.  It's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping GamerGate would do.

Quote from: Will;794190Saying all ideologies are political is not the same as saying all ideologies are political ideologies.

There's a difference between a religion being embroiled in and having a political dimension and Republican ideology.

And, again, it does not fill me with boundless optimism in the ROI on working at this argument if I have to double back and tack down basic stuff like this.

Will, ideological conflict, like what is happening in the Catholic Church right now, is political conflict. The council of Nicaea was a political conflict. Martin Luther was a politician as well as a preacher. The textbook definitions (as in the ones you read in 100 level PoliSci textbooks) are "who gets what, when and why" and "the authoritative allocation of value". Feminism is bound up in "who gets what, when and why", and it certainly has standpoints on what values should be authoritatively allocated. This is me tacking down basic, as in 100 level, political science stuff.

That said, how political scientists think about and study ideology isn't the issue in our discussion, it's feminism. If you want to have a discussion, then you need to tack down your basic stuff so you and I (or whoever) are on the same page. ArrozConLeche said "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. Does supporting everything in that list, but not buying into "male gaze" disqualify ArrozConLeche from claiming to support feminism? What other components do you think are missing? Do you view it as an all in or nothing situation, where you're either with feminism or against it depending on whether you agree to every single possible anyone has ever suggested is integral to feminism? If not, what would you say are the core issues? Do you ever disagree with what a particular feminist says about a particular issue? If yes, what would be an example?

I don't need you to nail down everything, just provide a starting point.

Or don't. Keep up the unsupported assertions, don't engage, don't discuss, don't investigate, don't bother. After all, that has always been how the successful agents for social change have operated. Oh hang on, no, it's exactly the opposite.

Quote from: jhkim;794115More broadly, how many pro-GamerGaters here identify as feminist?

As 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.

I'm more like Pro-feminist than feminist, as I do not define myself as a feminist, but see it as a good thing that is needed as a leverage to get equality.
I do not think it truly stand for equality in itself.
That is what ... some other word ... stands for.

I saw myself as pro-GamerGate, but arguments has pointed out that it may not be very important.
I may still defend it because others seem to think it is important, and I find it wrong when people call others misogynist by false association.

Quote from: apparition13;794205Or don't. Keep up the unsupported assertions, don't engage, don't discuss, don't investigate, don't bother. After all, that has always been how the successful agents for social change have operated. Oh hang on, no, it's exactly the opposite.

I attempted, but when people can't or won't even understand basic stuff that I'm saying, what's the point?

And I'm not an agent of social change, I'm a random guy chatting about news of the day on an online forum about gaming.

By 'anti-feminist,' by the way, what I'm saying is that GamerGate is about decrying some type of feminism. This ranges from the misogynist fucktards who think women should shut up and get out of gaming to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism.

The range of people involved is _precisely because_ 'being against feminism' can be taken in so many ways, and the movement is verminous _precisely because_ the topic and loose structure is a beacon for people taking it the worst way possible.

Addendum:
I think it's totally possible to be a feminist who is concerned about Sarkeesian and so on and considers themself a GamerGater.
I think it's _fucking stupid_ to associate with GamerGate as a feminist, but it's possible.

Quote from: Will;794239I attempted, but when people can't or won't even understand basic stuff that I'm saying, what's the point?

And I'm not an agent of social change, I'm a random guy chatting about news of the day on an online forum about gaming.

By 'anti-feminist,' by the way, what I'm saying is that GamerGate is about decrying some type of feminism. This ranges from the misogynist fucktards who think women should shut up and get out of gaming to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism.

The range of people involved is _precisely because_ 'being against feminism' can be taken in so many ways, and the movement is verminous _precisely because_ the topic and loose structure is a beacon for people taking it the worst way possible.

Addendum:
I think it's totally possible to be a feminist who is concerned about Sarkeesian and so on and considers themself a GamerGater.
I think it's _fucking stupid_ to associate with GamerGate as a feminist, but it's possible.

Yeah, you can go fuck off now, thanks.

Quote from: Will;794239I attempted, but when people can't or won't even understand basic stuff that I'm saying, what's the point?

And I'm not an agent of social change, I'm a random guy chatting about news of the day on an online forum about gaming.

By 'anti-feminist,' by the way, what I'm saying is that GamerGate is about decrying some type of feminism. This ranges from the misogynist fucktards who think women should shut up and get out of gaming to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism.

The range of people involved is _precisely because_ 'being against feminism' can be taken in so many ways, and the movement is verminous _precisely because_ the topic and loose structure is a beacon for people taking it the worst way possible.

Addendum:
I think it's totally possible to be a feminist who is concerned about Sarkeesian and so on and considers themself a GamerGater.
I think it's _fucking stupid_ to associate with GamerGate as a feminist, but it's possible.

I think you have a point, but probably not as big as you think it is.

Anyway, in an attempt to help solve this mess, i'll try to translate some of what you are saying, as I understand it, if I understand it correctly:

Feminism covers a spectrum of related opinions and facts.
If I get it right, you claim that those that post as GG-ers includes everything from massive misogynists who is against even moderate feminists or might even be against me for being pro-feminist and/or woman, to GG-ers that only hate the worst kind of freedom-of-speech-limiting extreme feminist.
Am I correct in this assumption?

Quote from: Catelf;794253If I get it right, you claim that those that post as GG-ers includes everything from massive misogynists who is against even moderate feminists or might even be against me for being pro-feminist and/or woman, to GG-ers that only hate the worst kind of freedom-of-speech-limiting extreme feminist.
Am I correct in this assumption?

Yes. And the point of saying so is that the topic isn't 'ethics in gaming journalism' but the role of feminism, which, in this case, is seen as a problem in gaming journalism.

And the point of THAT distinction is that saying 'it's just about ethics in gaming journalism' doesn't really map to the discussion. The range of discussion about gaming journalism ethics would cover a lot of topics that aren't discussed much. The range of discussion about 'bad feminism' maps better to the range of what GGers are saying.

In other words, ethics in gaming journalism is a 'case' of something GGers see as a core problem, it isn't the core problem they are railing against.

Quote from: Will;794257Yes. And the point of saying so is that the topic isn't 'ethics in gaming journalism' but the role of feminism, which, in this case, is seen as a problem in gaming journalism.

And the point of THAT distinction is that saying 'it's just about ethics in gaming journalism' doesn't really map to the discussion. The range of discussion about gaming journalism ethics would cover a lot of topics that aren't discussed much. The range of discussion about 'bad feminism' maps better to the range of what GGers are saying.

In other words, ethics in gaming journalism is a 'case' of something GGers see as a core problem, it isn't the core problem they are railing against.

Ah.
You describe how it looks like.
Others here are trying to describe how it IS.

The big problem is the hashtag GamerGate that ANYONE can use.
There is no official source.
That is a strength, and the weakness both.
It is an issue of trust, and GamerGate has none or very little at the moment, as misogynists keep using it.
This is sadly a harsh reality.

If you are part of a movement that anyone can join, and is structured in such a way that it can (and is) overrun with vile shitheads, then you share culpability by not going somewhere else and being part of a more organized group that doesn't tolerate shitheads.

And it's revealing here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/

'We don't want to change banners because otherwise the discussion might disappear or not have people's attention/interest.'

So in other words, it's useful to have misogynist fuckheads stir up a lot of heat and the 'true' GGers can ride that?
That makes you complicit.