Recycling defamatory lies makes you part of the rage filled rants and hatred. If you don't like the effect that's having on your credibility (and you shouldn't), you should change your behaviour.
Adam Baldwin and Conventions
- Thread starter PlainSimpleJoel
- Start date
Recycling defamatory lies makes you part of the rage filled rants and hatred. If you don't like the effect that's having on your credibility (and you shouldn't), you should change your behaviour.
Says the person who thinks they can profess judgement on others based on a handful of Internet posts!
Point out where I am being a misogynist? No, disagreeing with you does not equal misogyny. In case you don't have access to a dictionary:
Definition of MISOGYNY
: a hatred of women
Nowhere in there is there "disagreeing with a woman", "making fun of a woman", or "making a woman feel unconformable".
Could we at least agree to stop using misogony as code for "someone who dares disagree with me".
Bullshit.
I've not exhibited any behavior worth getting up in arms about, so no. As for my credibility here, why should I care?
Vitriolic Harpy would make a good band name, but not so much a good forum comment. It's a heated subject so there's going to be some shade thrown back and forth, but this crosses the line from criticisms of argument and behavior to pure insults. Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM.
And you can stop playing the free-speech martyr. You have knowingly repeated defamatory lies that were and are part of a campaign of harassment and vitriolic hatred against a group of women, Quinn and Sarkeesian included. You don't get to do that and then turn around and pretend you're not part of the hate.
Dude, that was refuted five months ago. If you don't want to be called out as a liar, stop repeating lies.
Each time you repeat, for example, the lie about Grayson.
You seem to be operating under the impression that I care what you think.
Whether or not it's worthless is (of course) a subjective question, but people are willing to contribute toward its production, and contribute in excess of the amount requested. I'd say that's an indication that it's not seen as worthless by everyone.
As far as delivering on half the promised amount of product goes: it's an ongoing series, produced in installments, with more content yet to come:
"In addition to producing new episodes of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, Feminist Frequency is planning to begin two new video series..."
Well, no. Hate is an emotion. I feel no hatred toward any of these people, and think any and all harassment they received needs to be investigated and punished in the swiftest manner possible.
My saying "gamergate is apparently about..." makes me no more a part of the hatred than Google is part of the hatred because it allows people to find inflammatory articles and blogs.
Exactly. Saying "worthless" is my opinion, clearly. People certainly value what she has to say, and are willing to pay her for it. Whether she offers anything substantive or worthy of thought or discussion is another matter entirely, and from what I have seen so far, the odds aren't looking too good. I hope people get their money's worth, though.
This does not fit with your insistence on unrepentantly trucking in falsehoods which were created and disseminated by the harassers, and are part and parcel of the harassment. (And you can forget about trying to pretend that you were just describing the falsehoods without subscribing to them. Your posts are right there.)
So if I said "apparently the Nazis hated the Jews because they thought the Jews were ethnically and genetically inferior" makes me compliant with the Nazis.
Gotcha!
To cheer everybody up, here are some pics of my new cat!
That's not how you framed your comments. You did not say
'Gamergaters apparently claim x' you said:
You were not expressing the views of others, you were expressing your own views and sprinkling in comments that are easily refutable.
So while your personal views are, at the very least, influenced by those with improper motives, the fact that you are repeating things PROVEN to be untrue and using them as a basis for your personal opinion calls into question the integrity of your argument. The fact that you have repeatedly maintained an untenable position based on easily refutable arguments and colored by an inexplicable refusal to modify ANY of your thought processes is really inexcusable. If you wish to be wrong, why not be silent?
The thread got Godwinned!
No, I'm pretty sure that, in light of your remarks present and previous, Avon simply found your assertion unconvincing. Not that surprising, really.
A
Amaris
Guest
^ Exactly, but gamergate sites keep pushing that bullshit, and people like TBS keep eating it up.
GamerGators are like the kooky conservatives, they get all their info from blogs and new sources that only back up their worldview. Any outside information is dismissed because it doesn't come from within their bubble.
They were harassing some YouTuber and claiming that his wife wasn't real, then started stalking his brother demanding proof that his sister-in-law existed through video or photos. So it's all about ethical journalism and not an angry mob that chases anyone who shows a hint of disapproval at their narrow-minded beliefs.
They were harassing some YouTuber and claiming that his wife wasn't real, then started stalking his brother demanding proof that his sister-in-law existed through video or photos. So it's all about ethical journalism and not an angry mob that chases anyone who shows a hint of disapproval at their narrow-minded beliefs.
Last edited:
Similar threads
