A Civil Discussion with Garwulf on Gamergate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
 

Smithnikov:

FriendoftheFallen:

You lumped me in with fringe members. You lumped egalitarians in with fringe men's rights stereotypes so how can you ask for the same treatment without approaching hypocrisy?

Because the people you identify with, by name, are doing exactly that, acting like the fringe MRA', and have little to no criticism for even the most ignorant and insulting statements coming from their people. I was lumped in with people I not only fought in the past, continue to fight, but directly and vocally despise. When was the last time you took an MRA or genuine misogynist to task for what they spouted? Do you at least try to give places like /r/incel even half the venom you do to random tumblrina or college students doing stupid things.

I find Sarkeesian to be a con artist. I find SJW idealogy and suppression of speech policies to be garbage. Yet I'm told I AM one for something as petty as my games of choice.

There's the difference.

So you want to not be lumped in with fringe members that support a cause but in a manner you disagree with? Then please do the same courtesy when talking to people like me.

When I identify with certain elements, you can lump me in with them all you like.

You act like certain elements. Fallen's point here still stands. The fact that you do not identify means very little. Its the way you act.

Case in point, you are demanding that you get a treatment you will not give to others. With the "They did it first!" excuse as a defense for when the hypocrisy is pointed out.

Instead of coming across as passive aggressive and snide (Most of your posts seem to be digs at groups you dislike.) why not "light candles"? Lead by example.

proxyhostlawl:
The fact that you do not identify means very little. Its the way you act.

So I subscribe to a specific ideology because you don't like my methods? How does that work again?

Smithnikov:

Because the people you identify with, by name, are doing exactly that

Er, what? People "identifying with other people by name"? What does that even mean? Some kind of "I am Spartacus" deal?

For the record, I for one am me, and not someone else. I may agree with some things people say, but that doesn't mean I become identical with them in all respects. Say for instance that I quote something written by Thomas Jefferson approvingly. Doesn't mean I'm a slave owner, or wish to become one.

Smithnikov:

proxyhostlawl:
The fact that you do not identify means very little. Its the way you act.

So I subscribe to a specific ideology because you don't like my methods? How does that work again?

"Walk like a duck. Talk like a a duck. Most likely a duck."

I don't care what label you call yourself. I judge based on actions. There is a quote about making sure not becoming a monster while fighting them. I think it fits rather nicely.

EDIT: Fixed a typo. Apologies.

StatusNil:

Er, what? People "identifying with other people by name"? What does that even mean? Some kind of "I am Spartacus" deal?

I meant Egalitarians.

proxyhostlawl:

"Walk like a duck. Talk like a a duck. Most likely a duck."

Or it could be a platypus.

Or it could be someone wearing diving flippers.

Again, no logic in sasying "You act liek this, so you MUST have this set of idealogical beliefs." C'mon now.

I don't care what label you call yourself. I judge based on actions. There is a quote about making sure not becoming a monster while fighting them. I think it fits rather nicely.

And that's what I said to the Gatekeepers before I got run out for "tone policing" among other things.

proxyhostlawl:

Instead of coming across as passive aggressive and snide (Most of your posts seem to be digs at groups you dislike.) why not "light candles"? Lead by example.

I was taught that "you attract more flies with honey than vinegar." This has generally been true for me. This last election/media cycle brings back the retort I made at 10: "shit catches even more flies than honey and vinegar combined. "

Methods and tactics do matter though. Doing horrible things for a good cause is still doing horrible things.

Smithnikov:

Because the people you identify with, by name, are doing exactly that, acting like the fringe MRA', and have little to no criticism for even the most ignorant and insulting statements coming from their people. I was lumped in with people I not only fought in the past, continue to fight, but directly and vocally despise. When was the last time you took an MRA or genuine misogynist to task for what they spouted? Do you at least try to give places like /r/incel even half the venom you do to random tumblrina or college students doing stupid things.

Why would I? If blm supporters aren't required to disavow anti-white violence committed by fringe members then why should other groups who have been vilified due to the activities of their extremist or fringe members? I have never been to incel. What is that? NM I don't need to know. Fighting for men's rights is not misogyny and that lumping together of causes is something I take issue with. I don't bump into many genuine misogynists that are vocal about it. The misandrists I see a lot more often because some sexists consider misandry as socially acceptable thus why I bring it up. When I talk about the racism and sexism I have experienced it isn't misogynists trying to tell me I deserved to suffer. It is misandrists who identity as feminists who often tell me I deserved to suffer due to my gender or race. The few times I have witnessed actual misogyny or racism irl and not just jokes I have called it out. You wish to not be lumped in with fringe members or be lumped into a group based on a few calls or views? That is fair. What isn't fair is your defense of doing it by saying "it's done to me, therefore its ok if I do it."
If you find it so frustrating to be unfairly categorized then you would seemingly have the empathy to see why doing that to someone else isn't right.

As I said before: So you want to not be lumped in with fringe members that support a cause but in a manner you disagree with? Then please do the same courtesy when talking to people like me.

Don't lump me in with elements I don't identify with, especially if you have the same complaint about being lumped in yourself.

It is difficult being a centrist, moderate, or even just having a nuanced opinion with so many people on either side claiming you as friend or foe and trying to make you fall lockstep in with all their views. I sympathize with your frustration. I may share a bit of it myself.

FriendoftheFallen:

Fighting for men's rights is not misogyny and that lumping together of causes is something I take issue with.

The cause, definitely. I wish there WERE people who did genuinely did shit for men's rights instead of simply bitch about feminists and women.

And yea, I take issue with also being lumped in with the likes of Sarkeesian, Dworkin, and similar.

When I talk about the racism and sexism I have experienced it isn't misogynists trying to tell me I deserved to suffer.

And it isn't feminists calling me a cuckold and a race traitor.

It is misandrists who identity as feminists who often tell me I deserved to suffer due to my gender or race.

And it's right wingers, MRA's, and "egalitarians" who tell me how much I hate my own gender and hate everything from the Traditional Family(tm) to America because of the video games I play, the music I listen to, and the friends I keep. Things are tough all over.

The few times I have witnessed actual misogyny or racism irl and not just jokes I have called it out.

And I spent my time in college actually fighting against the shit that male victims of domestic and sexual violence are put through, trying to provide as much of a network as I and a handful of others could WITH ALMOST NO SUPPORT, and criticism from both feminists AND the people proporting to fight feminists alike.

You wish to not be lumped in with fringe members or be lumped into a group based on a few calls or views? That is fair. What isn't fair is your defense of doing it by saying "it's done to me, therefore its ok if I do it."

"if it walks like a duck", remember? That makes lumping people in an acceptable tactics. I'm just playing by the rules of the table, baby.

It is difficult being a centrist, moderate, or even just having a nuanced opinion with so many people on either side claiming you as friend or foe and trying to make you fall lockstep in with all their views. I sympathize with your frustration. I may share a bit of it myself.

So what do we do about it?

Smithnikov:

proxyhostlawl:

"Walk like a duck. Talk like a a duck. Most likely a duck."

Or it could be a platypus.

Or it could be someone wearing diving flippers.

Again, no logic in sasying "You act liek this, so you MUST have this set of idealogical beliefs." C'mon now.

So acting like a Nazi doesn't make one a Nazi or at least hold views similar?

And that's what I said to the Gatekeepers before I got run out for "tone policing" among other things.

So what? That justifies your actions how? Can you stop with the "They were mean to me so I'm going to be mean to them!!!!"?

I subscribe to the duck thing. You can't always go by what people call themselves you have to go by how they actually act or not act.

Smithnikov:

"if it walks like a duck", remember? That makes lumping people in an acceptable tactics. I'm just playing by the rules of the table, baby.

No it does not make it acceptable. When I said "The few times I have witnessed actual misogyny or racism irl and not just jokes I have called it out." you ignored my point and talked more about what you did. you did not counter anything I said just vocalized your frustration and talked more about straw man mras and falsely lumped in egalitarians with them again. If I use the duck standard then I can lump anyone mocking mras as misandrist man haters and thus your annoyance at being lumped in with con artists like Sarkeesian is hypocritical if you tell others that their lumping is apt.

Just because others use bad tactics does not justify the use of bad tactics.

nomotog:
I subscribe to the duck thing. You can't always go by what people call themselves you have to go by how they actually act or not act.

And this is why I play the game the way I play it.

If we're gonna assume, I'm gonna assume right back at ya.

proxyhostlawl:

So what? That justifies your actions how?

If you hold to the "duck" ideal, you just did justify them.

You say I act like a radfem SJW, so I must be one. Well, I say you act like a far right conservative, so you must be one.

Smithnikov:

nomotog:
I subscribe to the duck thing. You can't always go by what people call themselves you have to go by how they actually act or not act.

And this is why I play the game the way I play it.

If we're gonna assume, I'm gonna assume right back at ya.

So two wrongs make a right and eye for an eye is a good way to carry out ethics? I disagree. The other issue is that one side gets to redefine what a "duck" is and they try and exclude themselves from that definition to the point of absurdity.

FriendoftheFallen:

Smithnikov:

nomotog:
I subscribe to the duck thing. You can't always go by what people call themselves you have to go by how they actually act or not act.

And this is why I play the game the way I play it.

If we're gonna assume, I'm gonna assume right back at ya.

So two wrongs make a right and eye for an eye is a good way to carry out ethics? I disagree.

"If it walks like a duck..." remember?

Are we going to play by this rule or NOT? Because if we are, we're all playing by it, not just one of us.

Smithnikov:

nomotog:
I subscribe to the duck thing. You can't always go by what people call themselves you have to go by how they actually act or not act.

And this is why I play the game the way I play it.

If we're gonna assume, I'm gonna assume right back at ya.

Did you just assume I was assuming. :P Na the duck isn't an assumption it's a reasoned conclusion based on evidence.

nomotog:

Smithnikov:

nomotog:
I subscribe to the duck thing. You can't always go by what people call themselves you have to go by how they actually act or not act.

And this is why I play the game the way I play it.

If we're gonna assume, I'm gonna assume right back at ya.

Did you just assume I was assuming. :P Na the duck isn't an assumption it's a reasoned conclusion based on evidence.

So becuase of...fuck, you've been pretty nebulous now that I think about it....my tone (?), that I AUTOMATICALLY must subscribe specifically to an established set of far-left ideals and political affiliations?

Smithnikov:

nomotog:

Smithnikov:

And this is why I play the game the way I play it.

If we're gonna assume, I'm gonna assume right back at ya.

Did you just assume I was assuming. :P Na the duck isn't an assumption it's a reasoned conclusion based on evidence.

So becuase of...fuck, you've been pretty nebulous now that I think about it....my tone (?), that I AUTOMATICALLY must subscribe specifically to an established set of far-left ideals and political affiliations?

Oh you were talking bout you? I was talking about ducks in general.

You are, to the best of my knowledge, A political. Your maybe a little bit of a contrarian and you seem to have a live and why the fuck won't you let me live attitude. I base this on the different things you say who you don't like and why you say you don't like them. (Tone is not something you can't read well online.)

Smithnikov:

proxyhostlawl:

So what? That justifies your actions how?

If you hold to the "duck" ideal, you just did justify them.

You say I act like a radfem SJW, so I must be one. Well, I say you act like a far right conservative, so you must be one.

Did I say you act like a radfem SJW? I said you are acting like a hypocrite. If anything you come across as one of those channers that you constantly decry.

Smithnikov:

FriendoftheFallen:

Smithnikov:

And this is why I play the game the way I play it.

If we're gonna assume, I'm gonna assume right back at ya.

So two wrongs make a right and eye for an eye is a good way to carry out ethics? I disagree.

"If it walks like a duck..." remember?

Are we going to play by this rule or NOT? Because if we are, we're all playing by it, not just one of us.

I disagree.
If we go by this logic then I can categorize all feminists as misandrists and thus see anything feminist as a direct attack on me that deserves forcible defense? I don't see ideas as worthy of forcible defense until they become action.
So since gender and racial advocates are generally quacking like left-wing fascists who are into punishing people more than actually helping the disenfranchised since that is how they speak and behave? Thus since SJW's walk and quack like freedom hating fascists I should dismiss every point they try to make without examining the individual merits or faults of the point?
I still disagree. You sound to me like you are trying to justify bad tactics to yourself with the duck logic.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

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