Support NeoGAF

[strange headache]

Everybody makes mistakes, but when you're accusing somebody of racism and bigotry, you better damn well do your research instead of merely parroting the same half-truth that are being circulated in your hip journo outrage circles. Well done Grayson, well done...

Apparently everybody who's enjoying KCD right now is an 'alt-right conservative racist bigot shitlord'. And they wonder why people don't take kindly to their bullsh*it anymore.
(archive link to the article, I'm not willing to give that low-brow smear any more clicks)

 

[SatansReverence]

Isn't that the guy who just randomly gave a positive mention out of nowhere to a game some random chick who he totally didn't know was making?

 

[strange headache]

Isn't that the guy who just randomly gave a positive mention out of nowhere to a game some random chick who he totally didn't know was making?

Why yes, that may or may not be correct, but I'm sure you would never assume that his conflict of interest is showing a wee bit much in this article.

 

[SatansReverence]

Why yes, that may or may not be correct, but I'm sure you would never assume that his conflict of interest is showing a wee bit much in this article.

Conflicts of interest?

In Gaming Journalism?

Noooooo.

 

[OH-MyCar]

I'll read the back of a shampoo bottle in the bathroom, but if you confuse a picture of Martin Lawrence in Black Knight with "a black man photoshopped into a faux medieval setting"? You're not even ready to cross a bar that low for me.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Everybody makes mistakes, but when you're accusing somebody of racism and bigotry, you better damn well do your research instead of merely parroting the same half-truth that are being circulated in your hip journo outrage circles. Well done Grayson, well done...

Apparently everybody who's enjoying KCD right now is an 'alt-right conservative racist bigot shitlord'. And they wonder why people don't take kindly to their bullsh*it anymore.
(archive link to the article, I'm not willing to give that low-brow smear any more clicks)

Sadly, I don't see this changing any time soon. Despite multiple threads on this very forum, we still have a handful of folks parroting things that have been long since disproven. I honestly can't tell if they are trolling at this point.

I'll read the back of a shampoo bottle in the bathroom, but if you confuse a picture of Martin Lawrence in Black Knight with "a black man photoshopped into a faux medieval setting"? You're not even ready to cross a bar that low for me.

This reminds me of a class my old roommate was taking at Uni. The class was writing in video games and a student had mentioned how he hoped to work for a place like Kotaku or IGN. The teacher supposedly went on a good hour long session of why Kotaku's ethics and general writing was on the level of middle schoolers. I am not sure if this is true (as I was having a super shit week and this story may have been his way to cheer me up), but I found it hilarious.

 

[EviLore]

 

[SatansReverence]

So I was reading an old thread with some mentions of gamergate going down (the typical pre showergate "views") and someone mentioned they got instantly 1 month banned for merely asking if Anita Sarkeesian has ever had a actual debate with anyone who disagreed with her videos or (que paraphrasing) just dimissed them all out of hand as hateful misogynist etc etc etc.

Was there ever an actual debate?

 

[FMbarbarian]

Was there ever an actual debate?

Not to my knowledge. I think the closest she’s ever been to a debate was when she called Sargon a garbage human from stage while he was in the audience.

 

[SatansReverence]

Not to my knowledge. I think the closest she’s ever been to a debate was when she called Sargon a garbage human from stage while he was in the audience.

Hardly a debate and afaik all Sargon has done is make reply videos poking holes in Anitas videos albeit in a crass manner.

 

[HagglesworthMD]

Conflicts of interest?

In Gaming Journalism?

Noooooo.

Just to remind everyone, this is Nathan Grayson's DeepFreeze log. 17 conflict of interest issues so far:

http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=nathan_grayson


Games "JOURNALISM" ladies and gentlemen..

 

[ar0s]

n this instance where practically *nobody* is using the term correctly according to its actual history and meaning, then yes, personal experience is more factual given that the "actual history and meaning" has literally no relevance to how people use it today.

Given Marxism was an economic theory I would have to agree with you here. Das Kapital was not about culture, it was about capitalism. I think the closest real term to what people mean by it would be Stalinism but would appreciate the thoughts of someone more learned than me such as Strange Headache.

 

[PedroPanache]

I read the full article and felt it was fairly even-handed in interpreting the maelstrom surrounding the game. The headline doesn't really match up with the article, and certainly beyond the headline it does a good job of presenting the complexities of the issues surrounding the game. Whatever issues you may have with Nathan Grayson, I certainly don't think the takeaway is "Apparently everybody who's enjoying KCD right now is an 'alt-right conservative racist bigot shitlord'". It draws conclusions that much of KCD issues aren't exclusive to the game itself, but have been part of the genre for years. It fairly portrays the schism in the community over the game, and whilst I take issue with a number of extrapolations, I'm not of the mindset that this is a hit-piece on the game or the director.

 

[Geki-D]

So I was reading an old thread with some mentions of gamergate going down (the typical pre showergate "views") and someone mentioned they got instantly 1 month banned for merely asking if Anita Sarkeesian has ever had a actual debate with anyone who disagreed with her videos or (que paraphrasing) just dimissed them all out of hand as hateful misogynist etc etc etc.

Was there ever an actual debate?

I was perma-banned for answering a similar question with no, and then saying she has no real excuse not to.

 

[llien]

I'll read the back of a shampoo bottle in the bathroom, but if you confuse a picture of Martin Lawrence in Black Knight with "a black man photoshopped into a faux medieval setting"? You're not even ready to cross a bar that low for me.

Well, cough, I'm guilty of not watching "The Black Knight" and even not knowing the movie existed, likely I'm not alone.

 

[Dunki]

So I was reading an old thread with some mentions of gamergate going down (the typical pre showergate "views") and someone mentioned they got instantly 1 month banned for merely asking if Anita Sarkeesian has ever had a actual debate with anyone who disagreed with her videos or (que paraphrasing) just dimissed them all out of hand as hateful misogynist etc etc etc.

Was there ever an actual debate?

No it went even that far that she really argued in front of the UN women panel that disagreeing and telling her is a form of harassment (no joke)

 

[BANGS]

photoshopped lmfao I can't stand it...

 

[TheShadowLord]

for a game like kingdom come, there's no such thing as bad publicity.....

 

[OH-MyCar]

Well, cough, I'm guilty of not watching "The Black Knight" and even not knowing the movie existed, likely I'm not alone.

Seriously though, that's understandable (especially if you're not in your 30s+). I just feel like it's less understandable if your job is to create hot takes about media & popular culture, particularly in regards to race, and yet mistake one of the most popular black actors of all-time as some random "black guy photoshopped" into a setting. I mean, he's the 8th richest black actor, ever; you only had to be familiar with 7 other black actors before you got to him. You would think an educated writer's first idea would be "well, there's a picture of Martin Lawrence in something" if they're in some self-appointed role of arbiter on the consumption of media.

It's almost as if people with no perspective whatsoever are acting as the taste makers for everyone...

 

[BANGS]

People in a community have to stop pretending they represent the community. They weren't elected...

 

[ar0s]

People in a community have to stop pretending they represent the community. They weren't elected...

Especially, as I said in my earlier post, every time we have someone speaking for a minority they are a white guy. Hence the reason Pro-femfreq drones did not believe GG contained minorities and women as their "minority" representing groups are majority white-guy with very few women beyond the leaders who they all swarm behind.

Almost every single time one of these issues is covered on British TV it is a white guy spouting the authoritarian-left viewpoint. If they have someone non-white male, non-cult-leader, they normally view things with a little more nuance. Yet "white male" is one of the main attacks and something that we should apparently feel guilty for. Of course, to assuage that guilt, you can join the cult.

Is there any professional who does cult studies who has looked at these groups? I know there are some guys in the academic world in this thread so would appreciate being linked if there has been.

 

[TheGraykid]

Especially, as I said in my earlier post, every time we have someone speaking for a minority they are a white guy. Hence the reason Pro-femfreq drones did not believe GG contained minorities and women as their "minority" representing groups are majority white-guy with very few women beyond the leaders who they all swarm behind.

Almost every single time one of these issues is covered on British TV it is a white guy spouting the authoritarian-left viewpoint. If they have someone non-white male, non-cult-leader, they normally view things with a little more nuance. Yet "white male" is one of the main attacks and something that we should apparently feel guilty for. Of course, to assuage that guilt, you can join the cult.

Is there any professional who does cult studies who has looked at these groups? I know there are some guys in the academic world in this thread so would appreciate being linked if there has been.

I always find it wild how in a single post a person can go from critiquing the wide baseless generalisations other people make, and then making wide baseless generalisations themselves.

 

[lifa-cobex]

Sadly, I don't see this changing any time soon. Despite multiple threads on this very forum, we still have a handful of folks parroting things that have been long since disproven. I honestly can't tell if they are trolling at this point.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

People come from a full rainbow of different information lines either on pro, anti or just for lols.
Just take ppl as they come.

 

[SatansReverence]

No it went even that far that she really argued in front of the UN women panel that disagreeing and telling her is a form of harassment (no joke)

Well, that sure is, something...

 

[lifa-cobex]

Well, that sure is, something...

in regards to this....

 

[bronk]

Well, cough, I'm guilty of not watching "The Black Knight" and even not knowing the movie existed, likely I'm not alone.

Black Knight is a fun watch lol

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I wondered why people seemed to get heated at that black knight tweet. It's a dreadful film that deserves all the mockery it gets. Turns out they may have thought it was a racist photoshop...lol

 

[J Bro]

Multiple people who parroted the anti-Gamergate narrative have been outed as rapists, abusers, or even pedophiles. - https://twitter.com/i/moments/851713200537993216
Zoe Quinn lied about Wizardchan, a forum of depressed people. - http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx
Wolf Wozniak tried to out Zoe Quinn for sexually harassing him after Eron tried outing her as his abuser. - https://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2014/09/wozniak3.png

There's also the Crash Override leaks. - for lack of a better source : https://lolcow.wiki/wiki/Crash_Override_Network_Log_Leaks#Serious_Chat_.28Short.29

It's pretty safe to say that Gamergate is thoroughly vindicated, and that anti-GG is straight up everything they've accused everyone else of being and worse. A lot of people here and elsewhere owe a lot of apologies.

 

[KevinKeene]

Multiple people who parroted the anti-Gamergate narrative have been outed as rapists, abusers, or even pedophiles. - https://twitter.com/i/moments/851713200537993216
Zoe Quinn lied about Wizardchan, a forum of depressed people. - http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx
Wolf Wozniak tried to out Zoe Quinn for sexually harassing him after Eron tried outing her as his abuser. - https://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2014/09/wozniak3.png

There's also the Crash Override leaks. - for lack of a better source : https://lolcow.wiki/wiki/Crash_Override_Network_Log_Leaks#Serious_Chat_.28Short.29

It's pretty safe to say that Gamergate is thoroughly vindicated, and that anti-GG is straight up everything they've accused everyone else of being and worse. A lot of people here and elsewhere owe a lot of apologies.

This is such a dumb posting,only out to cause further divide. As stated in this thread, GG isn't bad. But:

- Some 'anti-GGers' are bad people. Not all. Probably not even most. That's just as nonsensical as those calling GG a harassment campaign just because some idiots are harassing others.

- WHY does it vindicate GG if anti-GGers behave badly? That sounds like my family, where any criticism is 'neutralized' with criticism. Me: "Hey mom, you said my clothings would be washed by now" - Her: "And you're fat". Makes sense. Some anti-GGers being bad doesn't vimdicate GG in any way. Unless it was part of GG's manifesto 'We have to prove that not 100% of anti-GGers are good people'. In that case: congrats?

- Oh, and let's not forget this gem of idiocy: "outed as rapists, abusers, or even pedophiles" - OR EVEN pedophiles. Fucking l o l. The continued hate against pedophiles never ceases to be ... well, ceasing. Any sane person would think an actual rapist or abuser would be the worst in the order of your listing. But no, the one who had odd thoughts is the worst of them. God, I'm so so sick of this ignorance (will not discuss this last point, PM if you want to talk).

Just like Bill Maher said a week ago: Can we just not jump at every petty piece of 'news' out there? Yes, there are terrible people out there (especially Patrick Klepek), but we won't prove ourselves right by pointing out other people's wrongs. Let's not drag them down with us, but elevate ourselves by making good, rational, calm arguments. If we can make this, anybody who reacts with outrage and insults will disqualify himself.

 

[ar0s]

I always find it wild how in a single post a person can go from critiquing the wide baseless generalisations other people make, and then making wide baseless generalisations themselves.

I should have begun that "in my experience."

From having read the whole thread, I find it wild how a single person can consistently make such poor arguments and change goalposts as if they were the FA's top goalpost installer.

 

[TheGraykid]

I should have begun that "in my experience."

From having read the whole thread, I find it wild how a single person can consistently make such poor arguments and change goalposts as if they were the FA's top goalpost installer.

Maybe you need more varied experiences. People (even people on the same side of an argument) tend to be more different than you might think. I think you lose quite a lot of nuance by characterising people as a mindless cult.

"goalpost installer" ooh, I like that one. I think you're completely wrong though. You're welcome to disagree if you'd like.

 

[ar0s]

Since your first post to me was just a straw man and then another criticism without any substance in your second I don't think there is an actual debate worth having with you after reading 17 pages of people trying to debate with you, winning overwhelmingly and you refusing to acknowledge that and reassess your position (which you have claimed is one of the problems in today's society.)
I vehemently disagree about whether you constantly move the goalposts but I'm not going to waste hours combing 17 pages to find all the examples. Perhaps request a poll is added if that is genuinely something you would like feedback on?

An American telling me I need more varied experience of British television news and the guests they choose to bring in is pretty farcical too to be honest - what could possibly indicate to you that I am wrong other than your ingrained beliefs and biases?

__________________________________________________________________________________

However:
Let's look at information on cults;
"The characteristic that most distinguishes cults..the embracing of something new.. Cults are also much more likely to be led by charismatic leaders than are other..groups and the charismatic leaders tend to be the individuals who bring forth the new or lost component that is the focal element of the cult.[8]"

It's pretty clear how many modern groups fit into that on both sides of the American political debate, one of which was the swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Serkeesian.

I would be very interested in modern research into the transient nature of online cults that can disperse as quickly as they form but due to the internet's effect on people inspire all the passion, investment and emotion of a traditional cult. For example, interesting things to find out would be to what degree do those individuals (within any political orientation's transient & mainly online cults) share personal characteristics and similarities with those who are victims of traditional cults?

I have not seen you agree with anything here yet, so since this is does not presumably challenge your beliefs but may give you cause to think abstractly about the nature of today's society & humanity, do you agree this research venture would be of value?

 

[J Bro]

This is such a dumb posting,only out to cause further divide. As stated in this thread, GG isn't bad. But:

- Some 'anti-GGers' are bad people. Not all. Probably not even most. That's just as nonsensical as those calling GG a harassment campaign just because some idiots are harassing others.

- WHY does it vindicate GG if anti-GGers behave badly? That sounds like my family, where any criticism is 'neutralized' with criticism. Me: "Hey mom, you said my clothings would be washed by now" - Her: "And you're fat". Makes sense. Some anti-GGers being bad doesn't vimdicate GG in any way. Unless it was part of GG's manifesto 'We have to prove that not 100% of anti-GGers are good people'. In that case: congrats?

- Oh, and let's not forget this gem of idiocy: "outed as rapists, abusers, or even pedophiles" - OR EVEN pedophiles. Fucking l o l. The continued hate against pedophiles never ceases to be ... well, ceasing. Any sane person would think an actual rapist or abuser would be the worst in the order of your listing. But no, the one who had odd thoughts is the worst of them. God, I'm so so sick of this ignorance (will not discuss this last point, PM if you want to talk).

Just like Bill Maher said a week ago: Can we just not jump at every petty piece of 'news' out there? Yes, there are terrible people out there (especially Patrick Klepek), but we won't prove ourselves right by pointing out other people's wrongs. Let's not drag them down with us, but elevate ourselves by making good, rational, calm arguments. If we can make this, anybody who reacts with outrage and insults will disqualify himself.

When the people who invented the anti-GG narrative in the first place abused their boyfriend, lied and harassed a mentally ill community, and all the people around them perpetuating the narrative beat and raped women, it kind of puts people in a bad light to identify with them and their phony story that only exists to distract from what they've done to people. That's not to even mention the fact that anti-GG people on forums like this are pretty much a hate group harassing people, like Palmer Luckey's girlfriend so that she had to get off of Twitter for a while.

Anti-GG was and is a hate group of toxic people. Their claims toward others are fabricated and pale in comparison to their own actions.

So many bad things happened to people because of them, and now that it's all brought to light people want to be all friendly with each other. After all the accusations and nonsense while these people were allowed to run free.

 

[TheGraykid]

Since your first post to me was just a straw man and then another criticism without any substance in your second I don't think there is an actual debate worth having with you after reading 17 pages of people trying to debate with you, winning overwhelmingly and you refusing to acknowledge that and reassess your position (which you have claimed is one of the problems in today's society.)
I vehemently disagree about whether you constantly move the goalposts but I'm not going to waste hours combing 17 pages to find all the examples. Perhaps request a poll is added if that is genuinely something you would like feedback on?

An American telling me I need more varied experience of British television news and the guests they choose to bring in is pretty farcical too to be honest - what could possibly indicate to you that I am wrong other than your ingrained beliefs and biases?

__________________________________________________________________________________

However:
Let's look at information on cults;
"The characteristic that most distinguishes cults..the embracing of something new.. Cults are also much more likely to be led by charismatic leaders than are other..groups and the charismatic leaders tend to be the individuals who bring forth the new or lost component that is the focal element of the cult.[8]"

It's pretty clear how many modern groups fit into that on both sides of the American political debate, one of which was the swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Serkeesian.

I would be very interested in modern research into the transient nature of online cults that can disperse as quickly as they form but due to the internet's effect on people inspire all the passion, investment and emotion of a traditional cult. For example, interesting things to find out would be to what degree do those individuals (within any political orientation's transient & mainly online cults) share personal characteristics and similarities with those who are victims of traditional cults?

I have not seen you agree with anything here yet, so since this is does not presumably challenge your beliefs but may give you cause to think abstractly about the nature of today's society & humanity, do you agree this research venture would be of value?

Please explain to me how I strawmanned you, if you believe that's what I did.

Also, I'm not American, I'm a londoner born and raised, so, you may want to revise your point.

In regards to cults. The way you use the term "cult" and the definition that you're using, in my opinion, is so loose that applying it to societal/political movements seems counterproductive. By that definition, isn't every movement that has a pretty popular leader a cult? Where does fandom (both entertainment and intellectual) turn into a cultish behaviour? I think all this is important especially if we're going compare online communities to cults where people literally murdered people.

Overwhelming devotion would be something I would require in a definition before labelling any group a "cult", but that doesn't really line up with your example. "swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Serkeesian" you call this group a cult, whereas, to me, this grouping can be used to encapsulate so many different types of people of different levels of "devotion" to Anita that calling them a cult just feels like hyperbole to me. Are there enough people of an "overwhelming devotion" to Anita that you can call anyone who is "behind" her a cult? By overwhelming devotion, I mean, would you kill yourself and/or others for "the cause" whoever or whatever that is.

I would need a more stringent definition of cult, and a clear example of that in a modern online community to view this as being useful.

 

[ar0s]

There were many, many death threats made for "the cause."

Again you have not really replied to what was said, that is what people mean by goalpost changing, if you didn't realise.

I never said 'online communities' were cults, I said transient online raging hate mobs led by and focused upon one person have similarities to cults. I was proposing a research project to find out whether those similarities between members exist and to what degree.

I'm sorry I thought you were American, there is no excuse for that.

edit: I'm quite amused that you wrote a lengthy disagreement to my attempt to extend a hand to you and see if you were capable of agreeing with someone, you have clearly already decided that you do not agree with in totality, said something completely fair and reasonable.

 

[TheGraykid]

There were many, many death threats made for "the cause."

Again you have not really replied to what was said, that is what people mean by goalpost changing, if you didn't realise.

I never said 'online communities' were cults, I said transient online raging hate mobs led by and focused upon one person have similarities to cults. I was proposing a research project to find out whether those similarities between members exist and to what degree.

I'm sorry I thought you were American, there is no excuse for that.

edit: I'm quite amused that you wrote a lengthy disagreement to my attempt to extend a hand to you and see if you were capable of agreeing with someone, you have clearly already decided that you do not agree with in totality, said something completely fair and reasonable.

Sporadic death threats, while abhorrent, are very different from mass murdering or suicide sprees, for obvious reasons.

You gave what I thought was the definition of a cult, and then said: "It's pretty clear how many modern groups fit into that on both sides of the American political debate, one of which was the swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Serkeesian.". You also literally said, "I would be very interested in modern research into the transient nature of online cults" Therefore, what am I supposed to think? how is that changing the goalposts? Perhaps you should be more clear in the future. If you don't believe these online communities are cults, please don't refer to them as online cults.

I disagreed with you because I thought you said something disagreeable. Nothing more, nothing less. No hard feelings from me.

I think your more clearly explained idea is somewhat interesting, but, the victims of cults be so much more invested than the average member of a hate mob. They tend to physically move to a compound of some sort, change their entire way of life, be ready to kill and die. Online hate mobs just don't have anywhere near the same amount of investment. Therefore, to me, they're too far away from each other for me to think there may be some interesting insight there. I would recommend listening to the podcast Conversations with People Who Hate Me, if you're interested in online hate mob related convos.

 

[J Bro]

Anti-GG people should at least come out and say they were wrong and that GG did nothing wrong.

 

[Hendrick's]

This is such a dumb posting,only out to cause further divide. As stated in this thread, GG isn't bad. But:

- Oh, and let's not forget this gem of idiocy: "outed as rapists, abusers, or even pedophiles" - OR EVEN pedophiles. Fucking l o l. The continued hate against pedophiles never ceases to be ... well, ceasing. Any sane person would think an actual rapist or abuser would be the worst in the order of your listing. But no, the one who had odd thoughts is the worst of them. God, I'm so so sick of this ignorance (will not discuss this last point, PM if you want to talk).

Just like Bill Maher said a week ago: Can we just not jump at every petty piece of 'news' out there? Yes, there are terrible people out there (especially Patrick Klepek), but we won't prove ourselves right by pointing out other people's wrongs. Let's not drag them down with us, but elevate ourselves by making good, rational, calm arguments. If we can make this, anybody who reacts with outrage and insults will disqualify himself.

Are you actually trying to defend pedophiles as being better than rapists and abusers? What a strange pole to hang your hat on. Not shocking that you then cite Bill Maher, a man on record for defending statutory rape. Is there something you would like to come clean about?

 

[Dunki]

Are you actually trying to defend pedophiles as being better than rapists and abusers? What a strange pole to hang your hat on. Not shocking that you then cite Bill Maher, a man on record for defending statutory rape. Is there something you would like to come clean about?

One HUGE differences is that they do not chose to be pedophiles unlike rapists or murder. Secondly there is a difference between acting on your desires and make it a crime or knowing that its bad, avoiding kids and realize you never can have a normal life. If they act on their desires than yes they are on the same level since they are rapists

 

[J Bro]

People be like "wow Gamergate is the WORST"

and "wow don't judge that dude who looks at child porn too harshly"

 

[prag16]

Is there something you would like to come clean about?

This is not cool.

And even if he was sexually attracted to children, there's no crime there, yet. So by that logic, yes, pedophilia (that goes unfulfilled) is in fact a lot less bad than rape/murder/assault.

 

[NickFire]

This is not cool.

And even if he was sexually attracted to children, there's no crime there, yet. So by that logic, yes, pedophilia (that goes unfulfilled) is in fact a lot less bad than rape/murder/assault.

Trying to argue that a pedophile is better than someone else will never win an argument. I also wouldn't bet too much on there being a significant segment of the population who could be characterized as pedophiles and who has not done something reprehensible.

 

[prag16]

Trying to argue that a pedophile is better than someone else will never win an argument. I also wouldn't bet too much on there being a significant segment of the population who could be characterized as pedophiles and who has not done something reprehensible.

Of course the type of pedophiles who have never acted on it aren't generally considered pedophiles by the general population. Someone would have to do something pedophilic before that happens (or people even know about their nature) generally, so from that angle yeah I'd agree with your last sentence. But we're getting down in the weeds now. I mainly posted to express disapproval that the poster I was responding to was trying to claim that KevinKeene is himself a pedophile, for which we have no basis.

 

[bigedole]

Are you actually trying to defend pedophiles as being better than rapists and abusers? What a strange pole to hang your hat on. Not shocking that you then cite Bill Maher, a man on record for defending statutory rape. Is there something you would like to come clean about?

Your last sentence is really inappropriate, attack the argument, not the person. I totally agree that his framing is odd, and I'm personally hoping there's just something I'm not understanding in what he said. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's referring to pedophiles as people who suffer from attraction that they are helpless against but take no action on those feelings.... because people who take advantage of children in sexual ways are pretty high up there on the "most disgusting examples of humanity" list.

 

[Beard of the Forest]

Are you actually trying to defend pedophiles as being better than rapists and abusers? What a strange pole to hang your hat on. Not shocking that you then cite Bill Maher, a man on record for defending statutory rape. Is there something you would like to come clean about?

"a discussion without internet-murdering each other about it"

That's kind of in the thread title. Let's not make things hostile and personal.

 

[lifa-cobex]

 

[ar0s]

Wow this thread went to hell quick.

Spoiler: but

I got likes from sh so overall very pleased with the progress since yesterday lol

________

You gave what I thought was the definition of a cult, and then said: "It's pretty clear how many modern groups fit into that on both sides of the American political debate, one of which was the swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Sarkeesian.". You also literally said, "I would be very interested in modern research into the transient nature of online cults" Therefore, what am I supposed to think? how is that changing the goalposts? Perhaps you should be more clear in the future. If you don't believe these online communities are cults, please don't refer to them as online cults.

Because I still clearly said online cults, not online communities. For example, NeoGAF is an online community. The specific example I gave "swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Sarkeesian" I would consider a TOC yes and would never classify that as a community. This is a strawman as you keep using the word community to try and make my position look ridiculous, when you know I never used that word.

I disagreed with you because I thought you said something disagreeable. Nothing more, nothing less. No hard feelings from me.
... I would recommend listening to the podcast Conversations with People Who Hate Me, if you're interested in online hate mob related convos.

Fair play. Somewhat interesting is probably the closest you have got to agreement in this thread so I'm happy with that .

Regarding TOC's I'm more interested in the sociological aspects of the groups as a whole and what generally makes these kind of people tick. What drives people to completely lose the ability to think for themselves, or was that never there in the first place? How long do these people spend on average per day on introspection and how often do they make an effort to understand both sides of something before coming to a conclusion. Are these people generally impulsive? Do they often have behaviour they regret, or do they simply carry out actions that others would regret? How gullible are they? How trusting are they? How much faith do they put in "authority" figures identified within their circles current trends (which would apply to the person the TOC is focusing upon.) etc. (sorry for the stream of consciousness there!)

I would also offer you a fair play for having tried to understand the whole picture, even if it was after coming to a conclusion.

 

[TheGraykid]

Wow this thread went to hell quick.

Spoiler: but

I got likes from sh so overall very pleased with the progress since yesterday lol

________



Because I still clearly said online cults, not online communities. For example, NeoGAF is an online community. The specific example I gave "swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Sarkeesian" I would consider a TOC yes and would never classify that as a community. This is a strawman as you keep using the word community to try and make my position look ridiculous, when you know I never used that word.



Fair play. Somewhat interesting is probably the closest you have got to agreement in this thread so I'm happy with that .

Regarding TOC's I'm more interested in the sociological aspects of the groups as a whole and what generally makes these kind of people tick. What drives people to completely lose the ability to think for themselves, or was that never there in the first place? How long do these people spend on average per day on introspection and how often do they make an effort to understand both sides of something before coming to a conclusion. Are these people generally impulsive? Do they often have behaviour they regret, or do they simply carry out actions that others would regret? How gullible are they? How trusting are they? How much faith do they put in "authority" figures identified within their circles current trends (which would apply to the person the TOC is focusing upon.) etc. (sorry for the stream of consciousness there!)

I would also offer you a fair play for having tried to understand the whole picture, even if it was after coming to a conclusion.

In your earlier post you said, "I never said 'online communities' were cults, I said transient online raging hate mobs led by and focused upon one person have similarities to cults." Here you specifically say that you're talking about online hate mobs that have similarities to cults, whereas in other posts you explicitly start calling groups "online cults". This is naturally confusing. These two things appear to be in opposition to each other, especially when the group that you now designate as an "online cult" is very clearly not that for the reasons I outlined in an earlier reply, which you can see below.

"swarming authoritarian mob lining up behind Anita Serkeesian" you call this group a cult, whereas, to me, this grouping can be used to encapsulate so many different types of people of different levels of "devotion" to Anita that calling them a cult just feels like hyperbole to me. Are there enough people of an "overwhelming devotion" to Anita that you can call anyone who is "behind" her a cult? By overwhelming devotion, I mean, would you kill yourself and/or others for "the cause" whoever or whatever that is. "

Your "online cult" definition feels so broad to me that it can fit pretty much any online community. Is resetera an online cult? for example.

 

[ar0s]

I've already addressed every point there except the question regarding resetera. I would say they have some similarities in terms of uniformity of thinking but are not transient nor at a sustained level of the anger, hatred and passion so would not fit into the classification of TOC (transient online cult.)

When I said online cults I was establishing the proposition. The next sentence explained what I meant by this. You know that. I never said "communities" or "groups" in general were cults and you know that too. Every time it has been mentioned since I have used TOC or wrote it out in full so don't pretend you don't understand that the transience is a defining characteristic, along with the others I mentioned as you know that it is. Noone is suggesting that any and all groupings of people are cults and you also know that.

A lot of what you are saying just does not make any sense. As with so many times in this thread you are using the arguing tactic of arguing over language but I'm a native English speaker so it's not working when you are trying to do it with me and you are just looking ridiculous, which is a shame as you're clearly not stupid.

Why not make a proposition based on your current opinions of GG following what you have learned on this thread and we can discuss that instead of going round and round in badly drawn figures of eight with the word community at the centre where ultimately noone gets anywhere.

 

[J Bro]

"GG is a harassment campaign!"



Meanwhile, Zoe's abuse victim: