GamerGate goes after reviewer for review they didn't even write

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Lil devils x:

If you promote anti feminist rhetoric, and have actively voiced opposition to feminism, you are not then a feminist.

This sentence has no meaning, since "feminism" has no consistent content. Not even for individual feminists (see illustration below). And what happened to Dr. Sommers is that she was a feminist, but then new (younger in most cases) people got into it and changed what feminism was. So there she was, speaking feminism while audiences hissed and stomped their feet. If we go by the rules of chronology, it's the audience who were "voicing opposition" (noising opposition?) to feminism, therefore not feminists.

See also: "motte and bailey".

image

The keep is where Anita Sarkeesian (as one example, this being a gaming-related thread) goes "Feminism is teh radical notion that women are people!", because that's obviously eminently defensible. But once you grant that, she's right back out there, poisoning that well in the bailey with ludicrous notions. And when you object, she's claiming you're attacking her keep, ie. the humanity of women. The defensible claim, rather than the significantly less defensible one you're actually concerned with, whatever it happens to be that time.

runic knight:

I wasn't aware feminism was restricted solely to gender studies. I guess the memes are true if you thought that a valid enough point to raise.

Cute, but that was not my point. My point was that StatusNil's representation of Hoff Sommers was misleading at best and actively deceptive at worst. You'd know this, considering I stated as much in the very paragraph you quoted.

Lil devils x:

runic knight:

Gethsemani:

First off, she's a philosophy professor. Feminism traditionally falls under Gender Studies or the broader umbrella of the Social Sciences. Considering how you've been a stickler for the strictures of academic disciplines in the past, this seems an odd mistake for you to make.

I wasn't aware feminism was restricted solely to gender studies. I guess the memes are true if you thought that a valid enough point to raise.

Second, she never got frozen out of anything. Getting employed by any think tank is not something that happens by mistake, especially not one with such extreme policy goals as AEI. Hoff Sommers might be registered as democrat, but she professes to be Libertarian leaning, which skews much further to the right than the democrats do.

And it was likely those less than "proper" libertarian ideals that has her often claimed to not be a feminists or a democrat. The occurrence of which at all sort of defines his point.

If you promote anti feminist rhetoric, and have actively voiced opposition to feminism, you are not then a feminist. If you disagree with the platform and policies of democrats you are not then a Democrat simply because you claim to be. People can claim to be all sorts of things all the time, that does not suddenly make them one any more than it would make you suddenly turn Jewish if you said you were but then run around telling everyone Jesus was the son of God. It is like saying " I am gay" but I am only attracted to the opposite sex. Saying you are something does not make it the truth when everything else you do shows otherwise.

Opposing tactics or actions done in the name of a cause is not the same as opposition to the cause itself. Furthermore, interpreting a cause differently than another is also not opposition to the cause. You seem to make both mistakes.

Being opposed to identity politics, misandrists, or the twisted view of the world a lot of progressive feminists hold is not a rejection of feminism itself, especially if one views feminism as simply a push for equality between the genders rather than the newer version of it involving the usual talking points of blaming men for the world's evils, or fighting first world problems such as rocket scientists in shirts with pretty girls on it. Even interpreting events different from the same ideological start (such as two people wanting "equality", and having different opinions on what that requires or involves).

You also compare a philosophy and ideology, with belonging to a political party. Ignoring the uncomfortable implications that makes about your own inability to separate the two, it is still noteworthy as being an outright flawed comparison. Instead, you reply comes off more as one sect of of a religion like Christianity or Islam saying the other ones are "real" versions of their religion. "You don't support forbidding eating pork, so you aren't the "real" faithful. You have been talking anti-pork-eating stances, so you can't be the faithful."

And all that is without even taking into account the issues of different "waves" of feminism and shifts between the ideology and cause and how it is viewed by those who support it.

Gethsemani:

runic knight:

I wasn't aware feminism was restricted solely to gender studies. I guess the memes are true if you thought that a valid enough point to raise.

Cute, but that was not my point. My point was that StatusNil's representation of Hoff Sommers was misleading at best and actively deceptive at worst. You'd know this, considering I stated as much in the very paragraph you quoted.

You are suddenly so tightly wound on that, when I thought that bit was just all in good fun.

Your point was obviously to be pedantic and antagonistic for no better reason than to make a jab at him with a snarky comment that had no bearing or relevance to anything else beside being dismissive and going after him. It was of course ultimately entirely toothless, and I read it more as meant as a joke than anything truly hostile. So, since the mod was being so comically flipant about the conversation, I saw fit to join the fun and have a laugh too.

Hence why my reply was, you know, an outright joke too.

runic knight:

You are suddenly so tightly wound on that, when I thought that bit was just all in good fun.

Your point was obviously to be pedantic and antagonistic for no better reason than to make a jab at him with a snarky comment that had no bearing or relevance to anything else beside being dismissive and going after him. It was of course ultimately entirely toothless, and I read it more as meant as a joke than anything truly hostile. So, since the mod was being so comically flipant about the conversation, I saw fit to join the fun and have a laugh too.

Hence why my reply was, you know, an outright joke too.

This is also cute, but once again you seemed to not have understood my entire point. My point, as I thought was pretty explicitly stated, was that StatusNil was/is misrepresenting just who Hoff Sommers is and what her credentials are. That's my actual point on topic. The other part was a reminder that it behooves all of us to practice as we preach. If we take jabs at other people for being loose with academic disciplines, we should not be doing it ourselves.

So let's assume people are sincere around here, alright? Because neither you nor StatusNil are among the posters with whom I'd share a joke, and I am pretty sure you know that too.

Gethsemani:
My point, as I thought was pretty explicitly stated, was that StatusNil was/is misrepresenting just who Hoff Sommers is and what her credentials are. That's my actual point on topic. The other part was a reminder that it behooves all of us to practice as we preach. If we take jabs at other people for being loose with academic disciplines, we should not be doing it ourselves.

I know what I said about responding to you, but if you're going to keep maligning me, I guess I'll just risk getting banned to set the record straight. The Escapist forums, everyone! [Hold for applause.]

What "misrepresentations" of Dr. Sommers' credentials exactly are you referring to? I stated that she was a philosophy professor. Well, according to all the sources I could find on short notice, Christina Hoff Sommers received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Brandeis University in 1979, after which she worked at Clark University from 1980 until 1997, first as an assistant professor and then as an associate professor of philosophy. I'd say that counts as a correct representation of her credentials.

As for your insistence that feminism is something that only happens in Gender Studies departments (and maybe a little bit in sociology), I just find it bizarre. As a fashionable ideology, it obviously permeates a great many disciplines. Certainly not least in Sweden, where "Gender Mainstreaming", i.e. the insertion of Gender Studies "perspectives" into all academic fields is official government policy. (Lookie here: http://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/sscr_guidelines-for-gender-mainstreaming-academia.pdf ) Of course one of the major problems academic feminists had with Dr. Sommers was her objection to the way the "Women's Studies" departments were created out of nothing via political fiat and staffed overwhelmingly by people with an English Lit. background who had no grounding in philosophy, so maybe this view is just a byproduct of that past turf war.

Given this, I think my characterization of Dr. Sommers is considerably more accurate than just dismissing her as a "Koch brothers" puppet. She did write and publish Who Stole Feminism some years before joining the AEI (which you claim is some kind of undefinedly "extreme" organization, as opposed to the presumably non-extremist radical feminists). In fact, doing that was one of the things that led to her having to leave academia for AEI, rather than a result of her doing so.

Gethsemani:
neither you nor StatusNil are among the posters with whom I'd share a joke

That's disappointing, as I'd thought we had shared jokes in the past. Personally, sometimes I've even tried to joke with people who were directly insulting me, not that they necessarily got the joke. But I've always felt all this scorn that reigns here is a regrettable corollary of the medium, rather than something to be upheld as a principle.

Oh well, Merry Midsommer to you and yours, regardless.

Gethsemani:

runic knight:

You are suddenly so tightly wound on that, when I thought that bit was just all in good fun.

Your point was obviously to be pedantic and antagonistic for no better reason than to make a jab at him with a snarky comment that had no bearing or relevance to anything else beside being dismissive and going after him. It was of course ultimately entirely toothless, and I read it more as meant as a joke than anything truly hostile. So, since the mod was being so comically flipant about the conversation, I saw fit to join the fun and have a laugh too.

Hence why my reply was, you know, an outright joke too.

This is also cute, but once again you seemed to not have understood my entire point. My point, as I thought was pretty explicitly stated, was that StatusNil was/is misrepresenting just who Hoff Sommers is and what her credentials are. That's my actual point on topic.

Considering Status tackled this part pretty well, and it was more your claim about him, I'll let his reply above address that.

The other part was a reminder that it behooves all of us to practice as we preach.

It would be nice if people did that, I agree. Consistency in how one speaks and how one acts or how one acts towards others is very important and should happens a lot more often.

If we take jabs at other people for being loose with academic disciplines, we should not be doing it ourselves.

His explanation on the topic seems to explain that wasn't the case so much as you pushing a very narrow definition of feminism and not taking into account that it is not limited to that, nor that others agree with your views there. As such, it comes off more as you saying "you used a word I define differently, therefore it is you being inconsistent", when it is really just you either not understanding, or outright misrepresenting their motivations and argument as it was made and intended.

So let's assume people are sincere around here, alright? Because neither you nor StatusNil are among the posters with whom I'd share a joke, and I am pretty sure you know that too.

I am one of the more direct and literal posters in these forums, and even I thought you weren't being entirely serious with your reply there and was instead just making snark for humor sake. Adding nothing of value to the conversation, but lord knows that posters around here like to do that sort of thing often enough so it wasn't out of habit at least.

But if you wish to be taken entirely seriously, then very well. You are defining feminism in academia by the lowest common denominator in assuming it must be related to gender studies and excluding philosophy and likely many other aspects as well. In doing so you justify every stereotype toward that regard that people direct towards it represented by the issues with it in gender studies and how it is taught there (such as man-hating, reliance on false definitions of racism/sexism based on "power + privilege", and concentration on first world non-issue problems while ignoring third world legitimate gender disparity grievances). You also outright legitimize the ideal of feminism into being not a wider philosophy on equality or a noble ideal of women's rights, but rather solely the purview a bloated academia with no practical applications in the real world outside of perpetuating itself similar to a virus or cancer.

By narrowing the definition in order to try to justify excluding those you dislike the politics of, you forfeit arguments defending against specific criticisms.

Now between all that or just including Sommer's, and others, views as part of the whole of feminism because they all share a philosophical and ideological root based in the original movement for women's rights and equality, I would much rather be generous in including her for the same reason I don't limit views on who are christians to Westburo Baptists. Saying the extremist fringe is the only "real" version of something is a no true scotman fallacy to begin with, but when it is the side you support, it opens you up to a lot of criticism that would have otherwise been fallacious. If you really wish to do so, then the consequences of it must be accepted and the defense of feminism as an "ideology for equal rights" is entirely abandoned and lost. The gender studies view of feminism is not about equality.

In its place, you argue for the view of feminism that people have based on it being gender studies alone. This is that feminism is nothing but well-off moral-authoritarian busybodies pushing gender hatred and blame to punish those opposed to thieir sweeping, sexist claims as they attempt to justify blatant discrimination and sexism against a gender. If gender studies is the only lens allowed, and indeed when you cut out even philosophy in order to justify excommunicating sommers you have nothing else left but that. And as such every complaint, criticism, or accusation about feminism based in how it is portrayed in genders studies is valid and applicable without being part of the composition fallacy it was previously.

I can not for the life of me imagine why anyone would ever want do that if they supported feminism. Is your push to "no true scotsman" away a person you dislike so great that you would validate every claim of "feminism is about hating and blaming men" and "feminism is based on failed marxist principles applied to gender"?

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

It doesn't really. It's kind of like people who still claim Occupy Wall Street exists. Yes, there are a few people who can't let go and still claim that it's relevant but most know that the party's over. Honestly, it seems to happen with every movement. Because people felt like they belonged for the first time when they join a movement, they just can't let it go even when everyone else has.

As for Gamergate, I suspect that most of the Gamergaters have either grown up and realized that "gaming journalism" never mattered or they just decided to shift targets to Star Wars where they can continue to squawk "SJW" like a demented parrot.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here