It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
RWarehall: sip

Vain, when you propose a "final solution" for Gamergate or banning all those who claim to support it, YOU ARE A SJW! Face the facts...
I'm going to stick my neck out and kind of defend Vaina in a limited fashion. I think you misread him on the final solution. He was saying the GG thread is advocating a "final solution to the SJW", not saying he wanted a final solution to the thread itself. Still bad, but consistent with the demonization, rather than transparently hypocritical. Maybe I missed something though, but at least in this thread that's what he wrote a far I recall...
avatar
dtgreene: Let me ask you a question:

Do you believe that minorities should get equal rights and protections under the law (compared to the majority)?

If your answer is Yes, then you support social justice.

If your answer is No, then you are clearly a bigot.
avatar
Telika: Let's just point out that many bigots do "believe that minorities should get equal rights and protections under the law" in the sense that these omg oppressive governmental laws should be replaced by the gloriously libertarian rule of the jungle. By this perspective, the minimalist governmental intrusion (instrusion is evil, government is evil) applies the same way to everybody, without "favouring" the dominated at the expense of the dominant. Everybody has the same right to crush his neighbour, and the ethic of social darwinism ensures that everything ends up perfectly moral.

"Between the strong and the weak, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses, and law which liberates" (stated a 19th century left-wing dominican, omg the categories). It's true, depending on the perspective. But for a conservative bigot, for whom the Traditional Social Order is to be glorified and preserved as the Way Things Are And Should Be, the important thing is to preserve the freedom of the strong rich master, against the oppression of the weak poor servant, especially when this oppression translates into a restriction of the freedom to oppress.

Ordinary everyday relations of power are deemed normal, natural and saint, when not downright invisibilized. They are not oppressive from the dominant's standpoint. It's when governmental laws start to interfer with them, trying to rebalance social relations and structural power differentials, that the empowerment of the dominated is perceived as an active (and unnatural) constraint, and as a handicap unduly inflicted upon the legitimate dominants. Restrictions to sociocultural "bullying" are seen as state "bullying" in itself, because emerging asymetries are compensated by asymetrical actions (a society that has been spontaneously drifting starboard is reoriented by propellers pushing port, which allow the starboard fans to complain about propellers in general or one-sided propellers).

In short, people can easily "believe that minorities should get equal rights and protections under the law (compared to the majority)" while being strongly opposed to "social justice". After all, a law that demands to pay a fortune in order to access to education is "the same for everyone", while a law that reduces the fees for the poor is a law that "applies inequally to different people"...
You're mistaking the animal instincts of man with man's natural desire and need to trade and communicate. No society can function with predatory Darwinism. To build, to live, to survive, these human needs require compromise and sharing. Sharing and compromise don't have a goddamn thing to do with international arms treaties and 25% income tax laws. Simple problems don't require complicated solutions... nor can a problem be solved with with the tools used to make the problem. But hey, mo money mo problems. Let's give it another tax hike and throw another billion towards public education and whatever's left we'll toss at the prison system.

And minorities have equal protection under the law (at least in western nations). In our glorious American Republic it's one of our founding virtues. It's also part of the reason we have both a Senate and House of Representatives, an electoral college that respects the rights of both large and small states, and a Constitution that puts limits on the power government can have to take away the rights of both the majority and/or minority. But I guess that's all bullshit, right? Screw America, right? The minority complains about minority rights until it's no longer the minority... then minority rights be damned. This is the path of human progress in something as tremendously pedantic and banal as BUREAUCRACY. The more things change... yadda yadda yadda.
avatar
Vainamoinen: ...

One of the very few things Brasas has made clear in this thread is that social justice in itself, as the major part of the term, isn't the problem; and as I have made clear countless times, the gamergater supporters are fighting for their own kind of social justice ...

snip
There's two levels of problem, three even

1 - the "classy" problem - where I at least have been saying both sides have large radical elements almost from the start. This is the tone policing model where the problem is the warrior crusading mentality and associated righteous actions.

2 - the object level political problem - where we both think the other's social justice is problematic even if the actual goals align to a large extent, at the risk of triggering Telika: tolerance, respect, love, etc... we are all for these, we disagree on the road to get there and which lines to cross or not.

3 - the deep problem, we would eventually reach irreconcilable ethical differences when looking at the lines mentioned above - the stereotypical liberty vs solidarity thing...

So again, you're kind of right, but only kind of - we do have a "problem", I'd say THE problem, at the level of what is GOOD social justice. And the fact you deny that legimitization to your opponents is a huge contributor to the "classy" problem. Ergo the assumption that X Y and Z are smokescreens, camouflage, malicious...


I mean Vaina really, which do you think is worst?
- RWarehall's misreading of you as a genocide apologist.
- Your own presumption that GG intent is extermination of ***s.
low rated
avatar
Emob78: And minorities have equal protection under the law (at least in western nations).
WRONG! In more than half the US states, people can legally be fired for being LGBTQ. Plus there are other issues, like public accomadations (including bathroom use by transgender people) and the right to have one's ID reflect one's true identity without having to undergo unreasonable medical treatment.

(This post is based on the US; other countries may be different.)
avatar
Emob78: And minorities have equal protection under the law (at least in western nations).
avatar
dtgreene: WRONG! In more than half the US states, people can legally be fired for being LGBTQ. Plus there are other issues, like public accomadations (including bathroom use by transgender people) and the right to have one's ID reflect one's true identity without having to undergo unreasonable medical treatment.

(This post is based on the US; other countries may be different.)
Rather than engage in a lengthy and pointless legal debate, let's start the argument where it should start. I'm sure you probably believe that employment is a right. Do you? If so, I'll know where we stand. I do not. When you sign on to work for a private enterprise, the employer reserves the right to terminate that employment at any time. Their reasons are their own business. God forbid we let companies hire and fire who they wish.

But you're half right. Lots of states in America still don't recognize gender identity as a part of sexual discrimination statutes. But again, if you believe that employment is a right, and that you're being discriminated against because your employer doesn't provide bathrooms for the 246 different known gender identities, then we have totally different concepts of what constitutes 'protection under the law.' Differentiating rights and social privileges can sometimes be a tough challenge... especially to those who constantly claim victimization and demand that society rearranges itself to meet their (ever changing) wants and needs.
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: WRONG! In more than half the US states, people can legally be fired for being LGBTQ. Plus there are other issues, like public accomadations (including bathroom use by transgender people) and the right to have one's ID reflect one's true identity without having to undergo unreasonable medical treatment.

(This post is based on the US; other countries may be different.)
avatar
Emob78: Rather than engage in a lengthy and pointless legal debate, let's start the argument where it should start. I'm sure you probably believe that employment is a right. Do you? If so, I'll know where we stand. I do not. When you sign on to work for a private enterprise, the employer reserves the right to terminate that employment at any time. Their reasons are their own business. God forbid we let companies hire and fire who they wish.

But you're half right. Lots of states in America still don't recognize gender identity as a part of sexual discrimination statutes. But again, if you believe that employment is a right, and that you're being discriminated against because your employer doesn't provide bathrooms for the 246 different known gender identities, then we have totally different concepts of what constitutes 'protection under the law.' Differentiating rights and social privileges can sometimes be a tough challenge... especially to those who constantly claim victimization and demand that society rearranges itself to meet their (ever changing) wants and needs.
For your first point, the way I see it, destroying someone's life without a really good reason is not a right. It is not fair to fire someone just because that person happens not to be gender conforming (for example). So yes, employment is a right; if someone is qualified to do the job and is doing the job well, the person shouldn't be fired just because she doesn't conform to gender norms.

Also, for bathrooms, all that is really needed is for people to be allowed to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity (regardless of legal status) that they are comfortable using, and for there to be gender neutral restrooms for those who aren't comfortable using either gendered restroom.
So, Emob agreed that firing someone for their sexual orientation is legal in several states.

dtgreene implicitly disagreed with Emob on right to employment. The distinctions between: right to employment, right to specific employment, right to not be fired, right to not be fired for a specific reason - are wide and were left a bit vague. But the way it's been put it's hard to see this as being bridgeable. You two disagree on this. Want to go deeper on why?


I'll just point out that the agreement that it's legal to fire for sexual orientation is not equivalent to an agreement that the law is sexually discriminatory. Firing someone for cis-sexuality is similarly legal I assume - just either unusual or impossible to prove. Hence the level of legal protection is identically zero. The discriminatory douchebag is the individual making such firing decision, not the law. This is a legalistic point, but important to me in that it shows the real problem to address is the intolerance of the employer to those that are different.
avatar
dtgreene: For your first point, the way I see it, destroying someone's life without a really good reason is not a right. It is not fair to fire someone just because that person happens not to be gender conforming (for example). So yes, employment is a right; if someone is qualified to do the job and is doing the job well, the person shouldn't be fired just because she doesn't conform to gender norms.
The employer can fire anyone as long as they pay the penalty, because your salary is too high, because your are a Muslim, because you are a free thinker, because your attitude is irritating. Being LGBT is just one of the many reason.

avatar
dtgreene: Also, for bathrooms, all that is really needed is for people to be allowed to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity (regardless of legal status) that they are comfortable using, and for there to be gender neutral restrooms for those who aren't comfortable using either gendered restroom.
What if your right's trample on other people rights?

What if the girls feel threaten that a man is going to the washroom with them, even though the man pronounce he is a she, they cannot feel comfortable?

It is to easy to dismiss that these girls are discriminating monsters, but there are many cases of men pretending to be gay to rape women so their fears have grounds.
And it should probably be noted that in all 50 states, employers can make up another excuse to fire someone. As to the bathroom thing, it shouldn't be too hard to see the problem that might cause both ways. It worries me that so many people can only see their cause and don't give any consideration at all to any others.

And when it comes to civility, its ironic some of the people in this thread making the claim. We have some people jumping into the dozens of Windows 10 threads just to tell everyone how they should think its crap and chastise anyone who disagrees "for giving bad advice". We have people claiming that anyone agreeing with principles related to Gamergate are racist and sexist and any claims made like ethics in journalism are a "smokescreen". People who can't acknowledge how any reasonable person might have an issue with journalists calling the typical gamer a "basement dwelling neckbeard" or a "misogynist".

Basically we have another "outrage" thread. The only odd thing this time is that the OP hasn't had his thread downvoted. Why is that? Is it because he is part of the "in-crowd" so he's entitled to such a thread, while anyone else deserves to get downvoted into rep oblivion?
avatar
RWarehall: And it should probably be noted that in all 50 states, employers can make up another excuse to fire someone. As to the bathroom thing, it shouldn't be too hard to see the problem that might cause both ways. It worries me that so many people can only see their cause and don't give any consideration at all to any others.

And when it comes to civility, its ironic some of the people in this thread making the claim. We have some people jumping into the dozens of Windows 10 threads just to tell everyone how they should think its crap and chastise anyone who disagrees "for giving bad advice". We have people claiming that anyone agreeing with principles related to Gamergate are racist and sexist and any claims made like ethics in journalism are a "smokescreen". People who can't acknowledge how any reasonable person might have an issue with journalists calling the typical gamer a "basement dwelling neckbeard" or a "misogynist".

Basically we have another "outrage" thread. The only odd thing this time is that the OP hasn't had his thread downvoted. Why is that? Is it because he is part of the "in-crowd" so he's entitled to such a thread, while anyone else deserves to get downvoted into rep oblivion?
Because it's such a simple truth that so many in the SJW sphere ignore. The argument is made that gender isn't biological, that it's a human social construct. If that's true, then gender is a subjective rather than an objective. As a subjective, it is open to endless interpretation, judgment or revision. If gender is subjective, and we're going to re-order the current social order so that gender C can be fit in with genders A and B, then nothing can or will stop genders D-Z... including multiples, other-kind, binary and non-binary avian fur porn transexualized, pre-op robot samurai warriors. Gonna build a specific gender neutral bathroom for those little snowflakes too? Of course not. But by the time the litigation ends, gender bathrooms will be legally enforced and NO ONE will have to have bathroom buddy bigotry afflicted upon them. That means your crazy ex who argues with the voices in their head gets their very own bathroom at work. And guess who gets to pay for it? You do, you silly patriarchy supporting tax payer. See how egalitarian that is? And how goddamn ball sucking off the walls batshit crazy too?! It's a super combo of wackiness!

And how in the hell did this become the Gamergate forum? Because Gamergate is love = Gamergate is life? I have no answers. Just questions.
Well.. this topic has turned strange(r).
low rated
avatar
Emob78: And how in the hell did this become the Gamergate forum? Because Gamergate is love = Gamergate is life? I have no answers. Just questions.
He was referring to the GG news thread. The forums are quite clean of it otherwise discounting about one thread per week that spills out like this.
avatar
Smannesman: Well.. this topic has turned strange(r).
Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to leave, this is a quarantined area. It's badly contaminated with Gamergate radiation and Serious Internet Business isotopes.
Personally I'd be more worried about ionizing radiation from toxic radical social justice. The offendatrons themselves can only tolerate it by wearing their gasmask of thought-compliance.
I never understood the frequency.