Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

He shouldn't need to convince you of that. Presume that he's arguing in good faith until there's compelling evidence that he isn't, of which at this moment there is none.

yes, its funny how when 95% of people who approach a topic from a certain angle are revealed very quickly to be arguing in bad faith people naturally become more defensive. Weird how that pattern recognition thing works. I feel bad for the remaining 5%, but its really not that difficult to do even a little bit of cursory research and approach things with a more informed opinion.

 

[Mesoian]

Last I heard that guy successfully fled the country. (unconfirmed of course since 8chan is about the worst source imaginable)

And the best hard evidence against anyone running that site would be inadmissible due to the inner workings of other related companies.

It's....very complicated.

 

[berzeli]

Respectfully, with public figures, especially ones who have taken a strong position on an issue, their personal life choices can be relevant where they intersect with that issue. For instance, Larry Craig, conservative Republican US senator who was against gay marriage, got caught in 2007 trawling for sex in a men's restroom. He was widely mocked, even though the incident occurred in his personal life and not in the course of his direct duties as a senator. Obviously Zoe Quinn isn't a public figure in the same vein as a US Senator, but I'd argue that the internet has blurred the lines between public and private figures. When you self-identify as a feminist, and you have a public presence as a feminist indie game developer, it's reasonable to expect that if it's discovered that you've acted in a way that arguably demeans you as a woman in your private life, that's going to become a part of your public identity as well.

But she didn't have that public presence.

You're creating a very weird analogue, and I'm not sure how "that arguably demeans you as a woman" relates to feminism.

Quinn's boyfriend had every right to share his story online. Defamation is the act of using falsehoods to besmirch another person's reputation. Speaking out the truth against someone, publicly, is not defamation. It wasn't mature what the guy did, and it wasn't healthy, but it was within his rights to do. Now the harassment and threats that members of the online community directed against Quinn, they were wrong, and disproportionate, to boot. That's where I have a problem with GamerGate.

You do know that he lied, right?

And just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

You did the same with the anti"-side", there was nothing the comment about "bone a dude" added to your argument. It just made it seem like the second woman was the anti-side's pornographic fantasies (which added to my interpretation of her being objectified).

Not at all. Put yourself in the minds of the bigots: If the women you like are heavily sexualized and exist to pleasure men, and feminists are advocating for less sexualized portrayals of women, then you would likely assume that the progressive women who would be in favor of this are anti-sex and anti-men.

My comment was intended to present a distinction. The first, idealized woman has sex with men because it's her function, she accepts objectification. The second rejects objectification and has sex on her own terms and as often as she chooses, because she enjoys it for her own reasons.

This is one of the core irrationalities of MRAs: They believe that women should be at their beck and call for sex, but perpetuate an old-fashioned ideology that leads women to avoid casual sex for fear of shaming. Feminism benefits men who are interested in consensual, enjoyable sex as much as it benefits women. The only ones who truly suffer from the effects of a feminist agenda are the pigs.

 

[Mman235]

The rest? It was one guys post and a handful like 6 or 7 others agreeing. The sub thread the video was in was tiny I'm not sure why or how you got so much out of that but reading one post and taking it as gospel is not my thing. Apparently I didn't find his arguments as convincing as you did.

The posts go over the basic flaw the whole thing has, which is that it comes from the standard GG perspective that Anita is some sort of radical who's shaming and censoring developers, while providing no sources whatsoever for that.

Spoiler

It's because there aren't any.

She continually talks about the harassment she's received (which she should) yet does it in the same breath of trying to downplay the same type of harassment that Anita gets for some reason, and at one point she goes all-out MRA and calls anyone who defends Anita beta white knights (albeit with the "white knight" part phrased slightly differently).

 

[The Technomancer]

And just like that a thread about Brianna Wu is now about Zoe Quinn. Well done internet, well done

 

[Myggen]

He shouldn't need to convince you of that. Presume that he's arguing in good faith until there's compelling evidence that he isn't, of which at this moment there is none.

Come on, with some of the stuff RpgN has posted about Quinn, it sure looks a lot like the "I don't care about Zoe Quinn, buuuuuuuuuut..." posts we've gotten numerous times since this shit started. It's pretty fair to not assume it to be in good faith when you see posts like that.

 

[berzeli]

Not at all. Put yourself in the minds of the bigots: If the women you like are heavily sexualized and exist to pleasure men, and feminists are advocating for less sexualized portrayals of women, then you would likely assume that the progressive women who would be in favor of this are anti-sex and anti-men.

My comment was intended to present a distinction. The first, idealized woman has sex with men because it's her function, she accepts objectification. The second rejects objectification and has sex on her own terms and as often as she chooses, because she enjoys it for her own reasons.

I disagree, but let's leave it at that, I don't think either one of us will convince the other and it is just circular arguments at this stage.

 

[NickFire]

What I said was that people have explained to you that her personal life doesn't concern you and that you haven't listened to those people.

Everyone is fit for judging based on how they carry themselves at all times. No one deserves a free pass for bad behavior because the cameras were off. How we treat those closest to us says a lot.

Of course, its fair to argue that putting too much emphasis on how someone handles the last days of a youthful relationship is unwarranted. Everyone makes mistakes, wishes they handled things in their past better, etc. That does not mean they are a bad person, or incapable of maturing, or undeserving of forgiveness.

And my personal opinion is who someone is sleeping with has no relevance to their ability to program.

 

[berzeli]

Everyone is fit for judging based on how they carry themselves at all times. No one deserves a free pass for bad behavior because the cameras were off. How we treat those closest to us says a lot.

Of course, its fair to argue that putting too much emphasis on how someone handles the last days of a youthful relationship is unwarranted. Everyone makes mistakes, wishes they handled things in their past better, etc. That does not mean they are a bad person, or incapable of maturing, or undeserving of forgiveness.

And my personal opinion is who someone is sleeping with has no relevance to their ability to program.

Sure, but you are not entitled to know the intimate details of someone else's life which is what we're discussing.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I don't think it actually matters who cheated, if they cheated, or why.

 

[ModBot]

The thread has off-topic into a general gamergate thread.