|
Leggsy posted:Both you and that article are being incredibly disingenuous considering Campbell is a known Homophobe/Transphobe and an Anti-Feminist. He has more in common with the Sargons of the world than the anti-GG'ers. This dude's an anti-feminist but also anti-GG? How the hell does that work?
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This dude's an anti-feminist but also anti-GG? How the hell does that work? he probably got mad at gamergate for one of the numerous reasons gamergate was stupid aside from hating women my guess is that gamergate ostensibly got mad about corruption in gaming journalism then went after the fringe of gaming journalism rather than the glossy "review" magazines that are thinly disguised advertisements
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The point being made is that the state does not, generally, toss people in prison for abusing minorities, it mostly tosses minorities in prison for being minorities and then puts them in literal slave labour. We literally have a big case of someone being convicted for this in the US news right now. Joe Arpaio's contempt of court is because he refused to stop civil rights violations after he lost in court. The final step after someone is told by a court to do something but refuses is jail time. You're right it's not common, but most people are functional enough to understand they can't just violate court orders. The threat at the end of the day is what gives courts teeth in ways they didn't have it to stop things like the Trail of Tears. OwlFancier posted:If you do manage to force the state (and you invariably have to force them) to stop being shits to minority groups, you can only do that and maintain it under enormous popular pressure, to which anarchists may suggest: Why not cut out the middle man? Because you're specifically protecting the rights of minorities from a larger or even majority of the population. Again, acting like this isn't a part of modern states is silly. We had it happen in the US during the Civil Rights era. Acting like these things were huge benefits to the oppressed groups is just willful blindness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you do manage to force the state (and you invariably have to force them) to stop being shits to minority groups, you can only do that and maintain it under enormous popular pressure, to which anarchists may suggest: Why not cut out the middle man? Huh, "Complete Anarchy Now" wasn't on my ballot last November, and I doubt it will be within the next five years. Call me a neoliberal, but I think working on what we can is more important than what will never happen, i.e. making things work better vs. eliminate the state or even just the police. Less snark, what about anarchism changes how people act and/or behave? If things work on the consensus basis, with respect to what's right or wrong (or allowed, to avoid moral connotations), everyone would need to agree that civil rights violations are wrong. Because opinion polls show that this isn't currently the case, how will "waving the anarchism wand" make people suddenly agree with that? If that isn't suddenly changed, America as an anarchistic nations doesn't sound like a fun place to be for a minority, of any stripe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:he probably got mad at gamergate for one of the numerous reasons gamergate was stupid aside from hating women He replied to some questions about it on his Ask.Fm a while back: quote:Any opinion on Gamergate? quote:I'm racking my brains trying to think of a person who's even halfway as vile as some of the GG psychos, and nobody comes close for the combination of sheer malice, vicious stupidity, complete moon-howling insanity and genuine evil. It's almost beyond description. It's the mindset of a particularly sadistic and murderous concentration-camp guard with a severe personality disorder, but nobody remembers the name of any of those. quote:Do you nevertheless understand why GamerGate attracts "moderates" - by which I mean, people who naively defend its "principles" but don't actually send abuse, death threats etc.? Lonely disaffected young men who feel like their only escape is being taken away. Desperately sad stuff on so many levels That said, while him realising that GGers are monsters makes him slightly less of a piece of poo poo than if he didn't, the difference it makes is so small that even noting it is probably giving him more credit than he deserves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Huh, "Complete Anarchy Now" wasn't on my ballot last November, and I doubt it will be within the next five years. Call me a neoliberal, but I think working on what we can is more important than what will never happen, i.e. making things work better vs. eliminate the state or even just the police. Nothing, the idea is that people can change their prevailing attitudes, my contention is that "Actually we need states to save us from brutalizing sections of the population for fun" is not a solution because they also require a major change in the attitudes of the population in order to not simply brutalize people more efficiently and institutionally. rkajdi posted:We literally have a big case of someone being convicted for this in the US news right now. Joe Arpaio's contempt of court is because he refused to stop civil rights violations after he lost in court. The final step after someone is told by a court to do something but refuses is jail time. You're right it's not common, but most people are functional enough to understand they can't just violate court orders. The threat at the end of the day is what gives courts teeth in ways they didn't have it to stop things like the Trail of Tears. Pointing out that the state occasionally does good things while ignoring the vast amount of horrible poo poo it does, is not a very compelling argument in favour of the state as a concept. Yes in theory if you can get police attention and they're sympathetic and don't just shoot you for being black and you can afford to take people to court and you can win against a massive racist judicial system then perhaps, hypothetically, you can make a shithead racist stop acting on it, after he had done so in an official capacity for many many years. That Arpaio is being taken to court is not a very good point in the favour of state driven social justice when he was a sheriff for a long time before that. "State stops supporting officially sanctioned racism from one guy eventually after he does it one too many times" is not the best argument in favour of the great tendency of the state to uphold justice, you see? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure that if Stuart Campbell didn't happen to personally know some of the people targeted by GG, he would have been knee deep in that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
lol how do you talk out against the vile reaction to anita's mild critiques of sexism in video games and not make the connection that perhaps if the people you agree with are scumbags maybe something's wrong with your beliefs. cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nothing, the idea is that people can change their prevailing attitudes, my contention is that "Actually we need states to save us from brutalizing sections of the population for fun" is not a solution because they also require a major change in the attitudes of the population in order to not simply brutalize people more efficiently and institutionally. so who does uphold justice in your counterexample? I assume you want to take power away from bigots in the police/state/hierarchy, how do you construct such a state?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Of all the crazy poo poo on youtube it's pretty amazing that this was the one that h3h3 had this huge lawsuit over. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXUs5FOo-JE
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:lol how do you talk out against the vile reaction to anita's mild critiques of sexism in video games and not make the connection that perhaps if the people you agree with are scumbags maybe something's wrong with your beliefs. cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. Because he's secretly IMF?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Of all the crazy poo poo on youtube it's pretty amazing that this was the one that h3h3 had this huge lawsuit over. Have they stopped talking about Logan Paul yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Samovar posted:Because he's secretly IMF?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nothing, the idea is that people can change their prevailing attitudes, my contention is that "Actually we need states to save us from brutalizing sections of the population for fun" is not a solution because they also require a major change in the attitudes of the population in order to not simply brutalize people more efficiently and institutionally. The state sucks, sure, but I've yet to see a lynch mob do better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The state sucks, sure, but I've yet to see a lynch mob do better. That's my point. This kind of thing requires fundamentally decent people to operate. That doesn't line up with any large group of people that I've seen. Again, this seems to work if you're a cis white etc dude, and the only winners out of it are the cis white dudes who weren't capable of climbing to a respectable position in society. Sorry, but I don't much feel it's just having my horizons on life curtailed so some out of work factory worker can feel empowered to call me a human being in public again, while also somehow getting a leg up on me in the job market and in getting services because I'm seen as defective. And this isn't some theoretical issue-- the white working class in the US has repeatedly stabbed every minority group in the back while attempting to gain or keep their unfair advantage in society. All small government systems have huge issues with Civil Rights for minorities, and you can't just wave them away by suggesting people will somehow become more decent without a serious stick to compel them into proper behavior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:so who does uphold justice in your counterexample? I assume you want to take power away from bigots in the police/state/hierarchy, how do you construct such a state? State or no you need a strong plurality or a majority to support the idea. If you don't then with anarchy you get feudalism and lynchings and with a state you get institutionalized oppression, also possibly still lynchings. My argument isn't that anarchism is better than statism it's that "anarchy is bad for minorities" isn't an argument in favour of states, which are also bad for minorities unless the majority can force them not to be. You're dependent on the compassion of a hell of a lot of strangers either way. In both systems you need, basically, better people for them to not be poo poo. How you get better people is something I don't have the answer to but I would suggest that attitudes can change over time and different ideas can become important. Much of what people are is socialized, not innate to them as humans. Change, I think, is possible, I just don't know the mechanism to effect it ex nihilo. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:And now for a meeting of the minds not seen since Dumb met rear end, Sargon talks to Mr. Shirtless Roman guy: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
He looks like John Lennon developed severe alcoholism and fell into Alice Cooper's wardrobe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nothing, the idea is that people can change their prevailing attitudes, my contention is that "Actually we need states to save us from brutalizing sections of the population for fun" is not a solution because they also require a major change in the attitudes of the population in order to not simply brutalize people more efficiently and institutionally. Ok, then this is no different than our current setup, save, as I mentioned previously, you need to convince more people, because everyone needs to agree that this is wrong. Last I checked, we've been able to make progress on these issues despite 10+% of the population being out and out bigots. This is why I asked how anarchism would change people, because if you just hot-swapped in anarchism right now, most protections of minorities that already exist wouldn't cut the mustard. Why should those be given up? You haven't made a strong case Consider an anarchist restaurant, run on consensus: would servers be allow to deny service to black customers? I'd say yes because of the "fact" that "African Americans are bad tippers". A proposal to combat this would be vetoed, because it effects the livelihood of the servers that believe it. If you believe that this belief is wholly without merit and can be discarded out of hand, I've got some bad news for you. Also, I wasn't trying to keep this derail longer. I'll follow you to another thread if you wanted to keep going on this. EDIT: Oh, hey, you posted again, I'm adding this in (and doing the strikeout) to reflect that. I see we agree that the people need to believe in things for them to change, but the sticky point, for me, is the numbers required. That's why I think a democratic state is superior to anarchistic one: a majority is a hell of a lot easier than consensus. BirdOfPlay fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:I wonder what happened that caused Styx to ditch his SPQR flag for an American one, hmmmm... Is he related to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=user?MrBlackDarkness666? They have the same numeric surname.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:I wonder what happened that caused Styx to ditch his SPQR flag for an American one, hmmmm... drat he has a lot of subs for a scrawny guy who dresses like he's going through a midlife crisis but I guess from what I've seen at the neo-Nazi rallies recently people get validation from others who look like themselves
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:That's why I think a democratic state is superior to anarchistic one: a majority is a hell of a lot easier than consensus. You say that but I'm not sure, what has the advancement of minority rights been if not the successful establishment of a consensus rather than hoping for majority adoption of the initial ideas proposed? Because I don't think any civil rights movement has particularly managed to actually achieve majority-led boot-on-necking of bigots, but many of them have managed to build a consensus that some concessions should be made towards people maligned by society. If anything I would say that it's that reliance on consensus acceptance which limits what such movements manage to achieve, they don't have the power to take over the established order but they do have the ability to get a lot of people to agree to make some small improvements. Majorities favour, well, majorities. Consensus is about trying to find something that everyone can accept and while it inevitably leads to the proposal being watered down, it seems like the only way we get anywhere, because I don't see actual majority support for minority rights anywhere and I don't know how you get to that point without a lot of small and faltering steps based on watering down the radical ideas until people can accept them. It shouldn't be that way but, well, it appears to be so regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You say that but I'm not sure, what has the advancement of minority rights been if not the successful establishment of a consensus rather than hoping for majority adoption of the initial ideas proposed? Because I don't think any civil rights movement has particularly managed to actually achieve majority-led boot-on-necking of bigots, but many of them have managed to build a consensus that some concessions should be made towards people maligned by society. What do you call the national guard forcing school integration in the US? The ability to back up decisions with force is what makes states work. The force doesn't need to be front and center so long as the threat is still perceived. quote:Majorities favour, well, majorities. Consensus is about trying to find something that everyone can accept and while it inevitably leads to the proposal being watered down, it seems like the only way we get anywhere, because I don't see actual majority support for minority rights anywhere and I don't know how you get to that point without a lot of small and faltering steps based on watering down the radical ideas until people can accept them. Again, it's the difference between liberal and illiberal democracies. Liberal democracies have in general insulated courts and set aside rights. Some of the bigger strides in civil rights in the US have been court cases. There you need to just convince 5 justices who are in general educated and insulated from the rabble, and win. It's not super-democratic, but the entire point of liberal democracy is that rights aren't supposed to be constantly up for vote by the hoi polloi. Your system is basically guaranteed to have minorities see oppression, because even getting frozen out of 10% of businesses and jobs is enough to tank their earnings and ability to live a normal life. Sorry, but I favor minorities over the mob's ability to gently caress them over with disgusting chud values.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:I wonder what happened that caused Styx to ditch his SPQR flag for an American one, hmmmm... Does this guy realise how quickly he'd end up in a mass grave if his heroes win?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Do you think that would have stuck without any popular support? Because states that don't represent their citizens do not often fare very well. And democratic ones elect people to office to change things the populace doesn't like, see trump. Change can swing both ways. You can't have both authoritarian tell-the-proles-what's-good-for-them and also democracy. You appear to want authoritarianism for the things you like and democracy where you don't think it matters and while I understand the appeal I don't really think a system that guarantees that exists. You are going to get both in the wrong places. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can't have both authoritarian tell-the-proles-what's-good-for-them and also democracy. You appear to want authoritarianism for the things you like and democracy where you don't think it matters and while I understand the appeal I don't really think a system that guarantees that exists. You are going to get both in the wrong places. That's the point of liberal democracy. The point of set aside rights (civil right, civil liberties, etc) requiring large majorities to take them away means that you protect minorities from some rear end in a top hat getting 50%+1 and gutting protections. But under your system, even 10% bigots are an issue, since they'd definitely be able to get off on denying me services, while in a liberal democratic system they're in the process of getting constrained down to the point that they can't do poo poo. I know this may come as a surprise to you, but the actual conditions on the ground I get are very much more important that your childish complaining about "undue hierarchies". Much like standard libertarianism, it's born out of the stupid idea that we don't actually want or need anyone at the helm of society. This only leads to someone filling the vacuum, and this time without any of the checks that we currently have. Powerful states work because they formalize this, and in the case of decent ones constrain an individual's ability to gain power after a point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
I mean I might suggest that powerful states work because they institutionalize repression of threats to themselves and work to appeal to, and even create the prejudices of their majority citizenry, and they concede only the bare minimum while finding other, more pervasive ways of carrying out the ideological motivations of the leaders of the state. Such as America nominally outlawing slavery and granting black people equal rights while still maintaining 1% of the population, grossly disproportionately black, incarcerated and thus constitutionally legal slave labour, all dressed in the guise of "personal responsibility" of the people incarcerated and the idea that the law is the only valid form of justice while the law serves the desires of the white supremacist state and majority. Practical result is a poo poo load of oppression, but you see, the law is colourblind, so it's all fine! Powerful states also worked just fine before the civil rights movement and would likely work fine without it. MLK was correct, I think, in his assessment that the civil rights movement had to be non violent because if it was not it would simply be annihilated by force so I don't see minority discontent being an existential threat to a state. But if minority advocacy groups can build a consensus with the majority, they can perhaps achieve some reforms, but that, once again, is because of that ability to build popular support. Without popular support there is no protection which cannot be taken away in practice, the law might say you have equal rights but without the popular will to defend that, you really, really don't in practice. Many things "work" while being utterly detestable. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
I can't find a source for it, but Carl is apparently being sued for copyright infringement for using clips in his videos without getting clearance first. Let's hope the owner won't settle and is just doing this out of hatred for Carl.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
It wasn't just using clips, he ran a secondary channel that pretty much consisted of uploading out-of-context but otherwise unedited clips of other Youtubers. He's been DMCA'd before, this time he filed a counter-claim and got taken to court to actually defend his "Fair Use." There's some background here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/6w103i/sargon_of_akkad_sued_by_akilah_hughes/
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Does this guy realise how quickly he'd end up in a mass grave if his heroes win? Shouldn't he end up in a mass grave regardless?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
bebaloorpabopalo posted:It wasn't just using clips, he ran a secondary channel that pretty much consisted of uploading out-of-context but otherwise unedited clips of other Youtubers. He's been DMCA'd before, this time he filed a counter-claim and got taken to court to actually defend his "Fair Use." Nice to see the DMCA system being used for good for once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Slightly related, H3H3 won his lawsuit against bold guy!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
bebaloorpabopalo posted:It wasn't just using clips, he ran a secondary channel that pretty much consisted of uploading out-of-context but otherwise unedited clips of other Youtubers. He's been DMCA'd before, this time he filed a counter-claim and got taken to court to actually defend his "Fair Use." The vid that the thread links to actually doxes sargon by showing one of the exhibits, which includes his full address. And as expected, he lives in a lovely hole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Editing might count as making a transformative use of the video but being a lazy bastard may have finally tripped him up with insufficient defense for fair use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:I can't find a source for it, but Carl is apparently being sued for copyright infringement for using clips in his videos without getting clearance first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSUGbg9zROQ ZeeBoi fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
See on the one hand, arguably no, Jews aren't white because antisemitism is a thing and being Jewish stands a reasonable chance of getting you outgrouped from self professed white people. On the other hand, does Carl understand this or is he just demonstrating it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Midig posted:Slightly related, H3H3 won his lawsuit against bold guy! it's amazing watching the reupload of the video that got them sued because it's mild compared to some of their others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
I sense a new nonsense talking point going around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgWDjiXYkN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Opc41Vr9w
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:I sense a new nonsense talking point going around 34 minutes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 22:08
|
|