2 ms·

> I seriously doubt > the hate mob I've looked for evidence for which "side" did the harassment. SXSW didn't make specific who was part of the "hate mob". Tha

> I seriously doubt > the hate mob I've looked for evidence for which "side" did the harassment. SXSW didn't make specific who was part of the "hate mob". That's why I guessed it was both sides. > On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers On the other hand, you sound biased (as far as text can provide "sound"), without any specific data to back it up. If you know something I don't, I'd be glad to hear it. EDIT: I'm not picking a side here, and I'd be willing to defend either in a debate. I really hope I don't sound condescending, and apologize if I do.

MBCook 11y ago
As I said, it's clear I'm anti-GG. Biased is defined as 'unfairly prejudiced' against someone. After watching people driven out of their homes and numerous death threats and doxxings I don't think my view of GG is 'unfairly prejudiced'. SXSW hasn't said who is at fault and I imagine plenty of anti-GG people were... 'less than cordial'... about their thoughts. But since one side of this 'debate' is know for issuing death threats I'm willing to make a firm guess on who is at fault. > I'm not picking a side here, and I'd be willing to defend either in a debate. At a certain point, when there is enough evidence, 'neutrality' in the face of a hate group isn't neutral. Perhaps you don't know anything about GG and this is (more or less) the first you've heard of it. Because I know of it I tend to assume others in tech know of it (it's made the national news after all, multiple times). So when I continue to see people couching things as a 'debate' and 'being neutral' to me it looks a lot like the people still 'asking' for 'debate' on the 'possibility' of climate change (or the dangers of vaccination, or the possibility of fake moon landings). They say that but clearly they've picked a side.

2 ms·

> I seriously doubt > the hate mob I've looked for evidence for which "side" did the harassment. SXSW didn't make specific who was part of the "hate mob". Tha

by striking 11y ago

MBCook 11y ago
As I said, it's clear I'm anti-GG. Biased is defined as 'unfairly prejudiced' against someone. After watching people driven out of their homes and numerous death threats and doxxings I don't think my view of GG is 'unfairly prejudiced'. SXSW hasn't said who is at fault and I imagine plenty of anti-GG people were... 'less than cordial'... about their thoughts. But since one side of this 'debate' is know for issuing death threats I'm willing to make a firm guess on who is at fault. > I'm not picking a side here, and I'd be willing to defend either in a debate. At a certain point, when there is enough evidence, 'neutrality' in the face of a hate group isn't neutral. Perhaps you don't know anything about GG and this is (more or less) the first you've heard of it. Because I know of it I tend to assume others in tech know of it (it's made the national news after all, multiple times). So when I continue to see people couching things as a 'debate' and 'being neutral' to me it looks a lot like the people still 'asking' for 'debate' on the 'possibility' of climate change (or the dangers of vaccination, or the possibility of fake moon landings). They say that but clearly they've picked a side.