The Last (Court) Battle of GamerGate: Feminists Lost, Free Speech Won

[Volourn]

"Yes regret is the wrong word...what I mean is have you reviewed your opinion of the GG movement ? And this can be a good thing as you may have moved on from your original view? Most of us have changed our initial opinions

 

And the reason I am asking you is because you were the first person in the GG thread to say to me things like " how come I don't support white people " ....I initially dismissed what you were saying because I was on the anti-GG side but you were 100 % correct and I only realized later I was being inconsistent in my view"

 

Except I've been very consistent.  I still don't like being accused of being a white male gamer rapist monsterous murderer.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Volourn

[Zoraptor]

Again with the relativism where no truth exist. I pity you.

Please, you're coming off as the right wing equivalent of Bruce (OK, with better grammar, spelling and fewer inane smilies) and frankly have been for some time. I find it hard to believe that's what you're aiming for but if it is please let me know.

 

99% of the time when people complain about 'relativism' they don't have a clue what it means and it's because someone has just challenged them and they don't have an asterisking clue how to respond so are looking for a cheap bail out that allows them to not wonder why they don't have an asterisking clue how to respond. Yeah, you're somewhat better than the hard edge SJWs are because you aren't trying to impose your views on others* but so what, if you think being mildly better than people you deride is great then you don't have very high aspirations at all and should accept that others are going to point it out. Which is pretty much exactly what TN was saying about GG. "There are no wrong tactics, only wrong targets" is a load of bollocks no matter who says it.

 

*though it has to be stressed, often those labelled as sjws aren't actually trying to impose their views either but just hold a 'progressive' view point.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

"but just hold a 'progressive' view point."

 

\Define 'progrssive'.

[Orogun01]

Yeah, what a lot of people celebrating his victory are losing here is that he's not a hero. He was harassing Reily, just not criminally. With Guthrie the harassment stems from her ideology and worldview. She believed she was being harassed because she didn't like having to hear his opinions on a public forum and assumed every time he tweeted to a hashtag she also frequented that it was directed towards her. She's a narcissist.

Maybe they rather stand up for an **** than an ideologue, of the two the latter seems the worst to be honest. 

[BruceVC]

 

Again with the relativism where no truth exist. I pity you.

Please, you're coming off as the right wing equivalent of Bruce (OK, with better grammar, spelling and fewer inane smilies) and frankly have been for some time. I find it hard to believe that's what you're aiming for but if it is please let me know.

 

99% of the time when people complain about 'relativism' they don't have a clue what it means and it's because someone has just challenged them and they don't have an asterisking clue how to respond so are looking for a cheap bail out that allows them to not wonder why they don't have an asterisking clue how to respond. Yeah, you're somewhat better than the hard edge SJWs are because you aren't trying to impose your views on others* but so what, if you think being mildly better than people you deride is great then you don't have very high aspirations at all and should accept that others are going to point it out. Which is pretty much exactly what TN was saying about GG. "There are no wrong tactics, only wrong targets" is a load of bollocks no matter who says it.

 

*though it has to be stressed, often those labelled as sjws aren't actually trying to impose their views either but just hold a 'progressive' view point.

 

 

Zora its not nice to insult people on a forum. You need to consider the impact harsh words from someone of your statue and influence may have 

 

 But Meshugger this allows me  to comment because its weird but I have wanted to say something for exactly the reason Zora alluded to, I do see this criticism you are receiving from people like TN and Zora as something I went through and go through and I can identify with you ..even though you are on the opposite of me in some things . So here is something positive

 

You will receive criticism when you start following your own path around certain topics on a forum and in RL, the secret is to understand its part of your journey and its actually healthy. You just need to really believe what you say....if you don't believe it then thats fine but you need to take there advice 

 

Now I'm not going to analyse what TN said to you but I can use Zora as an example of what I mean ( sorry Zora but you did open yourself up to this and I do need to give an example for Meshuggers sake )

'

I don't dislike Zora, he is very intelligent, well informed, he has a good sense of humor and he is prepared to go into detail in a debate but he is fundamentally anti-Western and this is also  his greatest weakness. He constantly tries to find examples of events that will undermine the West and I will never pander to unfounded anti-Western sentiment so I have had numerous debates with him and seen him have debates with others. And yet he has never been right about one example of " this is going to really hurt the West " because his bias blinds him to the obvious reality ...The West despite its  flaws is the most effective ideology in the world and is superior to any other system of government or current ideology and a person like Zora just can't accept this 

 

So for example in the past he has debated 

• The Ukraine conflict will lead to Russian dominance
• The Russian economy will not be impacted by sanctions and falling oil price
• The Greek austerity crisis will shatter the EU as the EU is being unfair
• Merkel and Germany has utterly destroyed the EU by allowing refugees in
• The accusation that Turkey is buying ISIS oil is true and will end the anti-ISIS coalition 
• Turkey had no right to shoot the Russian plane down and now Russia will make them suffer

 

I can  go on and on but you get my point, so understand you will also end up debating with people who criticize you but in most cases you will prove them wrong, Now that doesn't mean you target people on purpose or  be malicious or gloat

 

But in summary you need to believe and understand what you post ...and realize you are now in a world where it is normal to get into numerous debates

Edited January 24, 2016 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

Mate, that couldn't catch a sardine.

 

 

\Define 'progrssive'.

 

progrssive: noun, syn 'nazi sjw'.

[Meshugger]

 

Again with the relativism where no truth exist. I pity you.

Please, you're coming off as the right wing equivalent of Bruce (OK, with better grammar, spelling and fewer inane smilies) and frankly have been for some time. I find it hard to believe that's what you're aiming for but if it is please let me know.

 

99% of the time when people complain about 'relativism' they don't have a clue what it means and it's because someone has just challenged them and they don't have an asterisking clue how to respond so are looking for a cheap bail out that allows them to not wonder why they don't have an asterisking clue how to respond. Yeah, you're somewhat better than the hard edge SJWs are because you aren't trying to impose your views on others* but so what, if you think being mildly better than people you deride is great then you don't have very high aspirations at all and should accept that others are going to point it out. Which is pretty much exactly what TN was saying about GG. "There are no wrong tactics, only wrong targets" is a load of bollocks no matter who says it.

 

*though it has to be stressed, often those labelled as sjws aren't actually trying to impose their views either but just hold a 'progressive' view point.

 

 

No.

 

It is relativism because it puts a priori the opinion of SJWs on equal footing with everything else, as if they have a solid foundation to build moral judgements when they do not. For every link from Chomsky, Zizek to Zappa and Yiannopoulos, it is about highlighting the objective truth that they are wrong downright to a philosophical level. 

 

I am not talking about those with innocent ideas like we should all be seen as one and everyone deserves to self-actualize their own souls, i am talking about the slippery slope of people who will commit evil acts on their own conscience because they believe they are doing something good. Relativism.    

 

 

 

Lets talk about Zoraptor. 

 

 

The guy posts here like anyone else and you talk he cannot read your post. That's just weird.

[Sakai]

It is relativism because it puts a priori the opinion of SJWs on equal footing with everything else, as if they have a solid foundation to build moral judgements when they do not. For every link from Chomsky, Zizek to Zappa and Yiannopoulos, it is about highlighting the objective truth that they are wrong downright to a philosophical level. 

If i learned anything from this crapstorm, it's that so often "objective" truths happen to be so very subjective. More a matter of whose trench you're in right now, than anything else. 

[Barothmuk]

 

• The Greek austerity crisis

 

Weren't you and KP meant to have a debate about this?

[BruceVC]

 

 

• The Greek austerity crisis

 

Weren't you and KP meant to have a debate about this?

 

Yes we must have this debate but not now Baro, I have been having numerous debates on the radio and various forums and I just want to relax now

[Meshugger]

More on-topic this time: 

 

[BruceVC]

Mate, that couldn't catch a sardine.

 

 

\Define 'progrssive'.

 

progrssive: noun, syn 'nazi sjw'.

Sorry but this really made me laugh

 

"progressive = Nazi SJW"  

[Volourn]

It's funny but not true. Nazi SJWs are not progressive unless the defintiion of progessive has changed.

[BruceVC]

It's funny but not true. Nazi SJWs are not progressive unless the defintiion of progessive has changed.

Good to know ...good to know

 

I consider myself a progressive white  liberal in discussions in South Africa

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It seemed like every other article was about how the games I liked are disgusting filth and I should feel bad, and rather than reporting on games they were dictating to the devs how they should make their games.

 

 

To be fair, looking at the current state of gaming, it often seems like the devs themselves know the least how to make their games 

 

 

 

Maybe they rather stand up for an **** than an ideologue, of the two the latter seems the worst to be honest. 

 

 

Spoken like a true **** 

[BruceVC]

 

It seemed like every other article was about how the games I liked are disgusting filth and I should feel bad, and rather than reporting on games they were dictating to the devs how they should make their games.

 

 

To be fair, looking at the current state of gaming, it often seems like the devs themselves know the least how to make their games 

 

 

 

Maybe they rather stand up for an **** than an ideologue, of the two the latter seems the worst to be honest. 

 

 

Spoken like a true **** 

 

alum when I made that long post about GG and why I am now opposed to anti-GG I mentioned to you that many people who supported GG honestly felt that for months they as white males were being criticized and vilified for things they had control over

 

Now you and I had no issues with the Alexander article but the truth is many other people really felt she was attacking them on  a personal level. And she was, if you just take what Oerwinde posted above he summarizes  my point 

 

In the greater scheme of SJ  and true equality if people like us didn't feel we were being discriminated against is irrelevant  but if large numbers of white, male gamers did feel this then we need to condone this as its wrong?  Because SJ  cannot be about only showing concern for bigotry against minorities or " non-white " people?

 

I hope this makes sense?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

• The Greek austerity crisis

Weren't you and KP meant to have a debate about this?

If by debate you mean Bruce telling me I'm wrong without being able to make an argument on how austerity is beneficial, then I suppose we've had it.

[Malcador]

Everyone in that case in Toronto needs a 2x4 to the side of the head.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

• The Greek austerity crisis

Weren't you and KP meant to have a debate about this?

If by debate you mean Bruce telling me I'm wrong without being able to make an argument on how austerity is beneficial, then I suppose we've had it.

 

No we haven't had it yet as you well know. And I did excuse myself and apologize as I going out drinking 

 

And of course I will provide all the valid links to support my arguments, everything I say and believe on these forums I can support with data

 

Of course you  can still decide Greece is somehow the victim here and thats fine, I can't force you to agree with me 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Bruce the last time you used links to support your argument they provided evidence against austerity working. Unless of course you aren't concerned with unemployment or wage stagnation, but I think it would be a hard sell to claim those don't factor into standard of living.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

In the greater scheme of SJ  and true equality if people like us didn't feel we were being discriminated against is irrelevant  but if large numbers of white, male gamers did feel this then we need to condone this as its wrong?

 

 

If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong.

 

Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong.

[Calax]

 

 

In the greater scheme of SJ  and true equality if people like us didn't feel we were being discriminated against is irrelevant  but if large numbers of white, male gamers did feel this then we need to condone this as its wrong?

 

 

If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong.

 

Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong.

 

The only time I'll honestly consider "Equality!" a valid argument for changing a protagonist's gender or adjusting a story to fulfill a magical set of criteria that a feminist agenda sets, is when they also allow female antagonists to get brutally beaten, butchered, and murdered in the same ways as male antagonists do.

 

Basically, the only time I'll take any argument of "Equality" seriously is when this montage can have the genders randomly picked, rather than "Only guys can get the **** beaten out of them in imaginative ways!"

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The only time I'll honestly consider "Equality!" a valid argument for changing a protagonist's gender or adjusting a story to fulfill a magical set of criteria that a feminist agenda sets, is when they also allow female antagonists to get brutally beaten, butchered, and murdered in the same ways as male antagonists do.

 

 

As long as the female antagonists being brutally beaten, butchered and murdered are also wearing equally practical outfits, I see nothing wrong with that. The idea that female characters are delicate little flowers who need to be protected at all costs isn't a particularly... "SJW-compatible" one.

[BruceVC]

Bruce the last time you used links to support your argument they provided evidence against austerity working. Unless of course you aren't concerned with unemployment or wage stagnation, but I think it would be a hard sell to claim those don't factor into standard of living.

 

The last time we debated the Greece austerity crisis I misrepresented my point with you because I didnt understand how you personally feel about what austerity means  and how we can measure its success

 

I now think I do  have a better understanding around  your views on things like the Global economy, Capitalism, the role of Wall Street etc.

 

So lets forget what I said to you in the past as I want to present my argument is a different way but before we engage its important we both understand clearly what the other person actually thinks overall about the Greek austerity measures

 

I will take a guess on what you think and please correct me at the end if necessary 

 

You see the Greece crisis as a country being bullied into having to pay back debt that based on the reality of its own economy it is  impossible. In other words how can the EU troika give loans to Greece and also force it implement austerity when there are serious structural economic  problems in Greece like high  unemployment ... in order to pay just the expected initial part  on the loans  from the EU they need to take more loans so its like a vicious circle,. Greece is expected to pay back this staggering debt yet can't because there economy is under severe pressure 

 

You see this as a  good example of the greed and indifference of certain countries and  this is a display of what is wrong with Capitalism in certain  places in the world?

 

 

 

 

In the greater scheme of SJ  and true equality if people like us didn't feel we were being discriminated against is irrelevant  but if large numbers of white, male gamers did feel this then we need to condone this as its wrong?

 

 

If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong.

 

Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong.

 

 I hear you, this is a much better way for me to try to make my point as opposed to that long post as we need to agree on certain stages of the whole GG development in order for me to progress to my final point

 

And funny enough  I already share your view on most parts of this topic but I want to share something new with  you ...thats what this about for me. Just giving you a different perspective

 

But before I continue do you want to have this debate and I don't mean to sound condescending but maybe you just don't feel like debating this again in which case I wouldn't want to wast either of our time?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

In the greater scheme of SJ  and true equality if people like us didn't feel we were being discriminated against is irrelevant  but if large numbers of white, male gamers did feel this then we need to condone this as its wrong?

 

 

If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong.

 

Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong.

 

 I hear you, this is a much better way for me to try to make my point as opposed to that long post as we need to agree on certain stages of the whole GG development in order for me to progress to my final point

 

And funny enough  I already share your view on most parts of this topic but I want to share something new with  you ...thats what this about for me. Just giving you a different perspective

 

But before I continue do you want to have this debate and I don't mean to sound condescending but maybe you just don't feel like debating this again in which case I wouldn't want to wast either of our time?

 

 

Go on, share your perspective.