Men and feminism

And people ask why I don't spend much time on TFP anymore...

 

And there you have it. Despite all of the incontrovertible evidence, the leaked emails, the public confessions, even the FTC themselves getting involved on the side of gamergate Bodkin simply can not and more importantly will not ever accept that anyone claiming the mantle of "feminist" could ever be wrong, let alone a toxic violent bigot, nor can he or will he ever accept anyone targeted by someone claiming to be a "feminist" is anything but an evil misogynist.

He would sooner believe that tens to hundreds of thousands of people from around the world are involved in a massive worldwide conspiracy of unprecedented size, scope, and duration than believe that a handful of incestuously connected rich white hipsters running blogs would lie about the people protesting their corruption and collusion even when confronted with hard evidence ranging from leaked emails to archives of their own words.

Yep, you heard it here folks. It's "faulty logic, confirmation bias and casual malice"... it's "absurd allegations"... to say that people screaming racial slurs, domestic abusers, neonazis, and criminal blacklisting are a problem even when you have explicit and incontrovertible proof in their own words. It's a "vast orchestrated conspiracy" even when you have leaked emails proving they're colluding to lie, blacklist, and cover for each other.

Because after all they claim to be "feminists" and that means they can do no wrong, and anyone opposing them MUST be misogynist monsters.

 

Odious.

 

Mendacious, disingenuous, hypocritical.

 

Why yes, yes you are.

 

I think 8-chan just diarrhea'd all over this thread.

I'm just going to say this, and everyone who wants to can look into it themselves and agree or disagree (or assume I'm full of shit, or assume I'm not full of shit): If you spend any amount of time trying to substantiate the claims of Shadowex with respect to Gamer Gate, you will find that most, if not all, are based on excruciatingly selective interpretations of relatively innocuous facts.

The only thing dumber than Gamer Gate is talking about Gamer Gate. It's like some weird semi-inverse Fight Club rule type of situation. I encourage anyone interested in knowing more about it to look into it using reputable news sources first. Also, note that one need not be a feminist to be anti-Gamer Gate. One can also be a fan of logic, one can be anti-harassment, one can be pro-journalistic ethics and be against everything Gamer Gate stands for.

Now, let's talk about the implications of having a wiener!

 

Because seeking"news sources" about a group of people literally protesting the unreliability of news media is such a great idea, and of course "reputable" is defined post-hoc based on the position that source takes on gamergate with anyone that isn't anti-gamergate being automatically declared unreputable. Do you know what's more important than secondhand newsmedia punditry? Primary sources. Hard facts and evidence. Yknow, that stuff I've posted tons of that you dismiss by fiat because... of course... someone who claims to be a "feminist" disagrees with it and therefore it must be everything wrong and evil.

There is no "excruciatingly selective" interpretation of people getting mailed knives, syringes, and dead animals for supporting gamergate.
There is no "excruciatingly selective" interpretation of people getting almost murdered by SWATtings for supporting gamergate.
There is no "excruciatingly selective" interpretation of people screaming racial slurs at women and non-whites supporting gamergate.
There is no "excruciatingly selective" interpretation of people explicitly getting caught colluding against gamergate through their own leaked emails.
There is no "excruciatingly selective" interpretation of people targeting women and non-whites for racist and sexist abuse, even costing several their jobs, for supporting gamergate.
There is no "excruciatingly selective" interpretation of people targeting women and non-whites for blacklisting and harassment for supporting gamergate.
There is no "excruciatingly selective" interpretation of the sanitization and even continuation of domestic abuse.

There is only your utter unwillingness and incapability of ever disagreeing with "feminists". Or I should say "feminists" who hold the right views, you're plenty happy to dismiss out of hand feminists like Dr. Hoff-Sommers and Jennie Bharaj.

Someone doesn't "need" to be feminist to be anti-gamergate but the entire point is that virtually everyone committing the worst of the racist, sexist, and at times transphobic harassment and corrupt or even outright criminal behavior does so while invoking the name of feminism as their universal shield against all criticism. Feminism is the banner under which women and non-whites have been doxed and lost their jobs to racist or sexist harassment, it is the justification used to brand 10,000 people including KFC and the IGDA's own chair in Puerto Rico as "the worst of the worst harassers" onthe internet, it is the whitewash used to erase domestic abuse and even neonazism, and it is the weapon used to demonize everyone who questions the group of 80-90% white males at the core of this.

One can not be a fan of logic and be anti-gamergate because siding with anti-gamergate inherently requires the total rejection of overwhelming empirical evidence, including multiple statistical analyses and even plainly looking at the tweets and conduct of GameJournoPros supporters.

One can not be anti-harassment and "against everything gamergate stands for" because no other group online has gone to such extraordinary lengths to fight harassment of all kinds, to the point of tracking down someone repeatedly harassing Sarkeesian internationally and even filing reports with the FBI on him. Meanwhile what are the most prominent voices on the other side doing? Doxing and encouraging others to dox, doxing and encouraging illegal criminal blacklisting (dox redacted), condoning doxing. Harassing even their own side to the point of tears and shutting down accounts just for being civil.

And most of all you can not "be pro-journalistic ethics and be against everything Gamer Gate stands for" because as has been repeatedly empirically proven that IS what gamergate is about.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, a round of applesauce!!!

So about having a dick...

 

Seems in this thread, one particular poster is all about being one...

 

There is absolutely a conversation needed about the ethics of games journalism.

Gamergate is not the aegis under which that conversation can happen. Its toxicity has rendered it impotent.

Here's an interesting conversation about games journalism -- Is Video Game Journalism Corrupt? | CANADALAND

 

Except the entire point is that "toxicity" has been repeatedly and objectively proven to be a fabrication invented by the very people being protested. If this were taking place in the 80s gamergate would have been connected to the satanic panic, in the 50s it would've been called communist, today it's "misogynist".

It's not "toxicity" rendering gamergate impotent, it's the two death spirals (affective and inability to urge restraint) reaching their terminus and turning "Feminism" into a full blown ideological superweapon. Whoever claims it first is unchallengeable on basically anything, and has the ability to destroy any opposition by branding them "misogynist" and "anti-feminist". There will never be any aegis under which this conversation can happen because any genuine protest of these people will be met by the same response of being immediately branded with the Scarlet M.

And interestingly enough that brings us full circle back to the problems men face today, specifically the antagonistic source of most of them and the utter inability to even discuss their existence without being viciously attacked as Worse Than Hitler(tm).

 

You live in a completely different world. Tell me, what colour is the sky in that world?

And thanks for Godwinning the thread.

 

In this thread, the feminist thread, and other threads, a certain TFPer was asked and/or advised many times to:

Slow down.

Take a logical look at what others were actually saying as opposed to what that certain TFPer thought they were saying.

To realize that some issues aren't strictly black and white. The large gray areas mean that not every view is "right' or "wrong."

Not to take every opposing view as an "attack" on their position.

Discussions aren't battles, there doesn't have to be "winners" and "losers."

Articles and information are subject to how they are interpreted.

Some issues will never be settled; dragging out the debate won't change that fact.

Not to twist other TFPers words.

Not to resort to personal attacks.

 

I've done nothing but respond to what others brought up. Take it up with them.

In this thread, the feminist thread, and other threads a certain TFPer was:

Dogpiled by multiple posters repeatedly, then demanded to slow down or drop the subject when responding

Ignored or misrepresented to the point people literally accused him of things other people had said, then straw manned as doing that to others

Had all of his posts subjected to a black and white interpretation, then straw manned as doing that to others for making any statement they disagreed with

Constantly subjected to jabs, personal and otherwise, and then berated for responding at all

The only people obsessed with "winning" are the ones who constantly resort to derailing threads to make jabs, personal attacks, or dogpiling and then demanding the subject be dropped

Facts are facts whether or not you believe in them, "reals" are more important than "feels", there is an objective reality and it is knowable.

Responding to others is not "dragging out the debate", take it up with people who insist on bringing things up and then using a faux moral highground to silence any responses

Had his words twisted (or flat out ignored) to the point conversations became complete non-sequiturs, or people couldn't even keep track of what he'd ACTUALLY said

Personally attacked to such a degree that other posters came to him privately to say they agreed with him but were literally afraid to post on the forums for fear they would be next.

 

Here's the thing, I have similar opinions to a number of other members on the board.
Should I not post in a thread because if I do @Shadowx3 will feel like he is being dog piled?
Sorry but it doesn't work that way and that's not far to me.

I have to admit to a snarky comment or two for which I am willing to say I'm sorry.
There are certainly times when the level of conversation seems to drive the snark but it certainly doesn't make things better.
I've seen many members here apologize when they've made posts that went off the rails so I don't think anybody here has said anything that qualifies on that level.
But there are times when a persons overwrought postings do bring out the more caustic side in our natures.

I have never wanted to win in these conversations.
I have always wanted them to be just that, conversations.
Where it was possible to see multiple sides with resorting to yelling or rancor.

But I don't have to agree with you to see your side.
Living where I do, I have plenty of friends who fall on the far side of conservative and Jadzia's family are conservadox Jews.
We argue constantly but with the understanding that it's in love.
We have to agree that it is possible to see the world with different eyes and still get along.

 

I tried the route of accommodation, trying to find common ground and even apology. I have found it was useless and fell on deaf ears.

If there is a dog pile happening here, it's because the vast majority of people here simply don't agree with the interpretation as presented by Shadowex. And yes, I do think there are some common goals and even some places where agreement could be achieved. Sadly, there is no middle ground for this type of extremist point of view.

I have given up being nice or agreeing to disagree. Trolls are trolls (regardless of how "intellectually high-level" the discourse) and shouldn't be accommodated.