- Mar 13, 2008
D'you remember that time when MovieBob didn't push his Anti-GG position in every other review? Having an opinion is fine, I just feel like it's out of place here.
Either GamerGate exist and it can be judged by the actions of its collective members. Or it doesn't exist at all.pacmonster said:
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.pacmonster said:
Are you going to stop lying?Vigormortis said:Are you willing to leave the logical fallacies behind and actually address the points being made (and thus, have a real discussion)?
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.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.
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".C.S.Strowbridge said: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.pacmonster said:
Hell, that's not a logical fallacy, it is the only logical way to go.
Maybe so. Maybe I'm just stereotyping.pacmonster said:Statistically speaking? Hackers are no different then any normal person who's job it is to sit in front of a computer. Hacking is generally not a day job either. These people work as programmers, network security experts, or government contractors / employees. There's a broad spectrum between big muscle bound weight lifting gym rats and scrawny Revenge of the Nerds cliche weaklings. Hackers like any other technical profession have people all over that spectrum but like all bell curves the majority is in the middle. Not beefcake level but not weakling level either.RenegadeDuck said:All I'm saying is that, statistically speaking, someone who has submerged themselves almost entirely in the world of hacking, to the extent that you're basically the best in the world at it, is probably more likely to be a little underdeveloped in the muscle and attraction territories. And it also has to do with the kind of person that typically goes for that sort of thing in the first place. It might sound like generalizing, but geeks and social misfits usually are the ones with the intimate knowledge of computer systems and the drive to do something with that knowledge.
Just think about real-life hackers. You think the annoying douche who hacks into a developer's database and leaks information about movies or games looks like a young Arnold Schwarzenegger?
I see.C.S.Strowbridge said:Are you going to stop lying?Vigormortis said:Are you willing to leave the logical fallacies behind and actually address the points being made (and thus, have a real discussion)?
Here's the thing... it doesn't matter how you answer that question. You've already lied, so I can't trust you if you say you won't lie again.
I wasn't speaking in specifics for the casting of the movie or all movie casting, just in regards to your general statement that all hackers would never look like that and tend to look like the stereotype. However, as I said, it's a bell curve. I'm sure there exists somewhere a hacker who is just as fit as Chris Hemsworth. Just as I'm sure there exists a hacker who fits every bullet point of the stereotype. Neither is "likely" since these are outlier cases. The "likely" look is like any random selection of people you'd find in whatever country you take the sample.RenegadeDuck said:Maybe so. Maybe I'm just stereotyping.
But still, fit or not fit, how likely is it for an uber-haxxor to look like Hemsworth? I know it's Hollywood so everyone has to be beautiful, even if the story considers them "unattractive", but I'm just saying. If ever there was a time where it would be acceptable for a movie to cast a less good-looking person, I think it would have been here. I just want to see more people on screen who make it less obvious that this is a movie and everyone in it is contractually obligated to be drop-dead sexy.
Another instance of this was in I, Frankenstein, where the monster looked like a dead-ringer (no pun intended) for sexiest man of the year save for a few stitches here and there.
OK, so I'd never heard of 8chan before today, so I thought what I'd do was, I'd perform a little experiment to see whether or not a cursory review of the website is enough to stereotype it. In my five minutes of quasi-random clicking I found: (1) a White-supremacist page (seriously, literally the first thing I found), (2) someone claiming "Hitler was right", (3) a photo suggesting that there should be more naked female asses in games, (4) something about a cooking program, (5) some poetry about "red pills" and "rabbit holes", (6) an inquiry about the "Book of Life", (7) RationalWiki always resulting in an insta-ban and (8) a post about baby boomers refusing to die.ngl42398 said:Oh boy, more GG and 8chan jabs. Honestly, my guess is that (a) Bob knows jackshit about GG and (b) Bob has never been on 8chan. If he had, he'd know that 8chan's climate varies radically board by board, and making a generalization like "8chan, eugh" is immature and stupid.
Woah, creepy!seditary said:I would steal all of Chris Hemworth's shirt buttons.
That is all.