Escape to the Movies: Blackhat - Haxxor

Aptspire

New member
Mar 13, 2008
2,064
0
0
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.
 

C.S.Strowbridge

New member
Jul 22, 2010
330
0
0
pacmonster said:
C.S.Strowbridge said:
GamerGaters have used Swatting to stop someone from speaking out against them. That makes them a terrorist organization.
I see you subscribe to the...
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.

pacmonster said:
C.S.Strowbridge said:
Vigormortis said:
I lied about nothing.
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.
 

C.S.Strowbridge

New member
Jul 22, 2010
330
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Are you willing to leave the logical fallacies behind and actually address the points being made (and thus, have a real discussion)?
Are you going to stop lying?

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.
 

pacmonster

New member
Jan 17, 2015
7
0
0
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:
I lied about nothing.
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".
 

RenegadeDuck

New member
Oct 9, 2014
25
0
0
pacmonster said:
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?
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.
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.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
C.S.Strowbridge said:
Vigormortis said:
Are you willing to leave the logical fallacies behind and actually address the points being made (and thus, have a real discussion)?
Are you going to stop lying?

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 see.

So you ask me to answer YOUR question instead, once again completely ignoring my question and failing to address my counter-points, and then tell me you're going to ignore whatever I say anyway, regardless of my response?

At the risk of getting a warning, I have to point out how belligerently immature you are being. As I'd pointed out previously, the content of each of our responses speak for themselves. And from the other responses in this thread to your posts, I see others have noticed as well.

I was open to discussing the topic at hand in a rational, fair, and level-headed manner. I, unlike you, was willing to listen to the other side of the debate. You seem only to want to make sweeping generalizations, wild unsubstantiated assertions, and ad hominems, all the while putting your fingers in your ears and dodging the tough questions.

I'm done. If all I'm going to get from the other side of this debate is, "Nuh uh! You're a liar! You're a liar!", then it's not worth my time.

Good day to you. And for the record: I never lied. At worst, I unfairly misinterpreted your overly vague, needlessly derogatory statement about GamerGate and it's supporters.

Perhaps you should learn the difference.
 

pacmonster

New member
Jan 17, 2015
7
0
0
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.
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.
 

jak1165

New member
Jul 16, 2009
79
0
0
The whiteknighting of goobergate is hilarious. And sad.

Something something "journalistic integrity and nepotism" mirite?
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
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.
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.
Then I got bored. But given first impressions, I wouldn't fault MovieBob for not being entirely enamored by this website. Given the impressions of my small-scale research, I would say that his aversion probably overlaps greatly with that of the average person.

seditary said:
I would steal all of Chris Hemworth's shirt buttons.

That is all.
Woah, creepy!

...

Well, I'm on board. So how do we go about executing this dastardly heist?