What's the opposite of a SJW?

[aspotlessdomain]

I didn't say doxing is "okay", I said specifically: a) only one side had the luxury of playing above-board in terms of crafting a narrative, b) it's pointless and hypocritical to whine about a tactic that actually did reveal the identities of people playing identity politics, and c) it's a lot more useful to understand the resentment that justified those tactics in the eyes of the people utilizing them than just taking them as proof that GG are all a bunch of horrible creeps and patting yourself on the back for being on the right side.

 

[aspotlessdomain]

GGers absolutely did not have the media hookup that a bunch of members of... the media! did, and that's precisely how you end up with Breitbart of all places carrying the torch for them. I mean it's just insane to suggest that GG get together and write thinkpieces and blogs and hope that Kotaku, etc. would provide them with traffic. These were the same people who were getting together and saying "we're not going to talk about Zoe Quinn, it's personal, whatever, we don't have a problem with disclosure"--in other words, basically daring internet sleuths to prove that the industry did, in fact, have a problem with disclosure.

I don't even know what to say to B. "Identity politics" as a term has a clear meaning and a long history in the discourse relating to privilege, oppression, politics, and everything else. It's uh, weird, to suggest that doesn't. And issues of authenticity stemming from those politics are central and relevant. It's specifically relevant when you happen to be an idle rich dilettante lecturing people about sexism in an industry you can happily afford to never have a real job in (and you STILL manage to fuck your boss).

C)... uh, yeah, insight into the psychology of schooters is absolutely a useful thing to have. See how far "It's 100% wrong!" gets you in preventing future mass murders.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I mean it's just insane to suggest that GG get together and write thinkpieces and blogs and hope that Kotaku, etc. would provide them with traffic.

I am not going to delve into the rest of your post. The others will do so anyways.

Isn't this what GG did? I was under the impression that GG did in fact create sites that cater to their interest.

I'd argue that (if they didn't) not only can they do it, they should do it. There's clearly a market for it and as long as they keep the initial costs down and steadily build upon the foundation they should do well for themselves. That and I feel that if there is a mass displeasure with the press the people who feel that displeasure should think it necessary to start their own.

Ultimately, no GG site is going to court the Kotaku crowd so there's no point trying. That's not their market.

 

[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.

You can't reasonably expect your personal information to remain personal

Yes I can, and I have the law on my side. Not to mention that on a purely personal note, I would track down and savage anyone who doxxed me. I am not a good person.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

GGers absolutely did not have the media hookup that a bunch of members of... the media! did, and that's precisely how you end up with Breitbart of all places carrying the torch for them. I mean it's just insane to suggest that GG get together and write thinkpieces and blogs and hope that Kotaku, etc. would provide them with traffic. These were the same people who were getting together and saying "we're not going to talk about Zoe Quinn, it's personal, whatever, we don't have a problem with disclosure"--in other words, basically daring internet sleuths to prove that the industry did, in fact, have a problem with disclosure.

I don't even know what to say to B. "Identity politics" as a term has a clear meaning and a long history in the discourse relating to privilege, oppression, politics, and everything else. It's uh, weird, to suggest that doesn't. And issues of authenticity stemming from those politics are central and relevant. It's specifically relevant when you happen to be an idle rich dilettante lecturing people about sexism in an industry you can happily afford to never have a real job in (and you STILL manage to fuck your boss).

C)... uh, yeah, insight into the psychology of schooters is absolutely a useful thing to have. See how far "It's 100% wrong!" gets you in preventing future mass murders.

Listing the usual conspiracies and implications that go nowhere and mean nothing, doesn't shield you from calls to illegal and immoral action. You can't back out of this one, but I doubt that you care either, do you? I somehow doubt this is the real you.

 

[Einspanner]

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).

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.

I think you should not try to harm unless its self-defense. Any justification you have for any malicious or pernicious acts, such as doxxing, are simply justifications for your poor moral choices. If you have to come up with explanations and reasons why you're doing something wrong and explain why that action is really not so wrong then you are engaging in cognitive dissonance. You keep falsely telling me what I did and didn't do on behalf of sheppie and since you insist on rehashing a moot point I easily addressed previously then I feel you are being disingenuous and not taking my arguments with true charity. You seem to be attempting to reshape this discussion so its somehow about sheppie when to me its based on the main question I bring up. Since your convoluted response did not say it was wrong to harm other people abnd gave a bunch of justifications for actions I believe to be morally repugnant I will assume that you are ok with those actions if they support your cause or stance. It is clear we will not agree and I feel I see where you draw your line ethically. I feel that performing "bad" actions for a cause that you think is good makes you a "bad" person.
There are a lot of people with sociopathic and malicious tendencies and quite a few of them seem to like to find outlets for their malice that will bring them praise over derision. I fear that both sides are infested with sociopaths that like to hurt other people and justify that harm by saying they are "bad" people and deserve it because they offended or harassed others. The dark triad types take advantage of causes others consider to be just to inflict misery and malice on a verity of victims (who others then deem to have deserved it due to vague allegations of racism or whatever.) I think if you harm someone and try to come up with a good reason you are simply grasping for justification so you don't feel bad for the horrible things you did. If you are going to bring up sheppie again or other pointless tangents then I am done with this discussion since it is obvious my core argument is ignored or glossed over in favor of straw men. If you see what I said earlier as a meaningless hypothetical then we really have 0 reason to continue this.

I believe both sides lost the vast majority of their credibility by descending into abuse and ad hominem fallacies. In the midst of the malice and chaos I see no heroes, just villains covered in blood fighting other bloody villains. Neither side has any true claim to moral superiority due to their use of these tactics.

Edit: Does anyone else see the parallels between this issue and Realpolitik?
How did things change so far that those who used to hate Kissinger embrace similar tactics?

What are you talking about? "Core Argument"? You're having a debate with yourself, considering that I only just realized you had a point other than to redefine "benefit of the doubt". Maybe this can serve as a lesson for why you should make sure the other person is interested in talking to you before you start launching into it.

 

[Scarim Coral]

If it was out of wordplay, it would be "Antisocial Injustice Battlers"?

 

[aspotlessdomain]

These were the same people who were getting together and saying "we're not going to talk about Zoe Quinn, it's personal, whatever, we don't have a problem with disclosure"

Um, yeah, that's what sites like Kotaku said.

Then it turned out that sites like Kotaku were in fact 100% correct in this way of thinking because the Zoe Quinn thing was just a bunch of personal crap, and it turned out there was never any problem with disclosure because nobody who worked for Kotaku ever reviewed her game, and the only 'controversies' uncovered by GG in relation to this were a bunch of non-issues and unimportant twaddle.

So... yeah. Kind of defeats the point of the 'GamerGate were forced to dig deeper in order to find the truth!' when it turns out that the truth was that they were chasing a conspiracy theory based on misinformation that turned out to be false.

I don't dispute that it was a bunch of personal crap not fit for print. The problem is that Kotaku specifically trades in gossipy bullshit and salacious rumor. It's pretty disingenuous to cry about privilege wrt to Quinn since she was the first person in history to benefit from Kotaku's version of ethics.

Jason Schreier didn't see anything wrong with posting Noel Brown's mugshot, for example. That story ran everywhere (including here), and not one person in the whole gaggle of asshole hypocrites in this industry--most of whom had never covered fighting games in any significant detail to begin with--bothered to ask whether this was really news, what sort of impact posting a black dude's mugshot would have on his community and in the larger racial narrative about crime and criminals, or even who Noel Brown actually was within that community. But he wasn't anyone's buddy, so up it goes.

 

[FalloutJack]

Not just someone who doesn't care, or even someone who actively promotes discrimination/oppression etc. The people who leap to blame SJWs for everything. The ones who treat them like a combination boogieman and Antichrist. What are those people called?

I think what you believe to be the opposite of a Social Justice Warrior is not, in reality, an opposite. In opposition, surely, but perhaps more of a Tomato in the Mirror. A true anti-SJW is an introvert who doesn't give a damn.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I don't know, I'd say it's like a troll, but instead of teasing for some laughs, is genuinely trying to hurt people for anything and everything.

 

[Einspanner]

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).

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.

I think you should not try to harm unless its self-defense. Any justification you have for any malicious or pernicious acts, such as doxxing, are simply justifications for your poor moral choices. If you have to come up with explanations and reasons why you're doing something wrong and explain why that action is really not so wrong then you are engaging in cognitive dissonance. You keep falsely telling me what I did and didn't do on behalf of sheppie and since you insist on rehashing a moot point I easily addressed previously then I feel you are being disingenuous and not taking my arguments with true charity. You seem to be attempting to reshape this discussion so its somehow about sheppie when to me its based on the main question I bring up. Since your convoluted response did not say it was wrong to harm other people abnd gave a bunch of justifications for actions I believe to be morally repugnant I will assume that you are ok with those actions if they support your cause or stance. It is clear we will not agree and I feel I see where you draw your line ethically. I feel that performing "bad" actions for a cause that you think is good makes you a "bad" person.
There are a lot of people with sociopathic and malicious tendencies and quite a few of them seem to like to find outlets for their malice that will bring them praise over derision. I fear that both sides are infested with sociopaths that like to hurt other people and justify that harm by saying they are "bad" people and deserve it because they offended or harassed others. The dark triad types take advantage of causes others consider to be just to inflict misery and malice on a verity of victims (who others then deem to have deserved it due to vague allegations of racism or whatever.) I think if you harm someone and try to come up with a good reason you are simply grasping for justification so you don't feel bad for the horrible things you did. If you are going to bring up sheppie again or other pointless tangents then I am done with this discussion since it is obvious my core argument is ignored or glossed over in favor of straw men. If you see what I said earlier as a meaningless hypothetical then we really have 0 reason to continue this.

I believe both sides lost the vast majority of their credibility by descending into abuse and ad hominem fallacies. In the midst of the malice and chaos I see no heroes, just villains covered in blood fighting other bloody villains. Neither side has any true claim to moral superiority due to their use of these tactics.

Edit: Does anyone else see the parallels between this issue and Realpolitik?
How did things change so far that those who used to hate Kissinger embrace similar tactics?

What are you talking about? "Core Argument"? You're having a debate with yourself, considering that I only just realized you had a point other than to redefine "benefit of the doubt". Maybe this can serve as a lesson for why you should make sure the other person is interested in talking to you before you start launching into it.

No I wasn't debating myself, I jumped into you assigning motives to someone and I provided a counterpoint. I did not ever "redefine" benefit of the doubt. I asked for rhetorical charity, you chose to not give it, then you chose to reframe my points in a very biased manner. Your point in making sure the other person is interested applies better when you're not ranting at someone else constantly in a way that seemed a bit mean. I asked for rhetorical charity, you rant at me. I calmly hint that we can both be right and perhaps you don't need to phrase things in such an insulting manner and you choose to insult more.
I accept that you either are not able to or choose not to engage in rhetorical charity. I will point out that it is one of the main things that differentiates a discussion or debate from an emotively charged argument. If you do not engage in rhetorical charity you may find yourself arguing with your perceptions of others rather than their points. I could be just as guilty of the same thing, however, I do think these points could be made without being insulting or assuming the worst about people who choose not to respond.

I was hoping someone else would engage the topic about Kissinger and Realpolitik. The phrase "no bad tactics, only bad targets," is something Kissinger would wholeheartedly approve of. It also spits in the face of justice and those who ascribe to it are unethical at best.

Describing apologism in terms of charity doesn't change what it is. Beyond that, if you want a debate about something that's been had a million times, make a thread on it, don't try to bait someone else into it in a derail.

 

[Silvanus]

The opposite of an SJW is probably something real.


Wasn't this in GiD?