Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Hirota]

Generally you make good points. I think it was pointed out too that some aspects of some games is simply realism. SJWs frequently though seem to have an issue with that--like for instance some of them get upset about seeing bigotry or strict gender roles in a historical drama.

Quick disclaimer - this is only something I've dipped my toe into so far, I might well be misunderstanding parts here and there. Philosophy is something I've rarely looked into.

SJW ideology has an overreliance upon subjectivism - the idea that internal moral values and beliefs are the only facts, and external factors such as "reality" are shaped by ones own beliefs.

Where this becomes problematic is that external factors, which you or I might perceive as realism cannot be held as absolutely true by subjectivists because they believe that reality is subject to the perception of the individual.

A subjectivist evades the objective nature of ethics, and pretends that he may act in any way he chooses, without consequence. An example is that whilst most people would say murder is always wrong, a subjectivist will take that to mean most people disapprove of murder rather than a universal belief that murder is always wrong.

Subjectivism was also a core tennant in Facism, which invites comparisons to SJW's and how the two use Subjectivism to justify their beliefs.

C.S Lewis wrote a very short book which included a section of subjectivism I found rather useful to help me understand, and this video presented it much better than I can explain it.

How does that tie into your observations on historical dramas? A subjectivist will believe that the correct approach to making moral judgments is to follow our likes and dislikes. If a subjectivist simply doesn't like how a historical drama presents gender roles, they will believe it is immoral.

[Ostroeuropa]

Generally you make good points. I think it was pointed out too that some aspects of some games is simply realism. SJWs frequently though seem to have an issue with that--like for instance some of them get upset about seeing bigotry or strict gender roles in a historical drama.

Quick disclaimer - this is only something I've dipped my toe into so far, I might well be misunderstanding parts here and there.

SJW ideology has an overreliance upon subjectivism - the idea that internal moral values and beliefs are the only facts, and external factors such as "reality" are shaped by ones own beliefs.

Where this becomes problematic is that external factors, which you or I might perceive as realism cannot be held as absolutely true by subjectivists because they do not believe that reality is subject to the perception of the individual.

A subjectivist evades the objective nature of ethics, and pretends that he may act in any way he chooses, without consequence. An example is that whilst most people would say murder is always wrong, a subjectivist will take that to mean most people disapprove of murder rather than a universal belief that murder is always wrong.

Subjectivism was also a core tennant in Facism.

C.S Lewis wrote a very short book which included a section of subjectivism I found rather useful to help me understand, and this video presented it much better than I can explain it.

I'm also a subjectivist. I don't believe there is such a thing as right or wrong unless you first establish some agreed upon maxims for what that actually means.
Our society supposedly supports equal opportunity and treatment, etc.
It supports human rights and freedom of the individual. (Again, supposedly.)
From these, we can decide certain actions are right or wrong.

At the risk of providing ammunition to opponents, I don't believe murder is always wrong. Tyrannicide is something i'm ambivalent towards, and can see the rationale and arguments for it. I wouldn't consider it appropriate to punish someone for it, but wouldn't necessarily say it should be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannicide

I consider it a morally neutral act.

I can see your point about subjectivism giving license to certain actions. I think the SJWs fall victim to this by believing there is no such thing as sexism against men, which causes them to not consider or filter any of their statements or actions as regards men and ends up with them being massive sexists to them.

[New Skaaneland]

I agree and I think that Anders Behring Breivik's mass murder of Norwegian socialists and his bombing of the Norwegian parliament is an example of Tyrannicide, or at least of how it's described on that link.

[Hirota]

I'm also a subjectivist.

I don't believe there is such a thing as right or wrong unless you first establish some agreed upon maxims for what that actually means.

Then you are better almost certainly far more qualified than me to explain it - I'm pleased that I've apparently not wrote anything too inaccurate for you to be outraged at my nonsense (I'd hope you'd correct me).

However, you've always struck me as more the Moral Relativist type - that right and wrong are established by consensus rather than internalised beliefs - especially when you talk about agreeing what right and wrong actually means. The subjectivist would never resolve their disagreements to reach consensus, and would rather tolerate (at best) differing beliefs rather than establishing a consensus.

I can see your point about subjectivism giving license to certain actions. I think the SJWs fall victim to this by believing there is no such thing as sexism against men, which causes them to not consider or filter any of their statements or actions as regards men and ends up with them being massive sexists to them.

I suppose (tying this back into Gamergate), that you could make the case that SJW's believe there is no such thing as harassment against Gators, and act believing that they are not harassing gators, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

[Wymyn Zhongguo]

Chessmistress is innocent.

That quote was my idea, and I insisted she use it when I was angry.

She refused to mention an even more cutting quote by Sally Miller Gearhart.

Mary Daly was referring to reducing toxic masculinity, not males.

I'm for equality for all.

I'm sorry if anyone was offended.

[Hirota]

<never mind>

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm also a subjectivist.

I don't believe there is such a thing as right or wrong unless you first establish some agreed upon maxims for what that actually means.

Then you are better almost certainly far more qualified than me to explain it - I'm pleased that I've apparently not wrote anything too inaccurate for you to be outraged at my nonsense (I'd hope you'd correct me).

However, you've always struck me as more the Moral Relativist type - that right and wrong are established by consensus rather than internalised beliefs - especially when you talk about agreeing what right and wrong actually means. The subjectivist would never resolve their disagreements to reach consensus, and would rather tolerate (at best) differing beliefs rather than establishing a consensus.

I can see your point about subjectivism giving license to certain actions. I think the SJWs fall victim to this by believing there is no such thing as sexism against men, which causes them to not consider or filter any of their statements or actions as regards men and ends up with them being massive sexists to them.

I suppose (tying this back into Gamergate), that you could make the case that SJW's believe there is no such thing as harassment against Gators, and act believing that they are not harassing gators, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

You know what? I fucked up. You're right, i'm a moral relativist, not a subjectivist. It's morning and i've not had coffee yet.

I'd add that provided the consensus agrees upon certain principles, such as equality before the law, then the consensus being that black people should get twice as long in prison for the same crimes still wouldn't constitute correct morality to me. I'd view it as an inconsistency within the agreed upon maxims.
This is part of why I consider feminism a problem, it seems to me to be an abberation from the accepted maxims.

[New Skaaneland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrePDUtwtXs

I'm not sure if it applies to Chess Mistress though.

[Cybraxia]

Man the Joker was right. The "civilized" feminists and SJW's are eating each other.

[Susurruses]

I shortened that for you.

Really, I think it comes down to the fact that he's male means to a lot of feminists that he must be a misogynist and he must be poisoning his work with his misogyny, and so they'll comb through his hundreds and hundreds of episodes (Whedon is one of the most prolific pop culture writers of our era) to find anything that confirms that narrative.

You're giving them too much credit. All of that sounds like hard work.
They'll just do what Sus did and find something they can misrepresent to sound misogynist, preferably in the first season so they don't have to go too far into it, and go home early for lunch.
Ultimately, it's stuff like that that makes them so easy to argue against.

It's like, i'm sure they could find, if they tried hard enough, an actual misogynist quote from Warren Farrel.
But instead they have to make shit up about his incest study. I don't understand these people sometimes.

Actually I picked that one out because I remembered it best, because it was fucking creepy & Xander does more stupid shit later.
(The obvious ones to go for would've been Angel, Spike, or Riley. Or all of the aforementioned.)
Xander when 'possessed' says some things that very very strongly imply it is no mere hyena spirit nonsense.
He wasn't simply some passive viewer; it's akin to excusing someone for being drunk or high.
Someone that then pretends they don't remember it instead of taking responsibility.

To be honest, it's pretty tiresome to even attempt to run through anything I'm about to say in order to preemptively guard against at least three people wanting to leap on any perceived flaw.
This whole thread has become largely an echo chamber for "anti-SJW" dickery.

Asides from which, Whedon admits Xander is his self-insert character, the guy that "every girl wants to be best friends with".
.. and claims he (Whedon/Xander) can be trusted.
.. even though Xander repeatedly undermines Buffy's choices (in men).
(I could source this, but why bother? It's from the year 2000, if anyone's curious though.)
Then there's the whole Cordelia thing...

Whedon is a self-aggrandising ass basically.
(Since he's been fond of thinking of himself as feminist and applying that label to himself, and calling other things by other creators sexist.)

Oh, and.. y'know, people are actually people and not some formless mass.
So when anyone mentions "feminists" turning on Whedon, that's not really the case.
It's a subset of people in general going "... actually this guy is kind of an ass, and thinking back on his work there're actually a load of issues with it".

Bonus point:
Criticism? Of art?? And artists??? How outrageous.

[Susurruses]

Generally you make good points. I think it was pointed out too that some aspects of some games is simply realism. SJWs frequently though seem to have an issue with that--like for instance some of them get upset about seeing bigotry or strict gender roles in a historical drama.

Quick disclaimer - this is only something I've dipped my toe into so far, I might well be misunderstanding parts here and there. Philosophy is something I've rarely looked into.

SJW ideology has an overreliance upon subjectivism - the idea that internal moral values and beliefs are the only facts, and external factors such as "reality" are shaped by ones own beliefs.

Where this becomes problematic is that external factors, which you or I might perceive as realism cannot be held as absolutely true by subjectivists because they do not believe that reality is subject to the perception of the individual.

A subjectivist evades the objective nature of ethics, and pretends that he may act in any way he chooses, without consequence. An example is that whilst most people would say murder is always wrong, a subjectivist will take that to mean most people disapprove of murder rather than a universal belief that murder is always wrong.

Subjectivism was also a core tennant in Facism, which invites comparisons to SJW's and how the two use Subjectivism to justify their beliefs.

C.S Lewis wrote a very short book which included a section of subjectivism I found rather useful to help me understand, and this video presented it much better than I can explain it.

How does that tie into your observations on historical dramas? A subjectivist will believe that the correct approach to making moral judgments is to follow our likes and dislikes. If a subjectivist simply doesn't like how a historical drama presents gender roles, they will believe it is immoral.

Ooh, ethics.

Murder is always illegal. Killing is not always wrong.
Problem solved.
(... hang on, how can anyone realistically say that there is a universal belief that murder is wrong if there are people that willingly murder?)
[.. ignoring the issue pinpointed above where 'murder' is a legal definition rather than the "neutral" act of killing.]

.. I'd also like to believe that people can recognise a distinction between "I do not like this thing" and "this thing is morally wrong".
Can we not agree that, say, slavery is wrong?
And that accurate depictions are not wrong (because they are true) ?
(Or did I resolve that supposed issue simply by elevating 'truth' to a higher level than 'slavery is wrong' ?)

So yes. Ethics.
(... I can't tell if it's ironic or not that people use the term 'cultural marxism' yet you linked to a "marxist encyclopaedia".
Man, this thread is wild.)

[Zapato]

Generally you make good points. I think it was pointed out too that some aspects of some games is simply realism. SJWs frequently though seem to have an issue with that--like for instance some of them get upset about seeing bigotry or strict gender roles in a historical drama.

Quick disclaimer - this is only something I've dipped my toe into so far, I might well be misunderstanding parts here and there. Philosophy is something I've rarely looked into.

SJW ideology has an overreliance upon subjectivism - the idea that internal moral values and beliefs are the only facts, and external factors such as "reality" are shaped by ones own beliefs.

Where this becomes problematic is that external factors, which you or I might perceive as realism cannot be held as absolutely true by subjectivists because they believe that reality is subject to the perception of the individual.

A subjectivist evades the objective nature of ethics, and pretends that he may act in any way he chooses, without consequence. An example is that whilst most people would say murder is always wrong, a subjectivist will take that to mean most people disapprove of murder rather than a universal belief that murder is always wrong.

Subjectivism was also a core tennant in Facism, which invites comparisons to SJW's and how the two use Subjectivism to justify their beliefs.

C.S Lewis wrote a very short book which included a section of subjectivism I found rather useful to help me understand, and this video presented it much better than I can explain it.

How does that tie into your observations on historical dramas? A subjectivist will believe that the correct approach to making moral judgments is to follow our likes and dislikes. If a subjectivist simply doesn't like how a historical drama presents gender roles, they will believe it is immoral.

In short, your analysis is fatally flawed from the start, since "SJW" is not a real category of people. It's absurd to attempt making a nuanced argument on the basis of a simplistic trope about an entire, diverse class of people who may not even share the same ideology. By the same token, "SJW ideology" is not a real thing either, and attempts to link it to philosophical beliefs subsequently fails.

[Zapato]

I agree and I think that Anders Behring Breivik's mass murder of Norwegian socialists and his bombing of the Norwegian parliament is an example of Tyrannicide, or at least of how it's described on that link.

Really? The killing of children and bombing of a government building (not parliament) which didn't kill any "tyrants" or people in positions of power whatsoever is an example of Tyrannicide? Please, do explain how...

[New Skaaneland]

Are you suggesting that the Norwegian government is a fallacy?

[Hirota]

In short, your analysis is fatally flawed from the start, since "SJW" is not a real category of people. It's absurd to attempt making a nuanced argument on the basis of a simplistic trope about an entire, diverse class of people who may not even share the same ideology. By the same token, "SJW ideology" is not a real thing either, and attempts to link it to philosophical beliefs subsequently fails.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Just because you do not believe it exists does not mean it does not exist.

[Zapato]

In short, your analysis is fatally flawed from the start, since "SJW" is not a real category of people. It's absurd to attempt making a nuanced argument on the basis of a simplistic trope about an entire, diverse class of people who may not even share the same ideology. By the same token, "SJW ideology" is not a real thing either, and attempts to link it to philosophical beliefs subsequently fails.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Just because you do not believe it exists does not mean it does not exist.

Your use of that particular fallacy is incorrect. There's no argument from incredulity here. I'm not saying I can't imagine that it could exist. I'm stating that it does not, in fact, exist, or, if you like, that you have failed to show that a basic premise for your argument exists. Thus, a fatally flawed analysis.

[Zapato]

Are you suggesting that the Norwegian government is a fallacy?

I'm suggesting that you don't really know what you're talking about.

[New Werpland]

Generally you make good points. I think it was pointed out too that some aspects of some games is simply realism. SJWs frequently though seem to have an issue with that--like for instance some of them get upset about seeing bigotry or strict gender roles in a historical drama.

Quick disclaimer - this is only something I've dipped my toe into so far, I might well be misunderstanding parts here and there. Philosophy is something I've rarely looked into.

SJW ideology has an overreliance upon subjectivism - the idea that internal moral values and beliefs are the only facts, and external factors such as "reality" are shaped by ones own beliefs.

Where this becomes problematic is that external factors, which you or I might perceive as realism cannot be held as absolutely true by subjectivists because they believe that reality is subject to the perception of the individual.

A subjectivist evades the objective nature of ethics, and pretends that he may act in any way he chooses, without consequence. An example is that whilst most people would say murder is always wrong, a subjectivist will take that to mean most people disapprove of murder rather than a universal belief that murder is always wrong.

Subjectivism was also a core tennant in Facism, which invites comparisons to SJW's and how the two use Subjectivism to justify their beliefs.

C.S Lewis wrote a very short book which included a section of subjectivism I found rather useful to help me understand, and this video presented it much better than I can explain it.

How does that tie into your observations on historical dramas? A subjectivist will believe that the correct approach to making moral judgments is to follow our likes and dislikes. If a subjectivist simply doesn't like how a historical drama presents gender roles, they will believe it is immoral.

I don't see how "sjw" ideology is necessarily subjectivist. Of course as your average "sjw" is an angsty leftist teens, it is likely that they would subscribe to x "there is no truth" type school of ethics, but that isn't a necessity to opposing misogynistic depictions of women in video games.

[New Werpland]

In short, your analysis is fatally flawed from the start, since "SJW" is not a real category of people. It's absurd to attempt making a nuanced argument on the basis of a simplistic trope about an entire, diverse class of people who may not even share the same ideology. By the same token, "SJW ideology" is not a real thing either, and attempts to link it to philosophical beliefs subsequently fails.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Just because you do not believe it exists does not mean it does not exist.

Zapato is right, sjw's aren't a real ideology, just a term to describe all the people who "oppose" the gamergate movement.

[Destiny Island]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Just because you do not believe it exists does not mean it does not exist.

Zapato is right, sjw's aren't a real ideology, just a term to describe all the people who "oppose" the gamergate movement.

But that implies that the term started with GamerGate. I'm pretty sure that SJW has been a term for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong ass time before GG was even a thing.

[New Werpland]

Zapato is right, sjw's aren't a real ideology, just a term to describe all the people who "oppose" the gamergate movement.

But that implies that the term started with GamerGate. I'm pretty sure that SJW has been a term for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong ass time before GG was even a thing.

I was referring to any kind of group representing gamers who don't want people regulating or criticizing the content of the video games they play. Gamergate was the only term I knew.

[Destiny Island]

But that implies that the term started with GamerGate. I'm pretty sure that SJW has been a term for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong ass time before GG was even a thing.

I meant really any kind of group representing gamers who don't want people regulating or criticizing the content of the video games they play.

The term came from Tumblr, you do know that right? The term popped up in a lot of Gamer's radar because of this whole debacle.

[New Werpland]

I meant really any kind of group representing gamers who don't want people regulating or criticizing the content of the video games they play.

The term came from Tumblr, you do know that right? The term popped up in a lot of Gamer's radar because of this whole debacle.

So?

[Destiny Island]

The term came from Tumblr, you do know that right? The term popped up in a lot of Gamer's radar because of this whole debacle.

So?

Well I just wanted to clarify that. That's pretty much it tbh.

[Wymyn Zhongguo]

http://web.archive.org/web/20010913190319/http://www.wie.org/j16/daly2.asp

The above link contains the entirety of an interview of Mary Daly; feel free to read it.

Not a single word redacted or placed out of context.

Note that she never advocated for violence against, or oppression of males.

Feminism is not about hatred.