well, the the escapist was just attacked.

[runic knight]

Why the hell is this GamerGate thing even a big deal?

The quickest answer there? Because journalists refused to let it be talked about fairly, people got determined to talk about it, and then started to see the ones trying to shut them up as unfit the positions they had and not up to snuff professionally or ethically.

 

[Something Amyss]

I gave you a viable meaning

The key word there being "a," which was my point. It's a definition, not the definition. You're trying to hold someone to a specific meaning they almost certainly do not mean. It's a strawman argument wrapped in word games.

By the latin root, miso- is a prefix meaning hate. -gyny is a suffix meaning female. Put together, it means hatred of females, and by the dictionary definition, it means "a hatred of women".

You do understand how language works, right? A word's roots are a useful hint as to the meaning but are not a legally binding contract.

Again, how does hating one or several women equate to hatred of all women?

Malformed question, which I've already explained. Are you doing this intentionally?

To wit, this is like saying, "You hate Michael Vick, therefore you're a racist."

Point to me a definition of racist or racism that has a different meaning to the selective way you've framed it and you might have an analogue. But as it stands, that's not how it works.

By that loose definition, can you tell me the difference, objectively, to use of "misogynist" between insulting a woman, sending a threat to a woman, criticizing a woman and hating a woman. And do it in such a way that those differences are both noted and that the counterpart to the word, misandry, applies the same to such actions towards men?

You realise we have multiple degrees of assault, murder, and other things, right? You may not like the nature of language, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Whether I can "objectively" point out the difference is irrelevant to the term and whether it encompasses the lot of those acts. But then, asking someone to objectively argue language is a farce in the first place.

Can you objectively tell which version of "literally" someone is using in the phrase "he just literally had a heart attack?"

 

[Kungfusam]

Leigh Alexander is a bully who makes jokes about destroying peoples dreams, I'm not sure why you'd defend her

Funny how nobody on the pro-GamerGate side says the same things about that Milo guy from Breitbart, or InternetAristocrat, or Davis Aurini... apparently, being a "bully" is okay when you're supporting the "right" agenda.

Most annoying thing is people desperate to claim its misogyny, shows they haven't actually paid attention to whats going on, but they have to say something or else face retribution from the church of social justice

Actually, the most annoying thing is all of the people claiming GamerGate is just about journalistic integrity right before going on to take snipes at social justice advocates. And since literally no journalist who isn't widely known as a social justice advocate has been

It is about integrity, or the total lack thereof

Milo pointing out their corrupt behavior isn't quite in the same league as Leigh "microphone" Alexander bragging about crushing a young woman's dreams

 

[Something Amyss]

The quickest answer there? Because journalists refused to let it be talked about fairly, people got determined to talk about it, and then started to see the ones trying to shut them up as unfit the positions they had and not up to snuff professionally or ethically.

Except even the Escapist hasn't been immune to the #hashtagactivismoutrage, despite being the place that's kept the discussion open without banning or deleting everything under the sun, so that's not it.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

I gave you a viable meaning

The key word there being "a," which was my point. It's a definition, not the definition. You're trying to hold someone to a specific meaning they almost certainly do not mean. It's a strawman argument wrapped in word games.

By the latin root, miso- is a prefix meaning hate. -gyny is a suffix meaning female. Put together, it means hatred of females, and by the dictionary definition, it means "a hatred of women".

You do understand how language works, right? A word's roots are a useful hint as to the meaning but are not a legally binding contract.

Again, how does hating one or several women equate to hatred of all women?

Malformed question, which I've already explained. Are you doing this intentionally?

To wit, this is like saying, "You hate Michael Vick, therefore you're a racist."

Point to me a definition of racist or racism that has a different meaning to the selective way you've framed it and you might have an analogue. But as it stands, that's not how it works.

By that loose definition, can you tell me the difference, objectively, to use of "misogynist" between insulting a woman, sending a threat to a woman, criticizing a woman and hating a woman. And do it in such a way that those differences are both noted and that the counterpart to the word, misandry, applies the same to such actions towards men?

You realise we have multiple degrees of assault, murder, and other things, right? You may not like the nature of language, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Whether I can "objectively" point out the difference is irrelevant to the term and whether it encompasses the lot of those acts. But then, asking someone to objectively argue language is a farce in the first place.

Can you objectively tell which version of "literally" someone is using in the phrase "he just literally had a heart attack?"

You keep saying my definition is inadequate, even though it's the definition by the latin root and by multiple dictionaries.

What is your definition of misogyny then? And how is hatred of one person who happens to be a woman equivalent to a pathological hatred of all women?

 

[xaszatm]

So, the anti-GGers did attack the site right?

We still don't know. It most certainly is not helped by the fact that every pro-GG is proudly screaming it like it is true (it's not, because WE DON'T KNOW AND REPORTING RUMORS WITHOUT FACT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF BAD JOURNALISM). My best advice is to ignore every source for the next two days (especially if it doesn't come from the Escapist Staff itself) until heads calm down.

 

[Something Amyss]

You keep saying my definition is inadequate

Please stop making things up. I did not say inadequate or indicate that it was. I did, however, indicate that it was unlikely this was the definition being used. While I'm acknowledging multiple meanings of the word, you're insisting that they be held accountable to this specific definition, and now you're twisting my words. That's dishonest, and I've just explained why.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

You keep saying my definition is inadequate

Please stop making things up. I did not say inadequate or indicate that it was. I did, however, indicate that it was unlikely this was the definition being used. While I'm acknowledging multiple meanings of the word, you're insisting that they be held accountable to this specific definition, and now you're twisting my words. That's dishonest, and I've just explained why.

I was summarizing your point, you said explicitly, " It's a definition, not the definition."

So, in your own words, what is the definition of misogyny?

 

[shrekfan246]

or that Al Gore is just sick of the argument and hit the "off" button. Because that's what this sort of thing needs. Evidence.

Al Gore is too important for that.

He just hired Nixon to do it for him.

My evidence?

Indisputable.

 

[Something Amyss]

I was summarizing your point, you said explicitly, " It's a definition, not the definition."

So, in your own words, what is the definition of misogyny?

If you are summarising my point, why do you keep asking for the definition or my definition? I've explained the irrelevance of my definition, and my point was that there were multiple definitions. How can you summarise that which you patently do not understand?

 

[Skatologist]

Do you even know what the word misogynist means? The dictionary says it means "hatred of all women".

How does hating one, or a handful of awful people, equate to hatred of all women?

Check other sources. Misogyny tends to be used as a shorthand for sexism against women instead of its dictionary definition. Also, feminist theories extends it by listing actions that can be considered misogynistic, including discrimination based on sex, sexual objectification, violence against women, and ,what might be most to the discussion, the denigration of women. I don't like using the word, I prefer sticking by dictionary definitions of things, but I just felt like informing you.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Do you even know what the word misogynist means? The dictionary says it means "hatred of all women".

How does hating one, or a handful of awful people, equate to hatred of all women?

The slut shaming nonsense does.

Quinn is literally irrelevant now.

I disagree. As long as gamergate people keep bringing her up to insult her, she is not irrelevant.

Gamergate has moved so much farther than her.

I agree. There are real issues which they have shed some light on which do matter.

Of course it will move topics. You are literally a month behind the times. Gamergate's racial outrage is a huge part of what it is.

And some of them really are making fake minority accounts. Not all of the minority gamergate accounts of course, which is why people should watch what they say and not be racist assholes, but there is a bit of stupidity on both sides there.

The rest is easily agreed with, so I won't really address it.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

I was summarizing your point, you said explicitly, " It's a definition, not the definition."

So, in your own words, what is the definition of misogyny?

If you are summarising my point, why do you keep asking for the definition or my definition? I've explained the irrelevance of my definition, and my point was that there were multiple definitions. How can you summarise that which you patently do not understand?

I'm asking for your definition because you say there are multiple definitions which contradict my point, that you cannot claim that GG people are misogynists for hating one single woman.

So what are these multiple definitions exactly?

 

[Something Amyss]

Al Gore is too important for that.

He just hired Nixon to do it for him.

My evidence?

Indisputable.

You deserve an award for your uncompromising devotion to journalistic integrity.

 

[Something Amyss]

So what are these multiple definitions exactly?

You mean, like the one I already gave you?

You already have more than one definition. Since you made up the rest of the claim, what exactly is there to talk about here?

 

[runic knight]

By that loose definition, can you tell me the difference, objectively, to use of "misogynist" between insulting a woman, sending a threat to a woman, criticizing a woman and hating a woman. And do it in such a way that those differences are both noted and that the counterpart to the word, misandry, applies the same to such actions towards men?

You realise we have multiple degrees of assault, murder, and other things, right? You may not like the nature of language, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Whether I can "objectively" point out the difference is irrelevant to the term and whether it encompasses the lot of those acts. But then, asking someone to objectively argue language is a farce in the first place.

Can you objectively tell which version of "literally" someone is using in the phrase "he just literally had a heart attack?"

Indeed, and we call them things like "manslaughter" "First-degree" and so on. We have words and terms that are specifically meant to cover the nuanced nature of our language.

As such, my point is "why do you reduce the value of a word as a specific term by broadening the definition to that it loses meaning?"

All those acts I described could be call "misogynistic" and yet they are very different acts. And one can not even use the claim that it is faster to just label them all the same when the requirement of explaining them requires more effort then calling it like it is in the first place.

Also, it devalues the word further when you attempt to take it from something to all women and loosen it enough to apply to any women. and sadly, I have seen that particular tactic far, far too often. Hell, the overuse of it to attack people and dismiss criticisms is something a lot of people criticize journalists about.

and yes, when you say something like "threat", you are making it about the individual case since no one threatens an entire gender. thus you are trying to take a definition of a person's reaction and motivations towards an individual and insinuate that it was about their gender based only on the fact of the gender itself. To put it another way, you are saying that if it involves a woman at all, then it must represent all women and thus they are not individuals but rather gender first. That is kinda sexist.

The quickest answer there? Because journalists refused to let it be talked about fairly, people got determined to talk about it, and then started to see the ones trying to shut them up as unfit the positions they had and not up to snuff professionally or ethically.

Except even the Escapist hasn't been immune to the #hashtagactivismoutrage, despite being the place that's kept the discussion open without banning or deleting everything under the sun, so that's not it.

Did I say that everyplace was the same? I didn't and I wish you wouldn't misrepresent what I was actually saying like that. The journalists were attempting to kill the discussion though various professional and personal connections and the result of that was that people got angrier. You can see this happen with the totalbiskit post on reddit for instance where this initially sparked. And before that even with the mundane matt video being DMCA'd by Zoe herself. People don't like to be silenced like that.

Even if you disagree with gamergate itself and everything else, surely you can not refuse basic fact that people became more impassioned because of how this was handled then the story itself ever would have spawned without that reaction from the news media.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

Do you even know what the word misogynist means? The dictionary says it means "hatred of all women".

How does hating one, or a handful of awful people, equate to hatred of all women?

Check other sources. Misogyny tends to be used as a shorthand for sexism against women instead of its dictionary definition. Also, feminist theories extends it by listing actions that can be considered misogynistic, including discrimination based on sex, sexual objectification, violence against women, and ,what might be most to the discussion, the denigration of women. I don't like using the word, I prefer sticking by dictionary definitions of things, but I just felt like informing you.

How is criticizing one woman's actions sexism exactly? If men and women are equal, then they are equally responsible for their own poor behavior.

The slut shaming nonsense does.

Now there's a cogent point. Thank you for addressing the core issue straight on instead of going in circles like that other guy. Look in the Gamergate thread and ask yourself, how many of these posts are slut-shaming Zoe? I bet you can't find a single one in that massive thread.

Is it truly about slut-shaming, or is GG about corruption in the games journalism industry? You decide.

 

[Something Amyss]

Indeed, and we call them things like "manslaughter" "First-degree" and so on. We have words and terms that are specifically meant to cover the nuanced nature of our language.

Which doesn't matter here. Calling something misogyny doesn't have any less bearing than calling something assault.

All those acts I described could be call "misogynistic" and yet they are very different acts.

If only you had just offered a way we could distinguish them. Oh, you did. So this seems like a non-starter. I'm sorry, you seem to have contradicted yourself.

And one can not even use the claim that it is faster to just label them all the same when the requirement of explaining them requires more effort then calling it like it is in the first place.

Who made that claim? Nobody? Good. Hope we're clear there.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The slut shaming nonsense does.

Now there's a cogent point. Thank you for addressing the core issue straight on instead of going in circles like that other guy. Look in the Gamergate thread and ask yourself, how many of these posts are slut-shaming Zoe? I bet you can't find a single one in that massive thread.

Is it truly about slut-shaming, or is GG about corruption in the games journalism industry? You decide.

I was there. I got a guy suspended for a week, basically just for calling him out on the fact that he was slut shaming. Yes, the general message is now about journalism, but at the start, no.

 

[kyp275]

I go watch a movie with my little niece that I haven't seen in forever, and I come back to somebody who claims that "the SJWs" are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. Really? Fucking really? My best fucking friend who pointlessly was sent around the world to get murdered didn't have a funeral because of those arses, and you're comparing people who don't buy into a vast of conspiracy theory bullshit that? Forget about the whole blatant and persistent failure to understand what "freedom of speech" actually means which is usually just frustrating, that comparison may be the single grossest thing I've seen said about this whole month-long fiasco.

I will assume that since the Westboro Church was involved, your friend was in the service. I have not heard of them actually manage to cancel a military funeral as the Patriot Guard riders are usually on top of these things, it is most unfortuante.

That being said, maybe now you understand how some of us feel when people from the SJW camp calls us "worse than ISIS". As a veteran who fought and lost fellow Marines to Sunni militants in Iraq, I found those comments to be offensive in the extreme (I'd like to see Faraci repeat that again to my face or other fellow veterans, though he may want to call for an ambulance first).

Yet what did the anti-GG people say back then? "Oh, he didn't meant all of you" "Oh, it's just a joke!" "it's just a hyperbole!"

Yea, how would you feel if I say those same thing to you now? would that make you feel any better?

Leigh Alexander is a bully who makes jokes about destroying peoples dreams, I'm not sure why you'd defend her

Funny how nobody on the pro-GamerGate side says the same things about that Milo guy from Breitbart, or InternetAristocrat, or Davis Aurini... apparently, being a "bully" is okay when you're supporting the "right" agenda.

Funny how everyone on the anti-Gamergate side continues to refuse to call out Leigh Alexander.... even after getting buried by all the records of her bullying others. Apparently, being a "bully" is ok when they're supporting the "right" agenda.