C.S.Strowbridge said:
Either GamerGate exist and it can be judged by the actions of its collective members. Or it doesn't exist at all.
Which is it?
I can see for myself that GGers on KIA and 8chan are behind these doxxing and swatting attacks and that they are doing it in the name of GamerGate.
So either GamerGate is responsible, or it doesn't exist.
Like I said you are a walking collection of logical fallacies. First of all, nothing in life is as binary as you just described this issue. "It either exists or does not". Gamergate is a movement, not an organization. As such, "members" if you want to call somebody posting in a gamergate tumblr thread or 8chan board a "member", represent only their own beliefs. An organization needs structure, it needs specified rules and goals, and normally some sort of leadership. Gamergate has none of those things. The closest gamergate comes to a defined goal is better ethical standards in video game journalist sites however I've seen plenty of people demand other things and talk about other things. That's also more of a broad strokes goal then a specific action plan of how to accomplish that goal. It's like saying, "I want things to be better"....ok? How? So, much like any person who DDoS'd some random site or "hacked" some random person can claim they're from Anonymous (because there is no structure to Anonymous to stop them from saying that) same goes with GamerGate. Actions by any individual are just that, responsible to the individual.
The reason I can say that gamergate has moved mostly into attacking women is because that's the predominant message being sent from people using the hashtag, posting on boards of various sites (8chan, 4chan, reddit, tumblr, etc). Every third post it seems is how awful Anita Sarkeesian is or Zoey Quinn is, etc. None of it having to do with journalistic integrity. I can attribute that to a group because it's far more than a few extreme individuals, and it's more a change in the tone of the movement then me saying this is what all "members" of gamergate think. The point here being I am all in favor of the whole gamergate thing disappearing, but "terrorist organization" it is not. It just has some extreme dicks the same as any anonymous collection of people on the internet would have.
Further, you ignored the entire rest of my point which was what you're arguing is not the main argument to this discussion. Cyberbulling does not normally involve hacking nor is that the primary "issue" with hacking.
C.S.Strowbridge said:
pacmonster said:
C.S.Strowbridge said:
Vigormortis said:
You flat our lied about what I said. Therefore, nothing you say matters.
You are like a walking collection of logical fallacies. He lied therefore nothing he says matters?
How is that a logical fallacy? If someone is willing to lie in an argument, nothing they say matters, because nothing they say can be trusted.
Hell, that's not a logical fallacy, it is the only logical way to go.
The "collection" part is because you start out with a generalization "some people in the gamergate movement have done 'terrorist' actions, therefore gamergate is a terrorist organization".
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/
It would be a sweeping generalization if you said all gamergaters were terrorists, but you haven't been that insane yet.
Then there's what you just did by offering me a binary "they either exist or don't" answer. That's known as the false dilemma.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/false-dilemma/
You've given me two logical choices as if those were the only two choices to pick from without considering the complexity of the question.
Finally, the "he is a liar, therefore every word he says is not worth listening to or arguing with on its own merit" is a classic ad-hominem logical fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
Whether he has lied or not does not make the things he says inconsistent or illogical. If I said, I am 8 feet tall, 2+2 = 4, the fact that I lied about the first part doesn't automatically imply the second statement is wrong or also a lie. Further, "lying" is a loaded term that I believe you are misusing. To lie is to intentionally mislead. Vigormortis' statement that you claim is a lie, "I love how you're saying that as though swatting is mutually exclusive to GamerGate supporters." therefore somehow renders every other thing he says as invalid is based off of this faulty ad hominum assumption. He only claimed that because you made no attempt at suggesting that swatting is done by anybody other than gamergaters in your posts. While this is also a logical fallacy from Vigormortis to make this statement (since it assumes a belief without supporting facts) it also doesn't mean he was "lying".