runic knight said:
Here is where I have to jump in and actually stop this train of thought, since you skipped a step. You have to demonstrate that hateful comments, even ones that use sexually identifying slurs, are actually fueled by a hatred of women. This is sort of a big part of the contention, actually.
See, I have glasses. And if I piss someone off, they might make an insult based on that fact. Now them mentioning it doesn't mean they hate glasses or people with glasses, just that they are dicks and grabbed at whatever they saw as a point I may get offended by.
Thus the comments about Zoe or Anita or whoever are not demonstrated as misogynistic, and are instead assumed and repeated as such. Ironically, the sort of defense against misogyny sends a message to people who want to insult her that her gender is a point of weakness and thus they tend to make reference to it more.
@runic
Glad we have agreements on some parts.
re: me needing to demonstrate that the comments necessarily means that the commenters are misogynist.
I don't really think so, because I would I would have to double check my own comment, but I'm pretty sure I did
not claim they were misogynist. I said that many comments were sexist and that they harassed. In another time and place, I might have made the extra conclusion, but I'm kind of tired of the same argument circles, and so did not. I don't really feel like proving whether they are misogynist or not (I very carefully did not even use that word.) But there were many hateful comments, and that is sufficiently bad to say there was (and maybe still is) a significant contingent people saying those sorts of things. Motivation doesn't really matter, although I am pretty sure their motivation was not complementary or kindly in any way, shape, or form. Quite the opposite, actually. It was not just a handful of individuals or it would not have blown up this big, I do not think.
you must compare the response she got with the backlash people who reported on the issue got, such as Mundanematt, IA or even later arrivals like Jaydfox. You will see the level of hate and bile thrown their way is equivalent, only they do not get the media reporting on it or spend the excessive amount of time pointing to it and then to their back account link.
Tbh, I have not seen the backlash. I have not gone to see what sort of things 4chan or tumblr were saying. My judgement was and is largely based on the behaviour of Escapist forum posters- all the conspiracy theories posted on these forums. An anti might post some links that I'll read. Or a pro will post a youtube of their side, and then discover wait, you are bringing this white nationalist guy up in defence of your cause? This might be a large gap in my understanding of the problem because I'm not seeing anti-SJW's, but I'm not so sure. Escapist has started sounding like the central headquarters or at the very least a bastion of the pro-GG side. If anything, I ought to be inocculated against the 'anti-GG' side because I'm really only hearing the controversy from the pro-GG side. I don't think there are legit tumblr SJW's on here, unless the line got drawn for them (cue Jim's, well then give me a hammer, I guess.) But I got turned off from the whole thing at the beginning based on the 'pro' side alone. I'm certainly not 'anti-GG' as such. But I am anti-crappy posting, anti-conspirarcy theories, anti-harassment, and I am suspicious about why it blew up around Quin and not around over-reaching corporatism.
I'll agree that you can do that with a small amount of people, yes. Though that fact alone tells us nothing about the motivations, alliances or ideology about them. Or, for that matter, even their size, as it only adds to possibilities, it doesn't actually remove any.
I'm 100% with you on this. Possibilites are added, none are removed as suspects. But until we know, I do not think it is appropriate to assume guilt, then denounce based on that assumption. (As we saw on the very first page of this thread- again, I am consistently judging what I see on Escapist.)
I don't think it is an assocation fallacy. I am not saying because a large group are terrible posters, the entire group are as well. I am saying there was (maybe still is) a significant group within your composition. A is a part of B. And A was pretty big. (Or at least visible and loud.) Too big.
I don't think its mockery to decry conspiracy- there were people legitmately believing that Quinn held sway over reddit admins and far more. Every time someone came out against the hateful comments, people were wondering 'how deep does this go?'
Now it might be that tumblr has a large group of C a part of D, and C is very big. But I don't hang out in D (tumblr), so I cannot plead for moderation among D against C. I do hang out in Escapist, so I plead for moderation here. If a bunch of tumblr-ites jumped in here and spewed bile in these forums when I am reading, I'll join in denouncing, certainly.