KnightExemplar wrote:and it just seems to me that you think that Gamergate's morality is beyond redemption.
Well, at this point, yes. The things they publicly suggest practicing are fundamentally opposed to what few laudable principles or goals they try to claim (and I'll admit that stuff like the "gamers are dead" articles were clearly intended to inflame, and Sam Biddle is a horse's ass), the bulk of their historical claims have been soundly debunked as extremely dishonest, and while not every single Gamergater may be a literal Nazi, their group has cozied up with literal Nazis, child molestors, and advocates of rape. I do know that there are those who choose to remain within the group and dislike these things, but, to put it simply, more action is needed. It's the same as with having narc relatives who stomp on your boundaries -- you have to enforce clear consequences for violating an ethical norm, or you're not actually enforcing that ethical norm
What Gamergate is doing is not outright abuse -- they're not, at least as far as I can tell vocally, en masse advocating outright nazi principles, advocating that women cannot claim rape once married, or trading child porn. But by allowing those who do
to remain part of the group because "group unity is the most important", they are enabling that bad behavior.
At this point, because of the actions Gamergate has used as its "public ops", because of the harassment that it is very strongly implicated in, and because of the groups with which it has chosen to become allies of convenience, the only way to redeem it would be to have something analagous to the Southern Strategy phenomenon that the Democratic party went through -- the main group would have to switch gears to become outright hostile to the bad elements, commit to practicing their ideals in both word and deed, and the bad apples would have to jump ship en masse. And, well, I'm not seeing that -- instead, looking at their top posts I'm seeing celebration of a youtube argument where one of their own claims sexism doesn't exist, calling a female a reporter a liar for claiming she was sent a death threat, and various pro-Trump threads attacking the claims of Russian interference in the election. I can find two actual threads discussing actual censorship or allegations of unethical journalism (both with an anti-anti-Trump bent, funnily enough), while the rest basically amount to "this thing feminists think is stupid, these claims of racism are stupid, these claims of bigotry are stupid", etc.
For them to be "redeemed", they'd have to start practicing the morally laudable fig leaves they claimed way back in the beginning, or start over with new morally laudable fig leaves, but either way -- start practicing them. But this whole "we're all very leftist even though we are vocally supportive of far right politicians, groups, and ideals" is tiresome.
All I can say is that your viewpoint is impractically unfair to groups that do protests of any kind.
Would most protestors pass my requirements? No. That does not mean that ignoring these requirements does a satisfactory amount for solving the problems they enable.
Personally speaking, I don't think so, mainly because I know that I've seen much worse protesters through my lifetime to compare them against.
I think that what Gamergate, as an organization, practices is fundamentally contradictory to any laudable principles or goals it tries to claim, to the point that you cannot
engage in those practices if you sincerely believe in those principles or goals. I don't believe that Gamergate is (in the majority) literally Nazis (although there is objective, solid evidence that much of Gamergate has cozied up with literal Nazis)
What's wrong with an eye for an eye?
That it is objectively inferior to replacing the missing eye.
There's definitely an idea of appropriate proportionality in justice.
Are we talking about Western legal justice, or justice as a concept?
The idea that the punishment necessarily has to be different than the crime, or else the punisher is a terrible hypocrite, seems odd.
A fine is fundamentally different from telling the victim they have a get out of jail free card to go steal something themselves.
There is a fundamental difference in "Person A unlawfully possesses thing B which belongs to Person C, thing B should be returned to Person C" (which returns things to their original just state
) and "Person A unlawfully possesses thing B which belongs to Person C, now Person C gets to unlawfully possess thing D".
I see nothing wrong with responding to, say, a protest with counter-protest, or to a boycotts by boycotting in turn. That seems really fair, actually. Proportional.
Neither do I. The reason I don't see anything wrong with it is because I'm not claiming that it's ethically wrong to boycott in the first place.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.