How did I imply that? I asked for what you thought could be a feminist's perspective. I didn't even ask for your own.

But since you are identifying as a feminist, what about people's private relationships do you find "feminist?" Where does that come from?

"So when Kotaku rejects the timing of the affair and says it wasn't a disclosure issue, a feminist's reply would be what then?"

To me, this implies that a feminist would have a specific reply. "A feminist's reply would be what" It implies there is a single correct reply that a feminist could give. The question alone, is so strange, as if one's views on feminism governs every aspect of one's life, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

"A feminist's reply to the question "would you like milk in your tea?" would be what then?"

Identifying as a feminist? What are you implying there?

There is nothing about people's [sic] private relationships that is "feminist". That doesn't mean someone who is a feminist cannot have a view on a private relationship, or disagree about what is and what is not a private relationship.

I see a long list of people telling (mostly politely) this self identified SJW how SJWs are wrong. I see the most upvotes going to fabricated phantom ideas of what an SJW is, i.e. authoritarian, naive, compared to Scientolgists, etc. If you scroll to the bottom you can see some posts where some alternative views to "SJW are evil" are presented, but they have few votes. Someone that calls for a less abrasive reply gets downvoted.

Yep, that basically helps my argument I think.
Did not intend that.

I don't think it's so strange. Feminism is a point of view, so asking for a feminist point of view on something isn't strange. I think GamerGate is about feminism. I think the public discussion of people's sex lives is certainly within feminism.

nothing. You said "as a feminist." That's identifying as a feminist.

But what about the public reaction to private relationships? Do people have a right to know who have had sex? Isn't that patriarchal?

Personally, I don't think people have a right to know. I also don't think its necessarily patriarchal but I don't think my view on that is absolutely the correct view. When the "story" first broke I feel like I was one of the strongest people in these forums arguing that it was not something that was newsworthy, but that doesn't mean that all other feminists in the world would agree with me on that issue.

Disagreeing with something isn't the same as not allowing that opinion to be heard.

You seem to have a worldview where sincere belief justifies a lot. You "genuinely hold that belief" someone else is evil, therefore you are justified to ... what exactly? You tell me, cos my opinions of you are actually irrelevant. You tell me...

On bad, you're missing my point, considering you seem to not understand the ethical concerns I made, I guess it's not so surprising. I'll try to adjust. I mean you saying worth (as a human being?) is somehow connected to skill, but not to morality is just.. tragically amusing I guess.

On immoral vs amoral. You tell me. Ok? Check the end, I am really curious on this...

On bullshiting. If you believe I'm not lying, that I 'genuinely hold such beliefs', seems by your own admission that counts for something. So yes, I care about you believing I'm being sincere, insofar as I am engaging with you, not some inanimate object. People nowadays, so afraid to admit they care, so afraid of rejection... of course I care about you caring or not, why should I pretend?

Yes, prevention of speech can be ethically suspect. And in the Zoe thing I think the privacy concerns were bullshit. In several other topics there was no consideration of privacy, because the journalists couldn't care less about privacy of people they disagree with. As for the excuse that it's censorship of hate speech. Bullshit.

Now on forums. The forums are media, and lots of them were forums of journalistic publications. You'd assume they have a mission of informing the public... (Ethics! ;) ). It's not the private property angle that is unethical, it's the double standard on treatment of discussion around person A vs person B.

My opinion is that any opinion that another human SHOULD be demonized is ethically wrong. That includes Hitler, whom I will be happy to hypocritically demonize whenever I feel like. At least I won't act holier than thou... if this is too nuanced I truly will lose hope on the human race. I don't think it's unethical to kill Hitler in retaliation, I don't even think demonizing him is always wrong as it may be a necessary evil to win against him, it's still tragic (war usually is) and going so far to say he should be demonized is taking it too far. How's the saying? Even Hitler was loved by someone.

If you are not sure (and you hardly can be sure) of someone's intent, accusing them of misogyny, even if they just offended each and every woman in the world is wrong. Like Larry Summers some years back, remember that? Again, is that too nuanced? The usual dodge, which you at least are not taking is how the word misogyny is not meant as a moral indictment, of intent or individual guilt, rather some amorphous collective responsibility. Which is usually bullshit, the word is used clearly and obviously as weapon to shut down opposing views and demonize. How did it go in Alinsky's Rules? Personalize, paralize, etc... SJW for the win. Ethics! The ends justify the means... it's only neckbeards anyway, who gives a damn. Right?

Now, how about some quid pro quo mate?
You do believe all GGers are at some level responsible for the actions of harassers. Why?
You don't believe all Christians are responsible for WBC, or all gamers for GG. What is the difference?

Inquiring minds would like to know. GOG citizens of the world journalism, straight from the source ;)

Sounds reasonable to me. No need to speak for the world or all feminists. But that certainly sounds like the arguments I've heard from a lot of other feminists, that it's just not our business to know those details. Plus I think, as readers either we'll never really know a particular journalists biases, or have the brainpower to spot them when they matter. Bias can come from anything, journalist are human, why the preoccupation with sex?

But gamergate keeps talking about Zoe Quinn. Enough so that if there were people in gamergate who don't want to talk about her, they couldn't avoid it.
Unless there's a system by which a majority can downvote or shout down or otherwise badger minority opinions so that they are virtually unheard. Heard only by the most patient and thorough of readers.

You brought her up. Go ahead and search back a few pages. The only mention of her before you brought her up was incidental and involving an old comic involving her that was dredged up and used to fabricate damning evidence against a pro-GG developer. Let's not kid ourselves about which party is continually bringing her up.

The OP itself and the ensuing civility in the discussion is a testament to the willingness of GG members to engage viewpoints opposite their own. Any of those who posted "unpopular" opinions are free to make their own threads to voice their opinions louder than in the comments. How is anyone not being heard? Because some people downvoted things they disagree with? Doesn't that seem like a strange way of determining who's being "heard" and who isn't? If my profile is to be believed, my (month or so old) Reddit account has a combined twelve upvotes; according to your logic, I'm one of the least-heard people on the platform.

Thats kind of what a writer is supposed to do. Present their actual views on things, not say what, for example, advertisers or consumers tell them to say.

I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but I gave you the two distinct definitions of bad. One is moral, one relates to value/worth. "That t-shirt is bad" is not suggesting the shirt is immoral.

To not pick someone on your sports team because they are bad at sport, isn't really a judgment on the morality. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand. I would describe you as being bad at understanding the difference between "bad" and "bad". That doesn't make you a bad person, however.

Me tell you what?

OK, I don't know whether its your genuinely held belief, nor do I care.

I disagree. I have said this many times. Forcing someone to have to host a conversation on their website that they don't want to host, is ethically suspect in my view. We disagree on that issue. I don't think hate speech has any relevance to this discussion.

I don't think games websites have a mission of informing the public. I think that is a little naive.

ok. I think maybe you might be misusing the word "nuanced". For example, saying that ANY opinion on something is ethically wrong is not nuanced, its almost the opposite. If you were to say sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong, it depends on the circumstances, which include a number of different factors, that would be nuance.

I don't believe that.

Just asking are you in conflict with your inner self, as you are discussing your own posts with yourself? Or did I miss an answer ?

She defended herself. It's not about bringing her up (although KiA does that frequently) it's the response when she is brought up. It's not disapproving of how a CEO decided to follow an artist on twitter and ask him to send a resume after seen his sexist gamergate comics, it's placing the blame on her, again. Did any gamergater ask Brad to apologize? Or even acknowledge that it looks bad? CEOs should probably care about who they are following on twitter right? No, everything was Zoe fault.

Nope. The OP was obsequious in her post. Anything but civility would have been damning. What willingness? The willingness to tell someone they are wrong? There was zero engagement. No discussion had. The OP asked why y'all hate me and they gave their reasons, both fabricated and straw.

Well looks go look shall we.
Here's a KiA thread at random:

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2o920d/literally_jack_thompson/cmkv7o1

"Wouldn't you have been better off linking to things he said that are inaccurate? Other than the one about scientific studies that stuff is generally true."

negative votes
below the threshold to be shown


edit: actually, go take a look at all the comments saying 'what Target did is not cersorship' getting downvoted below the threshold right now. Gosh, it's almost as if the majority of gamergaters don't want to read opinions they don't agree with.

Mate, all this sound and fury, signifying nothing. Is that how the quote goes? :) I'm not going to epeen on my English knowledge, please assume I am choosing my words very carefully and know how to use them. Thanks in advance.

So from the bottom this time. It's kinda amazing how not just me, but several other folks 'accidentally' got the impression that you feel GG is defined by harassment and misogyny from your posts. I'm glad you say that's not the case. Maybe your actual views are more nuanced, but I'm going on the full extent of the words "I don't believe that." Until you again conflate GG with misogyny, sometime in the future :)

On journalistic 'mission', let's say I agree with you on pragmatic level.
Can I still have the ethical opinion the mission should be information and objectivity rather than indoctrination and subjectivity? Is that too nuanced? Does reality being imperfect force me to not have ethical ideals?
You can have a different ethical opinion, maybe journalists should be entertainers to you, or propagandists, well then we would have an ethical debate. Interesting how GG proposes a mission, but anti-GG replies: Misogyny! Hmmm... curious.

Further, no one is forcing anyone to have a discussion. I don't see anyone pointing a gun at Zoe or Anita and going "Answer my ethical questions or I'm shooting the cat!" The other side did 'force' the discussion away from certain channels, in a perfect example of memory holing that I'd have trouble believing if I hadn't seen with my own eyes.
Again no one is saying any fora should be forced to host these discussions, or hold a certain opinion, but why don't they? What's so special about this topic to deserve this incredible 'policing'?
Can I have the opinion that the privacy or hate speech excuses for censorship were unfounded, and therefore these actions were repressive, intolerant, unethical?

Finally, on bad. Your examples are perfectly clear to me, yet you are clearly not getting my point.
The appropriate example is 'Gamergate is bad.' What is the skill or worth of GG that is being judged here? Are you going to pretend it's skill at basketball? Or maybe worth as tuba players? Maybe it's that they're casual gamers! Now that's an insult. :)
Get real mate, the worth being considered second rate in this sentence is moral. This in inherent in what Gamergate is, as in a group of people. Other examples: Australia is bad. Republicans are bad. Women are bad. Lawyers are bad.
Is this really so nuanced semantics? Please...

Mostly aesthetics.

My critical philosophy is a little odd (most people will probably disagree with it, and is basically rooted in my belief that the subversive nature of art makes it undefinable, and that it is useless to try to objectively quantify artistic merit.