Jim Butcher is great.
Posted Feb 22, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC
201151
Some context.
Edit: ###Attention Dresden Files fans, please keep your discussions in this post civil or it will be closed. Remember to respect your fellow redditors.
22
I wasn't aware JB had said something in this greater scheme of events. Glad to know he's got a level head on his shoulders.
7
He doesn't really take a side though. It's more just calling out folks on one side that are resorting to petty name calling. One side could see it as him firing a salvo at the opposition while the opposition could see it as rallying the troops back into coherency.
6
In a way he did, but given a statement like his, he doesn't have to, either.
One side will simply be glad he's a rational person, and won't care if he joins their cause or not.
The other side will treat him as the enemy for doing something other than denouncing Baldwin (hint: this is the same side that's trying to silence people and ideas instead of engaging in discourse).
He doesn't have to join one side, because he's already denounced the fundamental problem with the other. And that's enough.
0
Jim is awesome and Jim's dad was right; Kinda similar to the old Lebanese proverb. Lower your voice and strengthen your argument
Context:
Further reading which may also interest you:-->Gamergate Hashtag Controversy
7
Oooh, that's a good proverb.
2
Gamergate was spawned by 4chan IIRC, as what effectively was a massive troll. Maybe he introduced it to twitter or something?
1
Hmm great questions - to be honest I'm not sure about much of this issue - but i have read some articles on it today.
1
The movement started in a number of places on the internet, probably most importantly on 4chan; Baldwin just coined the term/hashtag, as I understand it.
2
Somehow I think the brown coats are going to win this one.
5
http://stevivor.com/2015/02/supanova-sees-sponsorship-agreement-dissolve-over-adam-baldwin-row/
“The argument that we’re being exclusive by being inclusive is vacuous and exactly the opposite of the historical mentality of the creative communities represented at Supanova,” Daniel Zachariou of Supanova offered in reply to Kotaku’s piece."
8
But I've had arguments on Reddit several times where I've been able to back my argument up with facts from reputable sources and also broken down and told the other side to shut up. Or does "winning the argument" not mean the same as "being right"?
4
There's a difference between walking away and actively trying to tell the other side they're not allowed to speak anymore. I've often just stopped replying when it was obvious that things were getting nowhere, but I've never flat-out told someone else to stop speaking altogether.
If you're not willing to discuss something anymore, for whatever reason, you leave the discussion... you don't try to stop your opponent from talking.
3
[deleted]
1
No, you lose the debate when you start threatening people who challenge your beliefs.
I love Butcher's work, but he's way off-base here. The coordinators of the event have every reason to look after the safety of their convention-goers. For Butcher to say this is an easy thing; He's not responsible for anybody but himself and his family. Not so with the convention coordinators.
It disappoints me to see how disingenuously (or maybe he's just uninformed) he framed this.
4
I love Butcher's work, but he's way off-base here. The coordinators of the event have every reason to look after the safety of their convention-goers. For Butcher to say this is an easy thing; He's not responsible for anybody but himself and his family. Not so with the convention coordinators.
The safety of their convention-goers? Do you think Adam Baldwin is going to physically attack someone?
4
The sheer number of threats against anti-gamergate people most certainly provide cause for alarm. UCSB didn't fall out of the sky...
-4
The number of threats is less significant than the credibility of those threats. The Isla Vista shooting had nothing to do with Gamergate and wasn't even entirely about misogyny, and the USU police department didn't find the threats against Sarkeesian to be credible - she just chose to cancel the speech anyway when she found out that USU permits concealed carry.
You're also not the first person to try and link Isla Vista with Gamergate.
2
Agreed, this was a pretty disappointing context for him to use his father's wisdom. It isn't universally applicable. I'm just hoping it isn't also indicative of what 'side' he's on in that mess.
-2
Also isn't it kind of ironic this is being championed on Reddit, where the very system (downvoting) is designed to shut up the people you disagree with? :P
2
You know the SVU episode was not real right? No one has actually been kidnapped, raped or beaten. No ones safety is at stake. Stop pretending to be prosecuted.
-2
I'm inclined to agree with Jim Butcher up to a point.
Ken Ham.
3
2
#####
######
#### Ken Ham:
Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is an Australian-born young Earth creationist, fundamentalist Christian, and the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Creationist apologetics ministry which operates the Creation Museum. Ham is a former high school science teacher who currently lives in the Cincinnati metropolitan area, USA.
Ham advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. His claim that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records.
====
^Interesting: ^Bill ^Nye–Ken ^Ham ^debate ^| ^WPFG ^| ^KEYY ^| ^KVNG
^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cotmvi4) ^or [^delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cotmvi4)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^(FAQs) ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words
1
Is that a counterpoint? I don't know the guy, but I have a lot of respect for him having that debate with Bill Nye, even if I think young earth creationism is super crazy.
-2
I have no respect for someone that profits from spreading lies.
2
That's fine. Still – I liked his willingness to face criticism, even if it's with a certain air of willful denial. There are religious organizations and communities that completely isolate themselves and their children from alternative perspectives, which IMO is far more damaging than a guy spouting off crackpot theories that can be easily dismissed with a little due diligence.
1
I guess he's really earning that Sad Puppies nomination.
2
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
- [/r/GamerGhazi] Welcome to another exciting episode of Gators in the Wild. Now in unrelated book subreddits!
^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.
0
Haha, that explains a lot
1
Some views, like misogyny, are morally reprehensible and do not really require debate. I'm disappointed that Butcher thinks it is.
-16
Morality is incredibly subjective, though. Even thought 99% of the people around you may agree with your viewpoint, at the end of the day, what you consider right and wrong are YOUR opinions, and yours alone. There IS room for debate, no matter what the issue, and that free exchange of ideas is what he's talking about.
15
Not every opinion is created equal just because it's an opinion. The movement Baldwin has become associated with, intentionally or not, is actively harmful, and it's harmful to women specifically. Why should we give it legitimacy?
-11
For the same reasons that EVERY movement, ever, has been given legitimacy; you put the different positions in the open, and let everyone make up their own minds about them. I agree with Mr. Butcher. Silencing differing opinions simply because you consider them morally reprehensible is not the way to go. Change comes from everyone else around you hearing these opinions and making their own decisions about them, and thus deciding their responses to them. Legitimate or not, they deserve the chance to espouse socially unacceptable opinions as much as, say, gay marriage advocates or civil rights advocates had in their days.
22
Except that we have seen their position: that women in gaming deserve death threats and fear, to be outed and harassed. These are not innocents merely espousing a theoretical viewpoint. At what point do we look and say "Yup, that's bullshit"?
Once a movement shows itself to be based in hate and desire for oppression, I think we can say we've seen enough.
-12
How is it harmful?
1
I agree with you! On the other hand, if you allow the cry, "You're a misogynist!" to shut down any discussion, you have just disallowed any discussion that the person willing to cry misogynist doesn't want.
If group A says that group B is corrupt (and should look into and fix the problem) and group B responds that group A is just a bunch of misogynists harassing women (and they don't have to do anything because group A is full of misogynists), it might be worth looking into the claims of both groups to see which has more evidence behind it.
12
Some views, like misogyny
Disagreeing with white men is not misogyny holy shit
do not really require debate
Classic kafkatrap. It's convenient to shout misogyny when people disagree with you, right? Then you don't have to debate them.
11
No. While I completely agree with you in everything you think about misogyny and the ties that parts of GG has to it, silence is never the answer. It needs to be brought out in the sunlight and killed, always.
The examples from history are countless, you can look at racism, antisemitism, homophobia, whatever. When such opinions are left alone they grow, they can only be defeated with information and education on the subject.
7
What is this in conjunction with? I don't have any context in which to judge the quote.
I did a brief search and found out that the actor Adam Baldwin has political and social views that offend certain factions in the video game subculture, so much so that they feel they will be physically unsafe if he is present at a convention called Supanova. They want the convention to ban Baldwin from attending.
I don't play video games, so this is all news to me.
It was from a thread regarding that, yes.
I like the first part the most, for life in general. "Which side is screaming that the other should shut up? Yeah, I'm gonna go check out the other side."
I think they both are at this point.
i'm not the biggest fan of gamergate in the world to put it mildly but at least they didn't fucking pretend to be the other side and then claim to plan a sarin gas attack to discredit it holy shit i'm still in awe that aggro actually did that
the twitter shit is just childish but if you go to other places its much more calm on the Baldwin side.
people actually write well thought out and educational rebukes and such, but all anyone sees is twitter. theres some good stuff from the antiBaldwin/antiGG side, even if i am proBaldwin/GG i can admit that.
check out r/KotakuInAction if you want to see the proBaldwin/GamerGate side. i dont honestly know where to go to see the other side besides polygon or kotaku.
I love Adam Baldwin, he was great in Firefly and Chuck, but most people feel that he is not allowed to be an actor and a conservative and get mad at him being outspoken for it. Especially because his views are drastically different than his twitter following crowd.
But this Supernova stuff is news to me. I wonder what he said.
He coined the phrase "Gamergate." Considering that the movement has been tarred as a group that threatens femenists (i.e. idiots doing idiotic things in the name of the movement. Also ironic in that the SJWs do the same thing), I can see the originator of the phrase not being liked by many tumblrinas. And when they get riled up, they get loud.
Ohhh I was not aware that he started the GamerGate phrase. I have seen him talk a lot about it, just never researched anything about it.
I could list a lot of things, like when he compared gay marriage to incest, retweeted the doxx of people, set his twitter fanbase to mob someone right after she had just been doxxed by someone else who said the were coming to kill her family and shove a k-bar up her c*** after he finished raping her, and he also said Net Neutrality is the "Marxism of the tech world"
Wow... just wow.
I never understood why people put weight into the political comments or stances of actors/celebrity personalities, left or right. Just makes no sense.
[deleted]
I thought you said Alec Baldwin and I couldn't figure out why he would care about videogames so much lol
Something worth knowing; there are two sides of GamerGate.
One side of the group is arguing for a stronger basis of gaming journalism morals. The other (more vocal/emotional) side is arguing that gaming is pandering to feminist views too much.
From what I've read, Baldwin comes down on the side of the second group more often than not. The problem with the second group is that any attempt at discussion turns into a "I'm not a misogynist!" retort pretty quick. It also turns into an argument between people versed in social theory getting shouted at by passionate people with minimal social theory education.
The bigger problem though, is that the side that supports Baldwin typically ends up being the much more expressive side, and there have been a lot of women developers getting harassed/doxxed/threatened by this group.
Actually both of those things are the same side. One side is for stronger ethics in journalism AND doesn't think gaming should be subjected to SJW values. The other group says 'you just think that because you hate women.'
No women developers have been doxxed by pro-gamergate, all the threats/emotional meltdowns have been done by the anti side.
Ummmm.... the whole reason that antiGG believes that GG is a misogynist group is because female devs have been doxxed...
I hope you realise that all women who have been doxxed have been that following some kind of anti-GG statement, which implies that all the victims where in fact from the anti-GG side. Now you're saying that no doxxings have been committed by pro-GG people? Either you mixed something up in your sentences there — a negation too much somewhere? — or you're a complete conspiracy nut.
I'll even be generous here and give you some benefit of the doubt, I'll allow that it wouldn't be impossible to fake a doxxing to get sympathy, but do you really say that all those doxxings were made that way? If you do, then you have tinfoil coming out of your very ears.
I don't think you understand the fact that these attacks are very personal, they hit very close to home for the victims, and they have proven to be very effective at silencing people by forcing them to live in fear. I can't see how you can make the suggestion that one, let alone all, of these were self-inflicted, just so you can write them of as "some woman trying to get attention/sympathy"...? I'm slightly nauseuos, and getting more so since your post somehow has a score above zero. Not what I expected from people on this sub.
And no, those two sides are decidedly not the same thing. I'm all for stronger ethics in journalism, and I'm also for feminism, because I don't think women should be treated worse than men just because they look different from us when they have no clothes on. I have the ability to hold both of these views simultaneously because I'm a decent human being. The fact that you refer to "feminist values" from the post you answered as "social justice values," which is a pejorative term, pretty much sums you up in my book.
I think the reactions more have to do with some of the more... vigorous members of the GG community, who a lot of people would be afraid would appear if Baldwin shows, as he's kind of the only famous person to stand up for them.
Frankly, I wouldn't go to a convention he's going to be at - and I'm an old-school gaming nerd, going on 30 years since I picked up an Atari controller. I also have a mother, and I have a teenage half-sister who makes me very, very mistrustful of the awfulness that has come out of the GG movement...
Can you point me towards the members of the GG community you're referring to? I have been following it for several months and have yet to see awfulness from the GG side that wasn't from an obvious troll (newly created twitter account with spoofed information, for example.) I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that I can't find it.
That's really the problem - what one person sees as a troll, someone else sees as a definite threat. That's the really scary part of this - that the worst actors in this whole thing are operating under a veil of anonymity, which makes guaranteeing any kind of safety impossible.
We already know about the swatting, the bomb threats, the very specific behaviors done by persons unknown. If we knew who they were, then law enforcement could do their part and deal with these homegrown terrorists - and they are, by textbook definition, terrorists. They are using the threat of violence to achieve their ends.
Trust me, if I could identify the people causing these problems, I wouldn't be working as a programmer - I'd be an FBI agent with the best case clearing record in the history of the Bureau.
We have to take those threats seriously - if not, people end up dead when the one out of a hundred random crazies do actually follow up and shoot everyone in a lecture hall because the Atlantean Princes told him to do it...
Well, let's begin with the fact that, after posting a frankly well-reasoned and entirely civil, thoughtful piece on the whole Gamergate debacle, Felicia Day was doxxed within hours (maybe even minutes, I don't remember) as a pretty direct response.
I know people think that the anti-GG crowd is trying to censor Adam Baldwin, but it's not often that people consider how censored we often feel, because people generally don't tell us we're not allowed to go to a convention to speak. Instead, though, we get threatened and doxxed. A large part of Day's post in response to Gamergate was how, because of the nastiness that came out of it, she had started to feel unsafe to interact with male gamers that she didn't know, and that's a feeling I definitely understand. I don't think that your average gamer is going to threaten to rape me (and neither do any of the other reasonable women out there), but there appear to be enough of them out there willing to send threatening messages about what I "deserve" with creepy details about my real life that it really stops being worth it to try interacting in that way, just in case.
S/he can't really. It's why s/he appealed to authority by establishing "nerd cred" and then appealed to emotion by claiming to have a mother/sister that felt threatened somehow.
The problem is that people mean different things when they say "the GG community", it's not that easy to draw the line. The fact is that trolls follow in their wake, and that's a problem for everyone. So what if you call the persons responsible trolls? That's just a word, it doesn't solve anything, those trolls call themselves members of the GG community, and for all I know they might be. Or not, it doesn't really matter. Of course I don't think that everyone connected to the GG community is like this, but enough people are that it's becoming a problem, and the only ones that can really end this problem is the GG themselves. They need to crack down hard and show that this is not at all the opinions we stand for, et c.
Honestly, part of the issue is that Adam Baldwin clearly has no idea what's going on, he just felt like attaching himself to something. If I recall, the things he actually said were really stupid, and turned out to be wrong.