As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Weaponized [social media]

1356725

Posts

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Disney has a zero tolerance policy? They don't seem to be enforcing it on many of the other people with shit in their pasts.

    It's unwritten. The #metoo movement's accusations of the industry being insensitive/covering for monsters changed the nation's thinking. Big companies are cautious and now willing to purge talent if there's a whiff of misconduct that becomes public.

    If that was true, Johnny Depp wouldn't have a career anymore.

    No, the problem is that Disney doesn't realize that Mark Cernovich is acting in bad faith.

    This is basically the crux for me. I kinda don't care whether James Gunn stays on as director for GotG3.

    I do care that Disney is validating/enabling/feeding an alt-right troll.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    I kind of doubt even trump could kill popular opinion on disney

    though if it got rid of all those car decals of tinkerbell that say 'powered by bitch dust', it'd be worth it

    .... I live in kind of a white trash area

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I kind of doubt even trump could kill popular opinion on disney

    though if it got rid of all those car decals of tinkerbell that say 'powered by bitch dust', it'd be worth it

    .... I live in kind of a white trash area

    Its not that, its Trump throwing a temper tantrum and ordering his underlings to nix the Disney/Fox merger.

    They have got the go ahead, but until its done, Trump can be a troll about it.

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Disney has a zero tolerance policy? They don't seem to be enforcing it on many of the other people with shit in their pasts.

    It's unwritten. The #metoo movement's accusations of the industry being insensitive/covering for monsters changed the nation's thinking. Big companies are cautious and now willing to purge talent if there's a whiff of misconduct that becomes public.

    If that was true, Johnny Depp wouldn't have a career anymore.

    No, the problem is that Disney doesn't realize that Mark Cernovich is acting in bad faith.

    This is basically the crux for me. I kinda don't care whether James Gunn stays on as director for GotG3.

    I do care that Disney is validating/enabling/feeding an alt-right troll.

    even if it were a completely concerned parent who thought that the director of a movie that their kids liked should not have said offensive things 10 years ago.... there should be some sort of appropriate response aside from 'you're outta here'

    my guess is that Disney knew full well who was at the heart of the reporting and thought that the only response that they could have was firing Gunn.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

    Let me just say what you are actually looking for an answer to:

    No, no one would defend Gunn if he had raped someone and Disney kicked him off their project after having discovered that. Even if it was brought to light by an alt-right wackjob.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

    oh now I see where you're coming from. I guess the source doesn't matter so much as the evidence being accurate and in context

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

    Let me just say what you are actually looking for an answer to:

    No, no one would defend Gunn if he had raped someone and Disney kicked him off their project after having discovered that. Even if it was brought to light by an alt-right wackjob.

    I mean, obviously. It was more a rhetorical question to lead into the real question of "Where is the line, then?"

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Established severity of crime is orthogonal to reporter idenitity in theory

    In practice it's a little hard to do objectively

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

    Let me just say what you are actually looking for an answer to:

    No, no one would defend Gunn if he had raped someone and Disney kicked him off their project after having discovered that. Even if it was brought to light by an alt-right wackjob.

    I mean, obviously. It was more a rhetorical question to lead into the real question of "Where is the line, then?"

    There probably isn't a real easy way to make a line in the sand, it's a case by case basis. Obviously in the situation of rape, there are laws already in place to punish them. But this cycles back to my recidivism question. Should we not try to rehabilitate people who do bad things to make them better members of society? What limitations should we impose on them?

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

    It's not about sides; it's that the people bringing it up quantifiably do not have a problem with what Gunn did. With that in mind, it's important to figure out why this person is bringing this to attention, why they're seeking this particular outcome, and what they stand to gain from it.

    The line is "if the person bringing it up doesn't actually have any interest in what was said or done, but rather is primarily affixed on making that person suffer, maybe it's okay to tell them to fuck off"

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side?

    No one is dismissing Gunn’s behavior because of people’s “sides”. Most people posting here are forgiving and sympathetic over offensive jokes from a decade ago because he’s apologized for them since then and has clearly adjusted his behavior.

    The bad faith isn’t an assumption because Cernovich is on a “side” either. It is because of a long, documented history of acting in bad faith.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

    It's not about sides; it's that the people bringing it up quantifiably do not have a problem with what Gunn did. With that in mind, it's important to figure out why this person is bringing this to attention, why they're seeking this particular outcome, and what they stand to gain from it.

    The line is "if the person bringing it up doesn't actually have any interest in what was said or done, but rather is primarily affixed on making that person suffer, maybe it's okay to tell them to fuck off"

    But I guess that's part of the problem? I've seen people bring up tweets from decades or years ago from Conservatives to show how horrible they are and get them boycotted in whatever sphere they are in. I'm not doubting the people bringing it up have actual issues with those tweets and those issues are due to the content of those tweet. However, and this is where I have a bit of an problem, I don't believe those same people are scrutinizing the history of those they deem on their side. Just because the other side finds the tweets and they are tweets that people have issues with, does that mean we should dismiss them out of hand because they are doing so to gain something from it?

    I don't really have a good answer for that, mind you. But it does feel wrong to me to dismiss something because the source or motivation is not something I agree with, when the content of that something is an actual problem.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    I guess where is the line when the source of the issue overrides the content of the issue? I don't know that there should be a line, personally, and would rather take on each issue's content irregardless of the source of said content. This is of course assuming the content has been verified and is true.

    So, when I hear people say they'd rather Disney not capitulate because these are bad faith actors, that seems like a poor excuse and one that actually feeds directly into these bad faith actors. Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    it wasn't though

    I'm not going to defend his terrible comments, but I will defend the fact that he owned up to them ages ago, apologized ages ago (and again recently), deleted them ages ago (I believe), and hasn't said anything like them in years

    which is the best you can ask of someone who said bad things

    I wasn't discussing Gunn's actual crimes*. I was more using that as an example of where I think most people would look past that it was brought up by bad faith actors and instead condemn Gunn's past and be behind the consequences. Which is the point of that post. Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side? Because thats one of the arguments thrown out as to why Disney shouldn't capitulate. But thats a really bad viewpoint and one that actually proves the bad faith actors correct in that the content of the crime doesn't matter but instead its all about "sides".




    *I personally believe that while his comments were terrible, it was long enough ago and he's clearly making an effort to change so this should be a nothingburger.

    It's not about sides; it's that the people bringing it up quantifiably do not have a problem with what Gunn did. With that in mind, it's important to figure out why this person is bringing this to attention, why they're seeking this particular outcome, and what they stand to gain from it.

    The line is "if the person bringing it up doesn't actually have any interest in what was said or done, but rather is primarily affixed on making that person suffer, maybe it's okay to tell them to fuck off"

    But I guess that's part of the problem? I've seen people bring up tweets from decades or years ago from Conservatives to show how horrible they are and get them boycotted in whatever sphere they are in. I'm not doubting the people bringing it up have actual issues with those tweets and those issues are due to the content of those tweet. However, and this is where I have a bit of an problem, I don't believe those same people are scrutinizing the history of those they deem on their side. Just because the other side finds the tweets and they are tweets that people have issues with, does that mean we should dismiss them out of hand because they are doing so to gain something from it?

    I don't really have a good answer for that, mind you. But it does feel wrong to me to dismiss something because the source or motivation is not something I agree with, when the content of that something is an actual problem.

    Do you have any examples?

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side?

    No one is dismissing Gunn’s behavior because of people’s “sides”. Most people posting here are forgiving and sympathetic over offensive jokes from a decade ago because he’s apologized for them since then and has clearly adjusted his behavior.

    There are comments on this very page saying they don't care what happens to Gunn, they just care that Disney went along with data that came from the alt-right.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2018
    Paladin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Lying and claiming they believe the tweets to be offensive, a fireable offense, punishable by law, and using their influence to get Gunn fired based on that lie absolutely matters. Intent matters quite a bit in what people do.

    Quid on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Yes it does. For one thing, he's attempting to use those tweets of evidence that Gunn is, in fact, a pedophile and rapist.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2018
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side?

    No one is dismissing Gunn’s behavior because of people’s “sides”. Most people posting here are forgiving and sympathetic over offensive jokes from a decade ago because he’s apologized for them since then and has clearly adjusted his behavior.

    There are comments on this very page saying they don't care what happens to Gunn, they just care that Disney went along with data that came from the alt-right.

    Okay?

    You seem to be making the assumption people are opposed to the alt-right solely because they’re a political faction and absolutely no other thought or reason is put in to their opposition.

    Quid on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    I think it's important to actually look at the tweets themselves. Many people are making them out to be a lot worse than they actually are. These were jokes like "dead baby" jokes. Clearly meant to shock, not meant to endorse or encourage anything. Immature, inappropriate, sure. Something to shun and condemn someone for? I'm don't think I agree with that, especially given they apologized and deleted them. I'm not sure which things ObiFett is referring to about conservative posting history, but in my experience those older tweets often show a pattern of discrimination towards LGBTQ folks or minorities who are put into positions where they can influence treatment of those groups, which I think is a different thing than a person in entertainment who made poor attempts at entertainment in the past.

    I think the only reason anyone cares about these is because of a bunch of people feigning outrage with the explicit intention to get him fired, because they disagreed with him politically. Not because they genuinely think he's some sort of predator or because these old, deleted tweets offended their sensibilities. And if they genuinely do think that he's some sort of predator, they are doing so because of an insane conspiracy theory that also deserves no traction.

    If you completely ignore the bad faith actors, you still have a company firing one person for things they've apologized for and worked to correct, while still working with a number of people that have done things that they haven't apologized for or worked to correct. It's hypocritical on Disney's part.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Yes it does. For one thing, he's attempting to use those tweets of evidence that Gunn is, in fact, a pedophile and rapist.

    I mean obviously thats absurd and if thats what the "outrage" is about then its nonsense. I thought it was more "Look at these old tweets that are offensive and would get anyone on 'our side' fired due to the outrage from those tweets, you should fire this man."

    But if its the former, then I mean clearly Gunn isnt actually a pedophile and a rapist.

    But those tweets are offensive. Should it result in being fired? I don't think so. Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side?

    No one is dismissing Gunn’s behavior because of people’s “sides”. Most people posting here are forgiving and sympathetic over offensive jokes from a decade ago because he’s apologized for them since then and has clearly adjusted his behavior.

    There are comments on this very page saying they don't care what happens to Gunn, they just care that Disney went along with data that came from the alt-right.

    "data" being deliberately misleadingly framed tweets that ignore his subsequent apologies, deletion, and work to correct his behavior.

    Plus people like Ted Cruz suggesting he should be prosecuted, implying he's actually a child predator, not a guy joking about his shower pressure.

  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Yes it does. For one thing, he's attempting to use those tweets of evidence that Gunn is, in fact, a pedophile and rapist.

    I mean obviously thats absurd and if thats what the "outrage" is about then its nonsense. I thought it was more "Look at these old tweets that are offensive and would get anyone on 'our side' fired due to the outrage from those tweets, you should fire this man."

    But if its the former, then I mean clearly Gunn isnt actually a pedophile and a rapist.

    But those tweets are offensive. Should it result in being fired? I don't think so. Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    I doubt it, if they were in a vacuum. There's a false equivalency getting played up here and without specific examples I can't agree with this.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side?

    No one is dismissing Gunn’s behavior because of people’s “sides”. Most people posting here are forgiving and sympathetic over offensive jokes from a decade ago because he’s apologized for them since then and has clearly adjusted his behavior.

    There are comments on this very page saying they don't care what happens to Gunn, they just care that Disney went along with data that came from the alt-right.

    Okay?

    You seem to be making the assumption people are opposed to the alt-right solely because they’re a political faction and absolutely no other thought or reason is put in to their opposition.

    Its more that our reaction to his tweets should be based on the tweets themselves. Not the source that revealed them.

    And if we say that the result is invalid because of the source that revealed them (with no care for the actual content of the tweets), then that feels ... wrong ... I guess for the reasons I've already outlined on this page.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    I don’t think anyone here appreciates you telling them what they’d really do because they’re secret hypocrites with no view of conservatives beyond conservative=bad.

  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side?

    No one is dismissing Gunn’s behavior because of people’s “sides”. Most people posting here are forgiving and sympathetic over offensive jokes from a decade ago because he’s apologized for them since then and has clearly adjusted his behavior.

    There are comments on this very page saying they don't care what happens to Gunn, they just care that Disney went along with data that came from the alt-right.

    Okay?

    You seem to be making the assumption people are opposed to the alt-right solely because they’re a political faction and absolutely no other thought or reason is put in to their opposition.

    Its more that our reaction to his tweets should be based on the tweets themselves. Not the source that revealed them.

    And if we say that the result is invalid because of the source that revealed them (with no care for the actual content of the tweets), then that feels ... wrong ... I guess for the reasons I've already outlined on this page.

    You also need to include his subsequent apology, the fact that the tweets were already deleted, and that he has worked to improve himself since then. The entire situation is important, you cannot take just the tweets in a vacuum, nor should you take just the people revealing the info in a vacuum.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dismiss past wrongdoing because the source that discovered it isn't the same side?

    No one is dismissing Gunn’s behavior because of people’s “sides”. Most people posting here are forgiving and sympathetic over offensive jokes from a decade ago because he’s apologized for them since then and has clearly adjusted his behavior.

    There are comments on this very page saying they don't care what happens to Gunn, they just care that Disney went along with data that came from the alt-right.

    Okay?

    You seem to be making the assumption people are opposed to the alt-right solely because they’re a political faction and absolutely no other thought or reason is put in to their opposition.

    Its more that our reaction to his tweets should be based on the tweets themselves. Not the source that revealed them.

    And if we say that the result is invalid because of the source that revealed them (with no care for the actual content of the tweets), then that feels ... wrong ... I guess for the reasons I've already outlined on this page.

    Our reaction has not been to the tweets.

    Our reaction has been to the source then using their influence to get Gunn fired for something they don’t care about.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Yes it does. For one thing, he's attempting to use those tweets of evidence that Gunn is, in fact, a pedophile and rapist.

    I mean obviously thats absurd and if thats what the "outrage" is about then its nonsense. I thought it was more "Look at these old tweets that are offensive and would get anyone on 'our side' fired due to the outrage from those tweets, you should fire this man."

    But if its the former, then I mean clearly Gunn isnt actually a pedophile and a rapist.

    But those tweets are offensive. Should it result in being fired? I don't think so. Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    The whole thing was kicked off by this tweet (I'm not going to imbed it because fuck him)

    Friends,

    What we unearthed tonight was a PROVEN pedo network operating in Hollywood.

    We have archived Tweets, we saw them get deleted in real time.

    We saw the clear connections and comments.

    Expect the media to attack me to tomorrow in a way you have never seen.

    Godspeed.
    2:22am, July 20, 2018

    It was never 'hey this stuff is really offensive'

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    I don’t think anyone here appreciates you telling them what they’d really do because they’re secret hypocrites with no view of conservatives beyond conservative=bad.

    I'm not saying what anyone here would do. I would say I am conservative or right leaning, but I definitely don't take it to mean that a poster thinks I would do something when they paint the right as having a certain action I would disagree with.

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2018
    Quid wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Lying and claiming they believe the tweets to be offensive, a fireable offense, punishable by law, and using their influence to get Gunn fired based on that lie absolutely matters. Intent matters quite a bit in what people do.

    And as has been established in excruciating detail dozens of times between this thread and the one where this conversation started, there is a difference between something happening *now* (as in, if Gunn had been tweeting vile things weeks or months ago), and something that happened a decade past (not entirely exculpatory on its own, but a factor) AND that he (by his own statements and those of people around him) seems to have spent those intervening years striving to do better.

    That's what makes this different and not an easily 1 to 1 comparable situation to many. Much of the harm Cosby did was decades ago, but he wasn't just saying offensive things, he was raping women. Roseanne's show was canned for more recent stuff and I don't feel bad about it because her actions prior to, during, and after the incident indicate (as least publicly) that she's not particularly sincere in her contriteness.

    As noted by several, it is all but impossible to draw a hard line in the sand, there is context required for individual cases, and that leads to differences in opinion. However, that it is being reported in bad faith (the feigned outrage when surrounded by people who have said and done things easily considered as bad or worse), likely as a politically motivated attack, all combines in a 'I know pornography when I see it' sort of way.

    For like the nth time, I've seen few people defending Gunn's tweets. Most of them (from my read) generally boil down to some variation on "whelp, that was shitty/fucked up/etc, I'm glad he's chosen to do better".

    Being fired while doing better is what seems at odds. Being fired for something that we at least assume Disney was aware of on some level, and while doing better, for politically motivated reasons by a rampantly silly goose is another thing entirely.

    I don't expect anyone to live a life of perfect intellectual consistency, but I'm not going to provide benefit of the doubt above and beyond the call of duty to individuals who deny it to others as a habit, and have proven unworthy of it in the past. The onus is on them to show it's more than just finding a weak spot to hit someone they disagree with in a way that might get people from 'the other side' to join in.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2018
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    I don’t think anyone here appreciates you telling them what they’d really do because they’re secret hypocrites with no view of conservatives beyond conservative=bad.

    I'm not saying what anyone here would do. I would say I am conservative or right leaning, but I definitely don't take it to mean that a poster thinks I would do something when they paint the right as having a certain action I would disagree with.

    Then I would love some prominent examples. Cause currently American conservatives have thrown in with the likes of Trump and Moore, people with demonstrable sexual assault records, while gnashing their teeth over the enemy’s really bad tweets.

    Otherwise this just reeks of another round of both sides cynicism.

    Quid on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    People keep bringing up that this was all started by bad faith actors and I'm not sure why that matters?

    If they discovered that Gunn had raped someone in his past, would it not matter because it was found by Cernovich?

    Rape =/= speech.

    There is a lot more nuance involved in dealing with an employee's speech (or a celebrity's speech) than in dealing with literal assault.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Its much better to just refute the content of what they are bringing up, rather than basically say that there are blatant double standards based on which "side" brings these issues to light.

    The double standard already exists. The alt-right President admitted to "grabbing them by the pussy." Cernovich isn't dragging him through the mud.

    There's possibly no better example of that double standard than Allison Rapp. Some Gamergaters got pissed off because Nintendo dialed down the sexual themes in the English translation of a Japanese Fire Emblem game. So they found and decried an essay that Rapp wrote defending depictions of underaged sexuality in Japanese media.

    If that doesn't make any goddamn sense to you: congratulations, you're still sane.

    Obviously rape =/= speech. I'm not saying its the same. I was asking that question to make us think about the line where the source doesn't override the content.

    The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. So because the alt-right are hypocrites, we can be as well? Because they seemingly only care about protecting their own, we should be too? Because thats what it sounds like when someone makes the argument that this should be dismissed because it came from bad faith actors (which is really just code for "the other side").

    No, the point is to remember what Sartre pointed out:
    Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    The point of noting that someone is a bad faith actor is to reduce their credibility. Cernovich is relying on you to give him fair play that he would never give you - the way you fight back is by not falling into that trap.

    The tweets are what they are, though. Mr. Cernovich's credibility doesn't change that.

    Yes it does. For one thing, he's attempting to use those tweets of evidence that Gunn is, in fact, a pedophile and rapist.

    I mean obviously thats absurd and if thats what the "outrage" is about then its nonsense. I thought it was more "Look at these old tweets that are offensive and would get anyone on 'our side' fired due to the outrage from those tweets, you should fire this man."

    But if its the former, then I mean clearly Gunn isnt actually a pedophile and a rapist.

    But those tweets are offensive. Should it result in being fired? I don't think so. Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    Except this is exactly what happened to Gunn in 2012. The tweets were 3-4 years old at that point, when he had just been tagged for the first Guardians movie, he was decidedly more conservative than he is now; he apologized, and nothing came of it. He apologized, he deleted his twitter, and that was it.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited July 2018
    Quid wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    I don’t think anyone here appreciates you telling them what they’d really do because they’re secret hypocrites with no view of conservatives beyond conservative=bad.

    I'm not saying what anyone here would do. I would say I am conservative or right leaning, but I definitely don't take it to mean that a poster thinks I would do something when they paint the right as having a certain action I would disagree with.

    Then I would love some prominent examples. Cause currently American conservatives have thrown in with the likes of Trump and Moore, people with demonstrable sexual assault records, while gnashing their teeth over the enemy’s really bad tweets.

    Otherwise this just reeks of another round of both sides cynicism.

    I'm not sure what you are asking for examples of...

    edit: just saw your edit. Sure, I guess I will go search for an example. But, yes, I do have a healthy amount of cynicism about both sides and I'm well aware that goes over just swimmingly around here.

    ObiFett on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Would it result in a conservative being fired? Probably, because the left wouldn't view his apology as real (since he's still a horrible conservative) and the outrage/boycott would be loud enough to get him fired.

    I don’t think anyone here appreciates you telling them what they’d really do because they’re secret hypocrites with no view of conservatives beyond conservative=bad.

    I'm not saying what anyone here would do. I would say I am conservative or right leaning, but I definitely don't take it to mean that a poster thinks I would do something when they paint the right as having a certain action I would disagree with.

    Then I would love some prominent examples. Cause currently American conservatives have thrown in with the likes of Trump and Moore, people with demonstrable sexual assault records, while gnashing their teeth over the enemy’s really bad tweets.

    I'm not sure what you are asking for examples of...

    Conservatives with offensive tweets from half a decade ago that they have apologized for and made visible efforts to be better than in more recent years.

Sign In or Register to comment.