Exactly. Which is why the idea is to obliterate the opposition and all they stand for (and yes, for the record, I do feel kinda silly typing that, but such are the times we are living in). Rhetoric plays a big part in that, and being able to articulate into a word the loathsome, spite-worthy ideology they espouse is both important and effective. Moderates and fence-sitters are useless. They will flock to or be strong-armed by whatever side comes out the victor. Which is why the idea is to be able to use dialectic, making a case and constructing an argument "reasonable people" can chew on (winning hearts and minds, if you will), and rhetoric, to verbally flay the opposition and show in no uncertain terms that their positions are morally repugnant and elicit rightfully visceral responses. That's an unfair comparison, considering those were already times of gay acceptance in pop culture, and people were already predisposed to find the pro-group more appealing, whereas the con-side had an uphill battle, so to speak. If only, friend. That's how I was brought up as well. But those rules only work if the other side plays by them as well, and if you're living in a homogeneous, stable society. These days, all they bring about are the types of moral victories that relegate you to the "losing with dignity" side in posterity, while your world goes to hell around you.

See above. On its own, dialectic only works in philosopher's circles and circlejerking in-groups. On its own, dialectic gets picked apart by rhetoric. You can make the soundest, most verifiable and empirical assertions, but if your opponent says you're a sexist bigot, nobody will pay attention to it and you will be shouted down in the end, and that's the takeaway most people will retain of the discussion. Politeness directed at them, certainly, not to the opposing side. It's also proven that people respond much better to attention-grabbing spectacles than polite rebukes. If there is substance to them, so much the better (think Cyrano de Bergerac). They won't address it anyway. Or, if they do, they'll lace it with ad hominems in an attempt at discrediting you. Again, that only works when two sides operate by the same rules. It does not work when feelings trump facts. Indoctrinated people have always acted irrationally and like fools. The only reason people are rejecting the narrative now is because those who oppose it have finally found their voice and have been emboldened to fight the narrative with the very same weapons it has bludgeoned dissenting viewpoints with for years.

Its money actually...
It always is and always will be about money.

Majority of your chairity are just scams to get money...

Make-A-Wish for dying children ?
They give 5% of what they take in to sick kids.

Media just follows the money, polticians just follow trends.
Few honest people left in the world today.

Those honest people are usually called crazies

You do have a point, but SJWs are corrupt so they use money to win. And once they won they bring ruin.

Have you followed this drama from the beginning, or even just this thread? Moderates and fence-sitters are many of the people here. Have you never seen the "I was neutral in this until I saw (something horrible from the other side)" posts here and elsewhere? Discounting moderates' ability to think for themselves and assuming they'll fall in line when you're "the victor" strikes me as a pretty huge mistake. Besides which, what does being the victor even entail? No one having dissenting opinions anymore? This is the problem with causes in general and the reason why I distanced myself from all of this awhile back—there's no end point where enough will have been won that you and others will hang things up and call it a day. Even if there was, it's unrealistic to expect burned bridges to magically mend afterward.

In 2008? More than half of the country was against the idea according to , and [url=http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/]Pew agrees. Prop 8 was even passed in 2008.

That almost sounds like a defense of the agenda-driven clickbait that would have been fodder for this thread not long ago. What's the point of fighting if you're going to devolve into equal and opposite badness in the process? I understand your frustration at being labeled various things (been there), but you seem to be inching dangerously close to a "no bad tactics, only bad targets" approach.

I agree with the latter part of this statement, the stuff about "victory". The conflict you speak of is an abstract one where "defeat" or "victory" are equally abstract terms.

I might disagree with the first part of this though, the part that suggests many of the people commenting here (assuming "here" is this thread) are moderates or fencesitters. What I think is a "moderate" in this context is not someone who chooses to remain neutral in this "war" that's being spoken of, but someone who questions whether there is a war going on in the first place. Someone who occasionally reads an article about how videogame X, TV show Y or comic Z received some executive meddling treatment and rolls their eyes at it, in a "meddlers gonna meddle"-way. Someone who thinks executive meddling is overdone from time to time, but doesn't think about it in the apocalyptic terms you so often see here and don't let it dominate their life or everyday train of thought.

I suspect the savvy "moderate" remembers that commercial creative works have always had instances of meddling, censorship, criticism and folks disagreeing about stuff. They remember the whacky censorship console giants implemented during the good old 16-bit days; the brothel that was changed to a dance studio in Sega's Landstalker, the hilariously narmy changes to Mortal Kombat on the SNES where blood was changed to sweat and fatalities got overhauled and the frequent editing out of alcohol use or religious themes in localizations. They remember nazi-less Wolfenstein for the SNES or that version of Carmageddon with green-blooded robots/zombies. They remember the beloved 80's cartoons where lasers were used instead of bullets, each episode ended with some kind of boy-scoutish moral statement to kids and the complainer in the group was always wrong. They remember that comics went from the golden age to the silver age to the dork age to the dark age. They remember that creative works evolve over time, sometimes in one direction, sometimes in the other, but never remain constant for long. It's a fact of life. And they might remember that the main difference between today and earlier generations is that today you have the internet and where google allows you to search for stories that feed that delicious adrenaline rush of permanent outrage on a daily basis, creating the feeling that nowadays, things are much worse than they used to be during previous generations.

There's a lot of apocalyptic rhetoric in this thread. (from what I can tell, it's somewhat of a constant in this thread) There's talk of casual readers as "outsiders", there's talk about "victory" and "war". There's talk of "the other side" and "the enemy" who wishes to "bring ruin" and "take away language". (what does that even mean?)

If the casual GOG visitor checks the community page and clicks on this thread upon seeing it in the "active threads"-section (again), what he sees MIGHT just be less akin to a war room filled with brave rebels carefully planning strategies and operations against a shadowy cabal seeking to control people's thoughts from behind the scenes and more akin to a treehouse where Calvin and his cardboard box-created duplicates are holding a G.R.O.S.S.-meeting while Hobbes is off having tea with Susie. ;)

I believe you are reading the book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police recently. Many of what you said is similar to Vox points in the book.

I think Vox is correct in many things, however, because he is correct in many things does not mean he is correct is all things. It may be applicable acting like an asshole and making things as difficult as possible to SJW that try to get you fired, but the same tactics are not applicable (in my opinion) convincing people in the social media and other situation.

Now with all due respect, to the topic at hand
What has insults to do with Dialectic or Rhetoric arguments? Surely people can produce dialectic or rhetoric statement without resorting to insults?

On what basis dialectic get picked apart by rhetorics? Also what insults have to do in this?

You can check the Europe is burning thread, there are people who use rhetoric and dialectic, but get pick apart because they resort to insults. There are people who try to frame the thread starter as a right wing conspiracy, but it don't take root because the thread starter keep his cool and never resort to insults.

On what basis people will think someone is a sexist bigot just because someone say so? Surely that person must have done something to give the impression of a sexist bigot. Like insulting people or have a history of bad behavior. If the person keep his cool and just stick to the truth, while he may still be a sexist bigot in the eyes of the indoctrinated people, he will not be so in the eyes of other rational people, since they see the proof before their eyes, someone keeping his cool even when call names by the other side.

While more people response to attention grabbing spectacles, it does not mean people will response better, or side with people that keep hurling insults. And you do not need insults to do attention grabbing spectacles.

That's great then, because we are not interested in them, but want to let reasonable people see the truth. Just keep our cool and hammer at their logical inconstancy will make us look better to the reasonable people.

Again why should we care about the illogical people? We only want to show reasonable people the truth, being polite or neutral stating the truth while the other side is babbling and fronting in their mouth sprouting nonsense looks better then speaking the truth but engaging in a childish spitting contest with the other side.

Yes there are a growing number of people that reject the narrative because more and more people voice up against it, but I do not believe it is due to people hurling insults at the people who maintain the narrative. I believe it is due to more and more people see the flaws of the narrative.

I begin in this thread criticizing GamerGate for harassing a charity organization because they do not accept their donation. I had a very negative initial image of them. However, some people like 227 talk to me, I have a cognitive dissonance because it is no way like the media description. How can a calm and logical person identify with a hate movement?

You don't remember how the atheist trend spread do you?
Insults are strong tool against majority of people because majority of people desire belonging.

It is how most kool aid cults operate by tearing people down , making them feel worthless ... unless they do as told to belong.

But that is exactly what we don't want. We don't want insecure zealots, we want to make people free, we want to be free, we want freedom of thought and speech, we don't want obedient lapdogs. They are useful, but what we want is for people to support us based on reason and freedom.

Haven't read it yet, but I do check the man's blog and happen to think he's right on the money and articulates well something that had been gnawing at the back of my mind for years. One thing leads to the other. Like I said, moderates and fence-sitters will either flock to or be strong-armed by whichever side triumphs. You don't call people out for their contemptible behaviour and ideology to appeal to moderates' sense of politeness and propriety, but to make it clear in no uncertain terms how contemptible the ideology you're addressing is, and how it elicits nothing but the basest derision. Insults are very much part of rhetoric. I already made my case for that: You can make the soundest, most verifiable and empirical assertions, but if your opponent says you're a sexist bigot, nobody will pay attention to it and you will be shouted down in the end, and that's the takeaway most people will retain of the discussion. Therefore, you have to be ready for it, and be able to react accordingly. I'm a participant and well acquainted with that thread, and yours is a somewhat jaundiced recollection of it. I'm sorry, but that's incredibly naive and illustrative of why you hold the positions you're defending. And it speaks well of you that you defend them, because those are the positions I also grew up with, expecting the best of people. That's not how it works, unfortunately. They will, if the other side is proven wrong via dialectic and rhetorically defeated. And you do. Name me one successful debate, political or otherwise, where one side didn't attempt to discredit, belittle or otherwise insult the other. It's simply par for the course. What you shouldn't be interested in is looking good or better. You're not applying for a focus group evaluation. It's going to be dirty and it's not going to be pretty, and you'd better wrap your head around it if you want to win, because this isn't a high school debate class, but a bona fide culture war. They're the ones you're fighting against, so you'd better care about them. And you're overlooking a vitally important thing: "reasonable" people tend to just walk away from heated arguments, which is why the regressive left managed to get such a solid foothold in culture and academia. They cried and screamed and stamped their feet, yelling "sexist", "homophobic" and "misogynist" till they became purple, and people slowly but surely gave way. Taking the higher road hasn't worked, doesn't work and won't work, especially since the regressive left is fighting from a position of strength. You do realize you keep agreeing with me, but consistently add these caveats and "buts" to double down on what you want to be the truth? I say this not to provoke you, but because I totally see where you're coming from, and would really like you to have an easier, quicker time opening your eyes than I did. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for insults to be the go-to resource in discussion, or that civility is impossible. I'm only reminding you that, for all your goodwill and the moral defensibility of the position you advocate, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and we are definitely living in one of those times.

Also, that's a false assumption, that a hate movement can't have calm and logical people identifying with it. After all, no matter how much we like to think otherwise, humans are creatures of emotion.

Yes, and it's precisely that kind of pearl-clutching and attitude of staying out of it that makes them irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Being the victor entails being the side which the pendulum has swung to. Until it swings back again, as it is wont to do.

Also, please note that having dissenting opinions is exactly what most of this is about, as well as the shouting down and silencing of same. You might get a different answer from different people: Some might wish for more accountability and transparency from the gaming "press", others might wish to put a check on the encroachment of ideologues into gaming. As for me, there is no end point per se. There's just bringing the pendulum back from the extreme position it has swung to. Thank you for illustrating my point, as, despite all of that, it was all for naught, as it was a losing proposition against an agenda-gripped pop culture. There seems to be a misconception here, which I blame on the sanitized notion people have of fighting nowadays, even on a rhetorical level. You don't need to lace your arguments with profanity, make your positions about only insulting your opponent or resort to "yo mama" jokes. But you absolutely have to be ready to fight fire with fire, to call people out in no uncertain terms, and to verbally flay those who wish to silence your voice or brand your opinion as unacceptable, especially when they're acting from a position of strength, with the backing of the media, academia and pop culture.
Absolutely. That's to be expected. And it was duly fought against, as this encroachment by fun-sucking Mau Maus is being. And it just happens to dovetail into the larger social context of a cultural war that is taking place and coming to a head in an incredibly volatile year. Can't speak for terms I didn't use (except "war", I guess), but, as you know, things don't happen in a vacuum, and the internet is a mere vessel, not a cause, so you might try to ponder why things are happening the way they are, even though you already seem to have made up your mind about that.

Yeah, it might have been more accurate to say that many of the people here were moderates and fence-sitters before taking a side. It's worth mentioning that this whole thing isn't solely about censorship in gaming, though, so your example of a moderate isn't necessarily incompatible with the views of some posters. Censorship has obviously become one of the more widely talked about things in here, but it's only related to the topic at hand in a tangential way; to some, GG has become emblematic of a larger problem and subsequently bled into various other topics like censorship (and atheism, and I remember there was even a brief—and very confusing—detour into metal music). Personally, I kind of liked the brothel being changed to a dance studio in Landstalker. It made Friday's jealousy that much more comically irrational.

If you start out with the assumption that this is about censorship in gaming, the reaction is bound to look bizarre and over the top, but this thing started with gamers in general being painted as a monolithic, woman-hating group of shooter dudebros. Those who complained were portrayed as terrorists and scapegoated for everything under the sun, including various things the vast majority weren't remotely involved in and actively opposed. Almost every publication, including even mainstream ones like Time and Newsweek, ran slanted hit pieces furthering that perception. There are some serious problems with journalism right now, and that was the starting point for many here. That's not to excuse the apocalyptic rhetoric, of course, but it at least helps to explain it.

Mmm, irrelevant. I seem to remember a bunch of people finding ethical lapses and getting ethics policies revised, not to mention pushing back against the media's portrayal of them without giving up their moral compass in the process. What exactly are the accomplishments of those who shout things like "cuck" at their opponents? Apart from amused replies like, "nice one, edgelord," naturally.

The internet has been filled with stuff like that since its inception, and it's never been remotely effective. If you can't argue against a person's points without attacking the person, that has and always will reflect more on your character than that of whoever you're arguing against. It's not pearl-clutching. It's not even that the language is offensive (and let's be real—we've all seen far worse). It's childish, and childishness is easily mocked/dismissed.

Not to detract from your main point, but...

Only easy to do that if you're mature enough (and not having a bad day I suppose).
We often forget we might be "talking" with actual kids online don't we?
And then there are the adults that should know better of course.

The Gamergate controversy is just a small piece of a much larger puzzle.

The leftist progressivism project has run its course. We have spineless weak leaders in government and conformist establishment lackies in the media running the world; but people are fed up with political correctness and hypocrisy. They realize that the elite is no longer working for them. The migrant crisis in Europe is a great example. The people had no say in the matter when millions of people from the Middle East flooded into Europe. The leftist governments opened the gates and allowed anyone to enter; no checks, no screening; all in the name of tolerance, rooted in white guilt.

Terrorism, rape epidemics and assaults on free speech has become the norm in Europe. The liberal world order has failed. Cultural Relativism, Postmodernism, Multiculturalism and Feminism.. this toxic cocktail of failed ideas have slowly eroded western democracies. All this bullshit is coming to an end and I can't wait for the day when the truth dawns on these people; when they realize that they were wrong all along.

The people you called racists, Islamophobes and misogynists were in fact the true heroes. They provided you with reasoned arguments, statistics and empirical data, but you just continued to label these people as intolerant racists in an attempt to shut down debate on important topics.. and you my dear SJW, who can't even criticise Islam because you're so perfectly tolerant of "diversity" - in your silence you tolerate that little girls are being raped in the streets of Europe.. and you tolerate that girls in the Middle East are murdered for simply wanting an education.

These regressive leftists have blood on their hands. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Ex-pro COD player comments on diversity : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqtsJIlDQko&feature=youtu.be&t=13m16s
A really good interview. What she says seems very different from the narrative spun by most media.

Fair point about there being actual kids online. It's easy to forget that in places like this that are (or at least were at one time) devoted to older games. At the same time, the line's become blurred over time; these days it seems that there are lots of kids out there more mature than people several times older, so I suppose age-related distinctions strike me as being kind of meaningless. Most of the time, anyway. It's kind of weird to think about how the internet has enabled all different age groups to converse as equals like it's the most natural thing in the world.

A bad day or lack of maturity doesn't strike me as being quite as defensible, though. We all have bad days. We all come across that one person who we'd like to reach through the computer screen to strangle. You don't even have to be mature to keep your cool (I'm basically two 15 year-olds duct taped together). You just have to recognize that maintaining your poise and not giving them a new avenue to attack you is the most annoying thing in the world to a person who's trying to make you crack or find an excuse to ignore your argument by changing the topic.