Tyndmyr wrote:The only way you get around this is by acknowledging that the actions are indeed identical, but focus on picking nits with the definition, such that the given action is acceptable for your group, and not for that group, because you're targeting different people. Such nitpicking can be used to dispense with any charge of hypocrisy.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to rebut here. Yes, Gamergate absolutely does have a tribalistic response, hypocritically claiming that they somehow have the moral high ground while cheerfully engaging in much more obvious and less arguable instances of the wrong they claim justifies them.
Look, here's what I see with Gamergate and its opponents:
Gamergate gets their posts removed from a private forum for some reason or another. Claims that removing posts or removing platforms is wrong, then goes in and removes posts from those who disagree with them, and runs ops to try to remove platforms from their opponents.
A member of Gamerghazi (a group of those victimized by Gamergate supporters, and those who try to emotionally support them) gets furious that a Gamergate supporter doxxed someone, doxxes that Gamergate supporter to a much lesser degree, makes a tearful confession and is told by the group that they fucked up, that their good intentions don't excuse what they did, and that they need to leave the group until they can make things right, with their confession stickied as a public admittance of shame for quite a while, and still one of the first results on google search.
Yeah, I mean... I loved your posts but... Really, that was well over the line. I'm not trying to rattle your cage here, I'm sure it's been well rattled, but WHY would we even care WHO this person was if they didn't want to publicly declare it? Who gives a shit if one more dev from what is demonstrably a mostly bigoted and batshit tiny vocal minority of game devs decides to coddle GiggleGrunt?
I'm glad you realized how bad this was, but I have to wonder how things like this ever happened. I mean, the one positive out of this is that we consider this a bad mark on our community whereas this would be simply business as usual for GG and part of exposing "collusion" or... Something.
Both of these instances were hypocritical. One group had the response to that hypocrisy that makes them morally tolerable.
For reference, it is exactly this lack of self-policing in Gamergate
that those who oppose Gamergate are pointing out, and what they are labeling as cognitive dissonance.
Oh gee, self-policing and holding our side to the same standards we uphold for others, imagine that. It's possible, KiA!
I believe you are mischaracterizing what happened here, and its clear that nothing I say will change your opinion.
We left Gawker fucking sterile.
What happened was what we had expected to happen. After all the drama by aGGro over Intel dropping Gamasutra, the remaining advertisers saw the writing on the wall.
Carry on, #GamerGate. We are fucking winning this war. Emails are a grind, but we're due to level up. :3
So now it's just a starvation siege now I guess. Make sure they recieve as little cash as possible.
I don't think they can ever recover from this. This is an unhealable wound.
oddly enough some tactics are timeless. Attilla did this same strategy against Roman cities. If you cant attack their high walls. destroy their caravans.
Remove the advertisers, starve the media.
How KiA posters see what they're doing:
Isn't this doing exactly what the meanieheads do to people/things they don't like? I don't think I support this.
[–]PuzzlePlate 1 point 8 months ago
Fuck what the meanieheads do, (btw they doxx and harrass indiviual people not companies.) ODN is like a time honored tradition. There's people out there who hate Gawker so much, they won't stopen emailing until they die or Gawker dies. They're doing gods work son and driving the final nails in the coffin.
You said you joined the sub to protest against people cutting off revenue to companies based on moral standards. Is it safe to say you're concerned with game companies being attacked by moral activists who are against the content in games?
Interesting note -- the dissenting voice here apparently had their posts deleted by the mods. Despite "KotakuInAction is a community that condemns willful censorship, exclusion, harassment, or abuse."
KiA mission statement:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ard_to_be/
We believe that the current standards of ethics in the media has alienated the artists, developers, and creators who perpetuate the things we love, enjoy, and enthusiastically build communities around.
fuck, any time they talk about Zoe Quinn, or any other game developer not on their side.
We have taken notice of various incidents involving conflicts of interest and agenda-pushing within media which we feel are damaging to the credibility of the medium and harm the community at large.
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ance&t=allhttps://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... l_justice/https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... e_the_new/https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ete_about/
We believe the current media is complicit in the proliferation of an ideology that squashes individuality, divides along political lines, and is stifling to the freedom of creativity that is the foundation of human expression.
And then there's KiA explicitly stating
that Gamergate systematically refuses to claim responsibility for what it asks its members to do:
Also for the benefit of other people reading my comment above and have never participated in an email campaign or never heard the following advice, don't say you are from GamerGate. The other side doesn't say "We are From the S.J.W. and we disapprove", they say their individual reasons on why they are unhappy.
Gamergate as a brand is indeed beyond reproach, but we have always acted as individuals and when somebody spots something wrong, that is our call to action to look it over, verify it, and then let the concerned people know about it. That is all that is required, no mention of the word gamergate is needed to share evidence.
As I've said -- the label of "cognitive dissonance" is because of claiming this farce that they are about free speech, freedom, absolute freedom of opinion on private forums regardless of if it is distasteful or not
, and so on, and then making coordinated efforts to remove those from the groups which disagree with them on issues of bigotry and diversity.
You say you've managed to just not see all those incidents, and apparently you're just not aware of all this bald hypocrisy. Maybe that's true. Maybe, similarly, I'm just not aware of Gamergate publicly rebuking those who said these things and planned these "ops". Can you point me to where they have? I hope they have, because the virulent hatred for honesty on display in their pronouncements saddens me.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.