Quote from: Will;795996http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/that_creepy_guy_from_the_internet_how_gamergate_shattered_faith_in_the_geek_community/

Read it.

Arthur Chu used to say nice things about Hitler and the Nazi party on twitter. He is the epitome of "that creepy guy on the Internet"

Quote from: Will;795996http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/that_creepy_guy_from_the_internet_how_gamergate_shattered_faith_in_the_geek_community/

Read it.

Good article, that. Struck a nerve.

Hey, maybe a mob movement about ethical journalism should be a bit more committed to checking facts and information:

https://storify.com/turnoffthenews/gamergate-can-t-tell-two-asian-men-apart

And, well, not being racist.

(+ http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/11/02/why-are-gamergaters-so-quick-to-excuse-an-anti-semitic-caricature-of-anita-sarkeesian-thats-literally-derived-from-nazi-propaganda/ )

Quote from: Will;796016Hey, maybe a mob movement about ethical journalism should be a bit more committed to checking facts and information:

https://storify.com/turnoffthenews/gamergate-can-t-tell-two-asian-men-apart

And, well, not being racist.

(+ http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/11/02/why-are-gamergaters-so-quick-to-excuse-an-anti-semitic-caricature-of-anita-sarkeesian-thats-literally-derived-from-nazi-propaganda/ )

Heh, that came through my feed today and I chuckled.

Then I made the same mistake. Oops.

To be fair to myself (aren't I generous) I'm not really following the whole mess and my last exposure to Mr. Chu was in an article about how someone posted platitudes to Nazis.

My bad.

FWIW - is it anti-Semitic if she's not Jewish?

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/152145454191222784

Quote from: Werekoala;796023FWIW - is it anti-Semitic if she's not Jewish?

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/152145454191222784

I think so.

TBH, that's one comeback of hers I can get behind.

The Antisemitic gloss is so egregious I'd actually listen to the idea of anti-GG plants.

Ok, so all GG supporters are now fat, white, male, mouth-breathing, basement-dwelling, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, death-threat doxxing, wanna-be eye (and other)  rapists.

Looks like almost all the bases are covered. Plenty of room for discussion there, then.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;795868It's about journalistic integrity.

http://anonymousdeveloper.tumblr.com/

Or as I frequently point out, the lack thereof.

jg

Quote from: Werekoala;796023FWIW - is it anti-Semitic if she's not Jewish?

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/152145454191222784

Well, it's moronic, so that's one thing in common with Anti-Semitism.

JG

Quote from: Will;795996http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/that_creepy_guy_from_the_internet_how_gamergate_shattered_faith_in_the_geek_community/

Read it.

That was an eloquent, well-written, clearly personal piece.  And it sums up my main problem with the "anti-GG" side of the issue.

Tugging on virtually thread tied to GamerGate eventually leads to some vile shit.  Whether it's real legit misogynistic ugliness, or things like Purple permabanning someone after they make a moderate, articulate, and wholly non-offensive defense of GamerGate.

But here's the thing.  In the course of looking at pro-GG stuff, in addition to all the vile shit, I can find reasoned, articulate pieces talking about specific events, specific people, and specific organizations.  You can agree or disagree about that, but there's space for a civil debate.

I can't do that with anti-GG stuff.  There's vile shit, and then there's the moderate reasoned pieces like this one by Arthur Chu, and Felicia Day's blogpost, that while not being as vile as the shit Leigh Alexander or Sam Biddle has said, nonetheless explicitly denies the diversity that exists within the GamerGate hashtag.  That groups it all together under this stereotype of "gamer" as being white, fat, MRA assholes.  After spending several weeks talking about how Bill Maher was an asshole to do that kind of shit with Islam, I can't very well turn around and say it's cool to do that with "gamers" and GamerGate.

In the end, it's a hashtag.  Used by many people, for many different purposes.  Some noble, some awful.  Any piece that's worth my time has to account for that diversity.  But the irony is, any piece that does that ends up not being "anti-GG".  I can't say I'm "pro-GG", because I couldn't really give a shit about games journalism, because I don't consume games journalism.  The conspiracy theories sound like most conspiracy theories do, and as far as Sarkeesian and her videos go, there doesn't really need to be a movement against that -- people can just refute her points in any number of venues.  That shit's the lifeblood of the Internet.

But to be anti-GG?  That's all about lumping the myriad of goals, intentions, and actions of a widely diverse group of people under one label, and saying they are one negative thing.  Nope, can't do that.

Quote from: Werekoala;796028Ok, so all GG supporters are now fat, white, male, mouth-breathing, basement-dwelling, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, death-threat doxxing, wanna-be eye (and other)  rapists.

Looks like almost all the bases are covered. Plenty of room for discussion there, then.

Yeah, but gamers have been called that for years now. Nothing new.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;796037Yeah, but gamers have been called that for years now. Nothing new.

Yeah, but now gamers are getting called that in the national media, not just in the halls between class.

Quote from: Iosue;796036That was an eloquent, well-written, clearly personal piece.  And it sums up my main problem with the "anti-GG" side of the issue.

Tugging on virtually thread tied to GamerGate eventually leads to some vile shit.  Whether it's real legit misogynistic ugliness, or things like Purple permabanning someone after they make a moderate, articulate, and wholly non-offensive defense of GamerGate.

But here's the thing.  In the course of looking at pro-GG stuff, in addition to all the vile shit, I can find reasoned, articulate pieces talking about specific events, specific people, and specific organizations.  You can agree or disagree about that, but there's space for a civil debate.

I can't do that with anti-GG stuff.  There's vile shit, and then there's the moderate reasoned pieces like this one by Arthur Chu, and Felicia Day's blogpost, that while not being as vile as the shit Leigh Alexander or Sam Biddle has said, nonetheless explicitly denies the diversity that exists within the GamerGate hashtag.  That groups it all together under this stereotype of "gamer" as being white, fat, MRA assholes.  After spending several weeks talking about how Bill Maher was an asshole to do that kind of shit with Islam, I can't very well turn around and say it's cool to do that with "gamers" and GamerGate.

In the end, it's a hashtag.  Used by many people, for many different purposes.  Some noble, some awful.  Any piece that's worth my time has to account for that diversity.  But the irony is, any piece that does that ends up not being "anti-GG".  I can't say I'm "pro-GG", because I couldn't really give a shit about games journalism, because I don't consume games journalism.  The conspiracy theories sound like most conspiracy theories do, and as far as Sarkeesian and her videos go, there doesn't really need to be a movement against that -- people can just refute her points in any number of venues.  That shit's the lifeblood of the Internet.

But to be anti-GG?  That's all about lumping the myriad of goals, intentions, and actions of a widely diverse group of people under one label, and saying they are one negative thing.  Nope, can't do that.

Well put. Sums up my thoughts on the matter succinctly.

Quote from: Haffrung;796005Examples?

Not taking part in the religious and ceremonial life of the community? Defying social norms around marriage, family, and vocation?

Where and when was this easier than the West today? Most people in history lived in small and tightly-knit farming communities (the isolated homesteader was a peculiarity of the American West, and short-lived). Religion, and its prescription of behaviour, has been the governing influence on almost every person who has walked the planet. Even your wealthy country gentlemen of the English countryside, probably the closest thing in history to your private life in the burbs today, had social commitments to family and neighbours, and was subject to much stronger pressures of judgement and conformity than your modern man or woman. I suppose if you were both rich and willing to be socially ostracized, you could afford to stand outside social norms and pursue your own pleasures privately and independently. But almost anyone has that luxury today. In fact, alienation from wider society is the pathology of our times.

Thats an incredibly eurocentric take on the term "historically".

Buut you asked for an example, so how about: the 1980s?