Posted February 27, 2015
Vainamoinen: If someone's jumping behind rape advisers and their wacky crew, yes I blame them. I someone's jumping behind blatantly obvious misogynists, yes I blame them.
And your "side" has people who did nothing about friends they knew were raping (Arthur Chu) and those who deny the existence of sexism as it concerns an entire gender (Anita S, who I hate to bring up, but that's a wonderful nugget to throw back at you). I don't expect to dissuade you from your viewpoint, of course, but you should know that you're in absolutely no position to judge. Vainamoinen: One jumps behind them and suddenly, all that misrepresentation ceases to be misrepresentation. It's gamergate becoming what the media may describe it as.
Only when fumbling for any excuse to paint an entire group as guilty by association. But let's say that your portrayal of these individuals in question isn't in any way overblown: are bad people incapable of making ever making good points again? Should one person's misdeeds really be used to undermine everything they say to the point where even association causes one's arguments to weaken? Given the number of anti-GGers who have lied, incited, and otherwise been terrible human beings, wouldn't that very same standard weaken your argument?
Post edited February 27, 2015 by 227