Gamergate

Miroku, without specifics, I'm not sure what qualifies as "sexist" in your book but I'll concede that there are some nastier elements that have latched on to the so-called Gamergate movement.

I can greatly respect that you haven't bought in to the "hive mind" of modern, radical feminism. On ethics, though, I have to disagree: The whole issue was about the Kotaku reporter having a conflict of interest. What (some of) the feminists did was opportunistically twist the issue to promote their agenda, led by Quinn and Sarkeesian, to claim that nearly everything is sexist and racist. Moderate feminists (and fact-checkers) were shouted down in social media if they dared to disagree with those claims.

Miroku, I'm really not clear about what you mean here. Not trying to be combative, I honestly want to know what you mean. Are there specific cases where the same people claimed that false rape accusations were the equivalent to journalistic conflict of interest?

That's kind of my fault. I didn't explain that point very clearly. What I meant was that making unproven accusations and then questioning other serious accusations seems hypocritical to me. It's pure speculation that Zoe Quinn dated anyone purely to promote her game. To claim otherwise certainly isn't on the same level as making a false rape accusation, but it's disingenuous to imply that it's any more credible based on pure hearsay.

And no, being a feminist does not automatically define someone as being a mindless drone. Believe it or not, I do actually think for myself and don't always agree with other feminists. That's every bit as much of a common misconception as it is that we all hate men just because we want equal treatment and professional recognition.

As a final point, I do know that gamer gate did not start out being about sexism. It did bring other issues to the forefront and those issues shouldn't be swept under the rug simply because gamer gate considers them "irrelevant" to the situation.

On Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 12:20 am, Miroku said:

You make some good points here. Without solid evidence, both cases are unwarranted. I agree that Zoe Quinn is not proven to have manipulated the reporters, as far as hard evidence goes.

Clearly, you do not fit the stereotype. Perhaps you are more egalitarian than third-wave feminist?

Fair enough. Although I still believe that the entire scandal was hijacked by people with a political agenda, it's reasonable enough to observe that the original story, while having nothing to do with sexism, stirred up a larger debate.

Miroku, you're one of the more reasonable people with whom I've discussed this topic. I can tell you feel strongly about it yet you've managed to stay civil and well-composed despite the fact that we disagree on some points.

That stereotype comes from demagogues who have very little knowledge about what feminism or true egalitarianism is. I still call myself a feminist but not as defined by MRAs or MGTOW zealots. If you go only by the examples like Sargon of Akkad constantly portrays (the extremist outliers) you're going to get a warped perspective on things. Steer clear of heavily biased jerks like that.

I don't know anything about your past experiences pertaining to debates but if they couldn't stay civil, they weren't worth your time anyway.

That's one thing that baffles the hell out of me. MGTOWs do, by most feminist logic, exactly what feminists want: leave women alone and not pursue them. Why are they considered such a menace to women with their philosophy? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I swear.

No, f*** that guy. I wouldn't listen to him if you paid me.

Egalitarianism is about true equality, not male supremacy, not female supremacy (which is what the more extreme feminists absolutely want), and definitely no racial supremacy. How it's considered sexist and / or unfair is beyond my comprehension.

About that, it's mostly negative from dealing with radicals who simply won't listen to reason. It's a breath of fresh air that you're so much more open and non-combative.