What's the opposite of a SJW?

[Einspanner]

I cannot read his mind but I read it as a reaction to all the bad tactics employed against those labelled as members of gamergate (both sides seem to be employing bad tactics and neither one is justified in doing so.)

You could be right, but I quoted him directly and asked him to clarify, and he never did.

Furthermore, in a previous discussion I had with the same user, he mentioned that he believed Anita Sarkeesian deserved the "backlash" that she got, so that also does not put my mind at ease.

Besides, it only takes mind reading if there isn't regular reading to be done.

They can't clarify right now, seems to be an unfair argument currently.
The way I read it and interpreted is agreeable to me and makes sense. I believe using bad tactics were wrong when either side used them. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. For true communication and discourse to be achieved in any area of contention both sides need to use rhetorical charity (assuming what people say has the best interpretation or intention until proven otherwise is one way to put it.) Using someone's status or opinions as justification to do anything malicious directly to them in all seriousness or earnest is something I cannot condone.

I took the time to read the exchange in question, and some of the thread around it. He was already asked quite a few times for clarification. You're not just giving someone the benefit of the doubt, you're inventing excuses that don't exist for someone who couldn't even be bothered to make them for themselves when challenged.

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy

How, if gamergate takes it as gospel, can they also debunk it at the same time?


btw. I've seen the stuff happen to lizzy real time. Same thing with that felicia.

I assume that you had your camera phone with you?

 

[Lacedaemonius]

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy

How, if gamergate takes it as gospel, can they also debunk it at the same time?

The same way gamergate operates on every level, "That is wrong!... unless we're dong it."

 

[Einspanner]

I cannot read his mind but I read it as a reaction to all the bad tactics employed against those labelled as members of gamergate (both sides seem to be employing bad tactics and neither one is justified in doing so.)

You could be right, but I quoted him directly and asked him to clarify, and he never did.

Furthermore, in a previous discussion I had with the same user, he mentioned that he believed Anita Sarkeesian deserved the "backlash" that she got, so that also does not put my mind at ease.

Besides, it only takes mind reading if there isn't regular reading to be done.

They can't clarify right now, seems to be an unfair argument currently.
The way I read it and interpreted is agreeable to me and makes sense. I believe using bad tactics were wrong when either side used them. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. For true communication and discourse to be achieved in any area of contention both sides need to use rhetorical charity (assuming what people say has the best interpretation or intention until proven otherwise is one way to put it.) Using someone's status or opinions as justification to do anything malicious directly to them in all seriousness or earnest is something I cannot condone.

I took the time to read the exchange in question, and some of the thread around it. He was already asked quite a few times for clarification. You're not just giving someone the benefit of the doubt, you're inventing excuses that don't exist for someone who couldn't even be bothered to make them for themselves when challenged.

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy

How, if gamergate takes it as gospel, can they also debunk it at the same time?


btw. I've seen the stuff happen to lizzy real time. Same thing with that felicia.

I assume that you had your camera phone with you?

Then I'll ask when they have returned. I still choose to interpret the phrase as I choose to. The main point to me is not whether or not that was their meaning but rather the validity of that statement as I choose to interpret it.


With charity that statement seems true. Heres the original: you'll never convince me that people who aren't SJWs should be harassed and intimidated,

I'll reword it so its my own statement and remove your ability to commit the logical fallacy of assigning to the statement the assumed faults of the speaker:
"You'll never convince me that people should be harassed or intimidated, regardless of their status."

Now that we take the fallacies about interpreting the original speaker out lets address the basic issue I believe they brought up but you have not responded to, instead impugning their character, justified or not.
Do you think seriously harassing someone is ok, even if you think they are a toxic horrible person? If you do then you are no better than who you are harassing (and possibly worse.)

Does that work? Can you at least agree with this statement? Anyone that comes up with a justification to harass someone is just wanting to harass people.

You're welcome to do whatever you want, just don't act like you're taking the reasonable "wait and see" approach. You said it, this is "charity".

 

[Lacedaemonius]

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy

How, if gamergate takes it as gospel, can they also debunk it at the same time?

The same way gamergate operates on every level, "That is wrong!... unless we're dong it."

That hypocrisy seems inherent to both sides, and to human nature in general.
Heck, my history prof used to define civilization as the process of making things civil- meaning after you commit your crimes, you make committing those crimes vs you illegal. People like to make up reasons why what they do is ok and why the enemy is bad. The best thing you can do is make sure your side of the street is clean.

Since "Both Sides" are a very small number of people out of the whole population, I wouldn't extrapolate to human nature. It just seems like two groups of assholes fighting it out.

 

[Einspanner]

I cannot read his mind but I read it as a reaction to all the bad tactics employed against those labelled as members of gamergate (both sides seem to be employing bad tactics and neither one is justified in doing so.)

You could be right, but I quoted him directly and asked him to clarify, and he never did.

Furthermore, in a previous discussion I had with the same user, he mentioned that he believed Anita Sarkeesian deserved the "backlash" that she got, so that also does not put my mind at ease.

Besides, it only takes mind reading if there isn't regular reading to be done.

They can't clarify right now, seems to be an unfair argument currently.
The way I read it and interpreted is agreeable to me and makes sense. I believe using bad tactics were wrong when either side used them. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. For true communication and discourse to be achieved in any area of contention both sides need to use rhetorical charity (assuming what people say has the best interpretation or intention until proven otherwise is one way to put it.) Using someone's status or opinions as justification to do anything malicious directly to them in all seriousness or earnest is something I cannot condone.

I took the time to read the exchange in question, and some of the thread around it. He was already asked quite a few times for clarification. You're not just giving someone the benefit of the doubt, you're inventing excuses that don't exist for someone who couldn't even be bothered to make them for themselves when challenged.

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy

How, if gamergate takes it as gospel, can they also debunk it at the same time?


btw. I've seen the stuff happen to lizzy real time. Same thing with that felicia.

I assume that you had your camera phone with you?

Then I'll ask when they have returned. I still choose to interpret the phrase as I choose to. The main point to me is not whether or not that was their meaning but rather the validity of that statement as I choose to interpret it.


With charity that statement seems true. Heres the original: you'll never convince me that people who aren't SJWs should be harassed and intimidated,

I'll reword it so its my own statement and remove your ability to commit the logical fallacy of assigning to the statement the assumed faults of the speaker:
"You'll never convince me that people should be harassed or intimidated, regardless of their status."

Now that we take the fallacies about interpreting the original speaker out lets address the basic issue I believe they brought up but you have not responded to, instead impugning their character, justified or not.
Do you think seriously harassing someone is ok, even if you think they are a toxic horrible person? If you do then you are no better than who you are harassing (and possibly worse.)

Does that work? Can you at least agree with this statement? Anyone that comes up with a justification to harass someone is just wanting to harass people.

You're welcome to do whatever you want, just don't act like you're taking the reasonable "wait and see" approach. You said it, this is "charity".

I can find it reasonable and you can reasonably differ in opinion. Charity in quotes makes me wonder what you think I mean by the term rhetorical charity. Its completely reasonable from where I stand though. You have a different experience and different information than I do so perhaps you see it differently. The beauty of opinions is that we can both be right

Did you get a chance to ask for clarification in the brief window you could have? I didn't. Given how it all went though, I'm sticking with my less charitable assumption.

 

[Einspanner]

I cannot read his mind but I read it as a reaction to all the bad tactics employed against those labelled as members of gamergate (both sides seem to be employing bad tactics and neither one is justified in doing so.)

You could be right, but I quoted him directly and asked him to clarify, and he never did.

Furthermore, in a previous discussion I had with the same user, he mentioned that he believed Anita Sarkeesian deserved the "backlash" that she got, so that also does not put my mind at ease.

Besides, it only takes mind reading if there isn't regular reading to be done.

They can't clarify right now, seems to be an unfair argument currently.
The way I read it and interpreted is agreeable to me and makes sense. I believe using bad tactics were wrong when either side used them. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. For true communication and discourse to be achieved in any area of contention both sides need to use rhetorical charity (assuming what people say has the best interpretation or intention until proven otherwise is one way to put it.) Using someone's status or opinions as justification to do anything malicious directly to them in all seriousness or earnest is something I cannot condone.

I took the time to read the exchange in question, and some of the thread around it. He was already asked quite a few times for clarification. You're not just giving someone the benefit of the doubt, you're inventing excuses that don't exist for someone who couldn't even be bothered to make them for themselves when challenged.

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy

How, if gamergate takes it as gospel, can they also debunk it at the same time?


btw. I've seen the stuff happen to lizzy real time. Same thing with that felicia.

I assume that you had your camera phone with you?

Then I'll ask when they have returned. I still choose to interpret the phrase as I choose to. The main point to me is not whether or not that was their meaning but rather the validity of that statement as I choose to interpret it.


With charity that statement seems true. Heres the original: you'll never convince me that people who aren't SJWs should be harassed and intimidated,

I'll reword it so its my own statement and remove your ability to commit the logical fallacy of assigning to the statement the assumed faults of the speaker:
"You'll never convince me that people should be harassed or intimidated, regardless of their status."

Now that we take the fallacies about interpreting the original speaker out lets address the basic issue I believe they brought up but you have not responded to, instead impugning their character, justified or not.
Do you think seriously harassing someone is ok, even if you think they are a toxic horrible person? If you do then you are no better than who you are harassing (and possibly worse.)

Does that work? Can you at least agree with this statement? Anyone that comes up with a justification to harass someone is just wanting to harass people.

You're welcome to do whatever you want, just don't act like you're taking the reasonable "wait and see" approach. You said it, this is "charity".

I can find it reasonable and you can reasonably differ in opinion. Charity in quotes makes me wonder what you think I mean by the term rhetorical charity. Its completely reasonable from where I stand though. You have a different experience and different information than I do so perhaps you see it differently. The beauty of opinions is that we can both be right

Did you get a chance to ask for clarification in the brief window you could have? I didn't. Given how it all went though, I'm sticking with my less charitable assumption.

You're entitled to assume the worst. I am entitled to choose otherwise. --

So I'll assume that you didn't get an answer in the brief window. Assumption though, what did I assume that wasn't evident? I'm not the one bending over backwards to avoid the words that were actually written after all.

 

[Einspanner]

I cannot read his mind but I read it as a reaction to all the bad tactics employed against those labelled as members of gamergate (both sides seem to be employing bad tactics and neither one is justified in doing so.)

You could be right, but I quoted him directly and asked him to clarify, and he never did.

Furthermore, in a previous discussion I had with the same user, he mentioned that he believed Anita Sarkeesian deserved the "backlash" that she got, so that also does not put my mind at ease.

Besides, it only takes mind reading if there isn't regular reading to be done.

They can't clarify right now, seems to be an unfair argument currently.
The way I read it and interpreted is agreeable to me and makes sense. I believe using bad tactics were wrong when either side used them. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. For true communication and discourse to be achieved in any area of contention both sides need to use rhetorical charity (assuming what people say has the best interpretation or intention until proven otherwise is one way to put it.) Using someone's status or opinions as justification to do anything malicious directly to them in all seriousness or earnest is something I cannot condone.

I took the time to read the exchange in question, and some of the thread around it. He was already asked quite a few times for clarification. You're not just giving someone the benefit of the doubt, you're inventing excuses that don't exist for someone who couldn't even be bothered to make them for themselves when challenged.

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy

How, if gamergate takes it as gospel, can they also debunk it at the same time?


btw. I've seen the stuff happen to lizzy real time. Same thing with that felicia.

I assume that you had your camera phone with you?

Then I'll ask when they have returned. I still choose to interpret the phrase as I choose to. The main point to me is not whether or not that was their meaning but rather the validity of that statement as I choose to interpret it.


With charity that statement seems true. Heres the original: you'll never convince me that people who aren't SJWs should be harassed and intimidated,

I'll reword it so its my own statement and remove your ability to commit the logical fallacy of assigning to the statement the assumed faults of the speaker:
"You'll never convince me that people should be harassed or intimidated, regardless of their status."

Now that we take the fallacies about interpreting the original speaker out lets address the basic issue I believe they brought up but you have not responded to, instead impugning their character, justified or not.
Do you think seriously harassing someone is ok, even if you think they are a toxic horrible person? If you do then you are no better than who you are harassing (and possibly worse.)

Does that work? Can you at least agree with this statement? Anyone that comes up with a justification to harass someone is just wanting to harass people.

You're welcome to do whatever you want, just don't act like you're taking the reasonable "wait and see" approach. You said it, this is "charity".

I can find it reasonable and you can reasonably differ in opinion. Charity in quotes makes me wonder what you think I mean by the term rhetorical charity. Its completely reasonable from where I stand though. You have a different experience and different information than I do so perhaps you see it differently. The beauty of opinions is that we can both be right

Did you get a chance to ask for clarification in the brief window you could have? I didn't. Given how it all went though, I'm sticking with my less charitable assumption.

You're entitled to assume the worst. I am entitled to choose otherwise. --

So I'll assume that you didn't get an answer in the brief window. Assumption though, what did I assume that wasn't evident? I'm not the one bending over backwards to avoid the words that were actually written after all.

You have yet to answer my main question and keep diverting this back to something I now consider tangential to my ultimate point. Since they are not responding, presumptions on either side are effectively moot. You can assume what you want and I can assume what I want since you seem to see this as self-evident and I don't. You had the burden of proof and what I saw wasn't deemed sufficient for my judgment. Your judgment of the other party is your own to make as is mine. Our judgments over each other based upon these judgments are similarly of little import to the main point.

The main point that you continue to avoid addressing is that it is wrong to perform "bad" actions on "bad" people. That is the main point of my argument and you insist on getting tangled up on something that to me is not pertinent to my main point. Do you believe it is ok to harm others if you deem them pernicious?

I didn't realize you had a "Main Question", but now that I'm getting to it... what the fuck? How did we get here, from there? "Is it ok to harm others if you deem them pernicious?" is the kind of meaningless hypothetical that I like to avoid. It's so incredibly vague that it could be talking about shooting someone who is trying to kill you, or it could means doxxing someone you think sucks. The range makes it a kind of pointless question.

I certainly would never exclude or include people in any "to harm" or "do not harm" groups based solely on their ideology though. You don't harm people because of what they think, you harm them because of actions they take which leave you no better choices than harming them. Until that point, the only things exchanged between civilized parties should be words. A line that Sheppie decided not to draw, but which you'd seem to like to draw for him.

 

[aspotlessdomain]

You can't really cry foul about doxing if it keeps turning up new and relevant information. The fact of the primary figures in GG universally turning out to be the same rich snobs who transformed SF into a gentrified fortress for white tech nobility is absolutely relevant to any talk of "privilege" in gaming, particularly when they use the money and media connections to run crying to HuffPo or wherever else and airing our dirty laundry to the nation as if every other industry wasn't grappling with the exact same issues.

The channers, etc. only really had one weapon (anonymity) with which to fight back against a sneering, hostile press who were circling the wagons over criticism of internal issues and using their position to create the narrative of misogyny and harassment--a narrative which, yes, the teenagers and social outcasts who were already branded as pigs before the controversy even began elected to live down to. Harassment and rape threats and gendered insults and all the rest were pretty shitty behavior but all of that stuff was generally in service of proving a point, which is precisely "we don't have to give a shit about what you think about us." You can say that stuff is low and unfair but what exactly were GGers going to do? They don't write thinkpieces, they absolutely don't get published on Kotaku, they don't have outside media connections to fight back against the narrative, they don't have anywhere near the financial resources of their ideological opponents, and they don't have any pull with the various e-begging schemes utilized by Brianna Wu, etc.

Any complaints about harassment, etc. are tantamount to asking GG to just lose gracefully and allow the West coast indie/journo/tech clique to insinuate themselves into a community in which they are totally unwelcome (i.e., exactly what they did to the Bay area).

 

[Disco Biscuit]

You can't really cry foul about doxing if it keeps turning up new and relevant information.

You can't fault an illegal and immoral act if it ends up being useful to you? Should the police be allowed to plant evidence on you, because it might let them interrogate you and reveal greater wrongdoing? You can't be that far in whatever ideological closet you're talking out of.

 

[EternallyBored]

You can't really cry foul about doxing if it keeps turning up new and relevant information.

You can't fault an illegal and immoral act if it ends up being useful to you? Should the police be allowed to plant evidence on you, because it might let them interrogate you and reveal greater wrongdoing? You can't be that far in whatever ideological closet you're talking out of.

It seems to be closer to a "Black people can't be racist" style of argument. Basically, our shitty actions are justified because we don't have power, or the establishment controls everything so our behavior is justified by our lack of systemic power. We can't be held responsible for our actions because we are in the minority.

although generally the people I see being doxxed are mostly small time figures themselves rather than the "San Francisco elites" being talked about here. The media are often big city types living in San Fran or New York, but they aren't the ones being doxxed as they're mostly public figures. The likes of Zoe Quinn and Anita aren't really elites either they're middle class arts majors, the general doxxing shenanigans aren't aimed at the media heads, they usually seem aimed at random tumblr bloggers and Twitter types.

The whole post reads like a parody, switch some words out, sprinkle in some mentions of patriarchy, and switch San Fran and HuffPo with mentions of conservative strongholds like the Bible Belt, Breitbart, or Fox News and you've got the same kinds of posts I see across Twitter sometimes justifying doxxing for the sake of social justice. It's all an excuse, "we can't do any wrong because we're the scrappy underdogs". Rationalization at its finest.

 

[aspotlessdomain]

You can't really cry foul about doxing if it keeps turning up new and relevant information.

You can't fault an illegal and immoral act if it ends up being useful to you? Should the police be allowed to plant evidence on you, because it might let them interrogate you and reveal greater wrongdoing? You can't be that far in whatever ideological closet you're talking out of.

You can't reasonably expect your personal information to remain personal when you're making the precise argument that identity, lifestyle, authenticity and experience are the key variables that entitle someone to the kind of petty moralizing in which key GG figures routinely engage in (privilege theory).

 

[aspotlessdomain]

You can't really cry foul about doxing if it keeps turning up new and relevant information.

Yes you can. Because the 'new and relevant information' is only usually 'new and relevant' in the eyes of the creepy stalker weirdos who are doing the doxxing.

People don't generally doxx other people who they like, which means they've invested time and effort into uncovering some kind of wrongdoing, whether it exists or not. It makes doxxing even more pointless because anyone willing to doxx is automatically a completely untrustworthy person to begin with. These people aren't trying to uncover an important political conspiracy - they're creeping through some girl's Facebook chat history looking for hitpiece fuel. And if they can't find any, more often than not, they just make it up.

(Is it 'weirdos' or 'weirdoes'? I can't decide.)

GG backlash was funneled into the arms of rablerousers like Breitbart precisely as a result of the gaming press circling the wagons and adopting a policy of not engaging GG on any level. I mean that's literally how it happened. Again, you can cry about this or that being "over the line" but there's no actual insight, there. It's just point-scoring. You can apply the exact same criticisms to any other "guerrilla" campaign and most of the time you would have the moral calculus exactly backwards--the methods adopted reflect the methods available, which usually says something about the actual level of enfranchisement available to all these "privileged" misogynists.

Look at what GGers actually talk about internally. It's not hard to find. Overwhelmingly the feelings are: a) resentment towards the press and the perceived "mainstream" blackout and lack of access to the hostile institutions they are being bludgeoned by (Zoe Quinn), b) outrage at the hypocrisy of specific individuals who posture themselves as disenfranchised victims despite their connections and money (Breanna Wu), c) frustrated by the total lack of credibility among their most trenchant critics, not one of whom has any real background in critical theory or feminism and spends most of their time publicly being full of shit (Anita Sarkeesian), and d) amusement at the stupid and usually absurd, self-parodying shit this lack of experience and credibility tends to produce on social media (all the time, everywhere).

In general, GGers see their ideological opponents as imposters and outsiders who aren't really invested in the scene, invented their jobs, and haven't earned the right to criticize, rather than just being generically wrong. This has all the hallmarks of say, Southern US backlash and retreat into reactionary populism in the face of criticism from Northern elites who feel "embarassed" by their neighbors more than any authentic moral or political outrage. You can see that resentment as being a bunch of low-class idiots lashing out and misbehaving if you want but it doesn't change the fact that the anti-GG crowd, through their own inexperience and lack of real insight, has only succeeded in radicalizing and inflaming a huge segment of the gaming subculture in the worst possible way, precisely because they chose to dwell on this or that infraction as "proof" of their own righteousness, rather than actually look at the dynamics that set the two groups in opposition in the first place.