4 ms·

The only thing I am saying, is that even mentioning negative events such as gamergate, triggers in readers the negative connotations associated with them, and i

The only thing I am saying, is that even mentioning negative events such as gamergate, triggers in readers the negative connotations associated with them, and it is a common tactic to sully opponent's arguments for that reason. So when possible, it is good to avoid those kinds of unproductive remarks unless there's a good tie-in, which so far there hasn't been, and I already elaborated on why it doesn't make any sense for there to be in my previous comment. If you seriously think that saying > those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS. was just a simple "This reminds me of gamergate", then you are the one putting words in people's mouths. The intention lies in the words "read to me like", implying that the original comment that was in response to, was invoking connotations of the gamergate event. You are also applying the definitions of these fallacies you are mentioning rather selectively. Because if I am a hypocrite, then your argument that those gamergate parallels are more valid than the godwin invocations is equally hypocritical. A logical fallacy is not a matter of degree, it is a binary evaluation: either an argument is valid or it is not.

vacri 11y ago
> even mentioning [negativity]... So when possible, it is good to avoid those kinds of unproductive remarks unless there's a good tie-in So then why are you shaming people with snarky remarks about Orwell? You say you aren't a hypocrite, yet you're doing exactly the thing you say shouldn't be done? Anyway, I'm tired and bored, and couldn't be bothered reading more of your efforts to somehow argue that a widespread shrill grassroots online hate campaign over 'media ethics'; a female target; based on faulty, incomplete data; in the internet political culture specific to the current time... should put absolutely no-one in mind of gamergate ahead of any other particular event. The two events apparently share no commonalities. You're using me as a sort of playing field for the academic parlour-game of seeing if you can spin-doctor the way out, and frankly, I couldn't be fucked continuing.
- axlprose 11y ago
  I did admit wrong on the orwell part, but you seem to be taking this quite personally to be releasing that kind of frustration out so needlessly without even addressing any of my points. If anything, that shows you have clear bias there, but I need not point it out very much, for your frustration with this debate should've made that quite clear by now. Strong emotions always cloud analytical thinking. And it doesn't matter what arguments anybody may propose to you if you have already made up your mind that much, so arguing under the guise of objectivity or logical correctness is quite disingenuous.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Well, a) From my first reponse, I've been addressing your points. I haven't addressed every single last one of your points, just like you haven't done so with mine, because discussion works that way. Not to mention we'd end up with immense walls of text if we did. I just opted out in that last one, for obvious, declared reasons. and b) When the argument switches from arguing about a topic to arguing about the nature of the argument itself, it's boring. You can play semantic games into perpetuity like that. I've been arguing online since before the turn of the century; when it gets to this stage, it never goes anywhere, it's never interesting, and there's never any further insight to be gained by anyone. My apologies though, I did forget your acknowledgment of the godwin stuff.

vacri 11y ago

> even mentioning [negativity]... So when possible, it is good to avoid those kinds of unproductive remarks unless there's a good tie-in So then why are you shaming people with snarky remarks about Orwell? You say you aren't a hypocrite, yet you're doing exactly the thing you say shouldn't be done? Anyway, I'm tired and bored, and couldn't be bothered reading more of your efforts to somehow argue that a widespread shrill grassroots online hate campaign over 'media ethics'; a female target; based on faulty, incomplete data; in the internet political culture specific to the current time... should put absolutely no-one in mind of gamergate ahead of any other particular event. The two events apparently share no commonalities. You're using me as a sort of playing field for the academic parlour-game of seeing if you can spin-doctor the way out, and frankly, I couldn't be fucked continuing.

axlprose 11y ago
I did admit wrong on the orwell part, but you seem to be taking this quite personally to be releasing that kind of frustration out so needlessly without even addressing any of my points. If anything, that shows you have clear bias there, but I need not point it out very much, for your frustration with this debate should've made that quite clear by now. Strong emotions always cloud analytical thinking. And it doesn't matter what arguments anybody may propose to you if you have already made up your mind that much, so arguing under the guise of objectivity or logical correctness is quite disingenuous.
- vacri 11y ago
  Well, a) From my first reponse, I've been addressing your points. I haven't addressed every single last one of your points, just like you haven't done so with mine, because discussion works that way. Not to mention we'd end up with immense walls of text if we did. I just opted out in that last one, for obvious, declared reasons. and b) When the argument switches from arguing about a topic to arguing about the nature of the argument itself, it's boring. You can play semantic games into perpetuity like that. I've been arguing online since before the turn of the century; when it gets to this stage, it never goes anywhere, it's never interesting, and there's never any further insight to be gained by anyone. My apologies though, I did forget your acknowledgment of the godwin stuff.