4 ms·

> prove the mistruths in those the declarations of intent, be it from outright liars who are participating to the useful idiots who cover the brigading scum. Y

> prove the mistruths in those the declarations of intent, be it from outright liars who are participating to the useful idiots who cover the brigading scum. You've just stated exactly my point!!! Not everybody that identifies with GG has malicious motivations, they're just "useful idiots" who need to think more critically about the statements they ingest. Hence my complaint about over-generalization: if you outright vilify people and call them names, they'll only get defensive and be less likely to consider critiques. > Yeah, Nathan Grayson totes had to flee from his home and completely uproot his life. I never meant to imply that the distribution was equal, and I acknowledged previously that there were lots of goons acting completely reprehensibly ("Now, there probably are sexist feelings at the root of many of their members' concerns").

eropple 11y ago
Useful idiots are still morally culpable for providing cover for bad people. You don't get a pass on aiding malice through ignorance. And there is a point at which the intense clinging to "well both sides" goes from ignorant to in itself malicious. At this point, months into this, I don't think you can be in that epistemic closure without actively adopting its mores. I have stopped entertaining the notions of people who want to hurt my friends, and the people who want to defend them. Changing minds is a nice-to-have, but putting a stop to the bad behavior is a necessity. So at this point I think that it is sufficient to beat them. Which has already happened; they've already, individually and in aggregate, lost the battle to dominate the industry, to freeze out people who want to cater to people who aren't young white males. The GamerGate people will have their sinecures and their friendly developers (which is why the shirt-rending screaming about "SJWs" is hilarious, it's not like the industry is going to stop making games for young white males), but as a whole, they've lost, and I'm okay with not really making nice-nice to them as they fade to irrelevance.
- nailer 11y ago
  > And there is a point at which the intense clinging to "well both sides" goes from ignorant to in itself malicious. Seriously, if you're ignoring one side being horrible but not the other, that's endorsing harassment and threats.

eropple 11y ago

Useful idiots are still morally culpable for providing cover for bad people. You don't get a pass on aiding malice through ignorance. And there is a point at which the intense clinging to "well both sides" goes from ignorant to in itself malicious. At this point, months into this, I don't think you can be in that epistemic closure without actively adopting its mores. I have stopped entertaining the notions of people who want to hurt my friends, and the people who want to defend them. Changing minds is a nice-to-have, but putting a stop to the bad behavior is a necessity. So at this point I think that it is sufficient to beat them. Which has already happened; they've already, individually and in aggregate, lost the battle to dominate the industry, to freeze out people who want to cater to people who aren't young white males. The GamerGate people will have their sinecures and their friendly developers (which is why the shirt-rending screaming about "SJWs" is hilarious, it's not like the industry is going to stop making games for young white males), but as a whole, they've lost, and I'm okay with not really making nice-nice to them as they fade to irrelevance.

nailer 11y ago
> And there is a point at which the intense clinging to "well both sides" goes from ignorant to in itself malicious. Seriously, if you're ignoring one side being horrible but not the other, that's endorsing harassment and threats.