Velventian said:
using that argument you could tie every single discussion even remotly in that area back to her since it was the shirtstorm surrounding her that started the whole thing. But the idea was to drop her since this isn`t about her anymore.
Except this isn't remote. I mean, she was named as a focus of the very thing you're complaining about. That's like saying "I want to talk about yogurt, but shame on you for bringing up dairy products."
You have zero clue what i do besides the few posts here on this website so don´t go around and tell me who i condemn or not, thats just pretentious
I don't know what you do besides what you post on this website. But then, I only addressed what you were doing on this website. Nothing else is relevant, and a "you don't know me" argument doesn't change that. Yes, you could be completely different elsewhere. This could be some elaborate ruse. I really don't know, and I really don't care. I'm judging you based on the words you have written. You've condemned Faraci, you've gone after Quinn and you've made excuses for others who have gone after the folks in question. No pretense, just your own post history.
Maybe you should apply your own argument.
Simply repeating what I said doesn't work. Sorry.
The point i was trying to make that both versions are equally true and false.
No, they're not. Only one claim can be true here. If people got offended by "SJWs," then I am correct. People did get offended by SJWs. Using your logic that it's my burden to prove your claim false, it's your burden to prove my claim false, i.e. you need to prove to me that there was nobody offended. Since you can't monitor the entire internet, you can't prove that (and that was even your own argument).
More reasonably, we should both be obliged to prove our own claims. You can't prove yours, so you shifted the burden to me. That's the point I was making. To try and shift it to me is just silly and demonstrates you don't know how things like discussion or debate work.
Unless you can monitor the entire internet you simply can`t prove which side got offended first and which side attacked first.
Which is irrelevant, because nobody has to be offended "first" for my claim to be true. The only thing that makes my claim not true is if nobody actually got offended by "SJWs." I'd say it's pretty clear you're offended, which would be evidence in itself.
Sorry but for me that sounds like claiming victim bonus for "social justice warriors" because the term was created with mean intent...
Sure, whatever you say. If pointing out the actual meaning of a term as a pejorative is "claiming victim bonus," fine. Whatever that even means, because I don't know.
I´m a gamer, someone runs around throwing insults at gamers in general, it hits me. So what throwing around a single hash tag changes everything? If he is so considerate to use #notallgamers then why didn´t he just avoid generalizing them in the first place.
If the hashtag, or specific comments make exclusionary claims, then yes, it does change everything. If you say you're not talking about all gamers, you've literally changed the context of....Well, everything.
either this is a language thing or i don`t know why that word gets you that much, but i meant "funny" like "wierd" or "odd"
Yes, and it's "weird or odd" that she got brought up is "funny" because she's directly related here. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.
How the hell do i rationalize their behavior?
Do you really need a laundry list of excuses and rationalisations as to how Quinn/Sarkeesian isn't a real victim and whatnot?
You claim that you don`t feel associated to what you see as my definition of "us" yet you keep trying to prove something based solely around that definition.
No, I don't feel associated with your concept of gamer, which means that I am lumped in with people who make bomb threats or rape and death threats. The people Faraci was talking about, whether you personally like him or not, are people committing federal crimes and being complete jackasses. And you're self-identifying with them and using "gamer" as a blanket term to back it up. But seriously, those gamers can go fuck themselves. And honestly, while you claim you're against them, I've seen you lump yourself in to them far more than you've said anything against them.
Faraci is pissed off at people making bomb threats, and you're saying "why me?"
*
You* shouldn't even be a factor. *
You* are choosing to identify with these people, ones *
you* claim to disapprove of.
And what I said was "if that's a gamer, I don't want to be a part of it." I'd ask what was so hard to understand, but you carefully constructed a narrative in which Faraci was calling you a terrorist (rather than comparing criminals to terrorists), leaving out tweets that provided context or ignoring the parts where he makes exclusions, so I'm pretty sure you're choosing to misconstrue me, too.
Maybe you are right that i might be a tad thin skinned in that regard i don´t know.
But if i feel offended by him using the term gamer then i am offended by it.
If you don`t feel like he meant you when he used the term gamer then nice for you.
I don't need to "feel" anything. I just need to look at his tweets. He's clearly not talking about every last gamer and I have done nothing wrong. Not only have I not made bomb threats to Sony or doxed feminists, I've not made bomb threats to or doxed anyone. I also totally don't plan to.
If you are thin skinned, maybe apply that to others, too. Faraci seems pretty pissed off right now, and his comments seem to have gotten hastier. But if you're upset, why can't he be? This was addressed on page one. Hell, my comment on the fact that being "thin skinned" only goes one way is a reason why you quoted me.
The fact is, when "feminists" and "SJWs" post around here, there are comments about "growing thicker skin" and "looking to be offended." We get entire threads coming up because of that. Insult and offense are often very one-way streets. The gaming community has issues with "feminists" (and they don't really care whether you're a feminist or not, hence the quotes), "political correctness" (a word a certain Inigo Montoya quote s best suited for), and "SJWs". When anything related to those comes up it's all STUF and stop being offended. When someone insults another group, though, it's all STFU! I'm offended!
None of the people who rage about political correctness are in here telling you to stop being offended by being compared to terrorists. Nobody's going around calling you a Social Justice Warrior because you don't like a group you're part of being slurred or mistreated. To use an example of your own posts, nobody was discrediting you because this isn't "how a real victim acts." No, you get off light, because it's different. Because ponies.
So i would say lets agree to disagree and call it a night.
I'm not going to agree to disagree with someone who has misrepresented the facts. There's a difference of opinions and then there's flat disingenuity. You can respond to me or not respond to me, and it doesn't make much difference either way. But agree to disagree? Not likely.
