Tags
Confused about what an Intellectual Turing Test is? Click here! Please read, then vote at the end of the post. Feel free to speculate in the comment section about this person’s identity!
What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?
I try to emulate the style of those that are already present in the space when I enter it. The norms here are somewhat different than those at Ordinary Times, and vastly different than at Reason, and all of them are different than those at my place of employment. I follow them because those are the norms of that place/time. I’m not so arrogant as to think that other groups of people should adapt to me. I understand that I am a minority in my viewpoint and values, but it’s been that way my whole life so I’m pretty much used to the process. Yes, I believe that other people should do likewise. For long standing communities (especially those in the real world) those norms have developed for a reason, and particularly in the workplace. Trying to change workplace norms to suit one’s personal ideals is by definition counter to (or at least a distraction from) the workplace’s mission, and makes everyone else’s life worse (and potentially ends the company). Trying to change the bargain made by those that have come before you is unfair.
What is the true reason, deep down, that you believe what you believe? What piece of evidence, test, or line of reasoning would convince you that you’re wrong about your ideology?
There are several things. The main impetus is that I know that power will always (for an arbitrarily large value of always) be abused. And I know that I am and will continue to be unpopular, thus it is in my interest to diffuse power so that it is not used against me. Since power tends to accumulate and since it attracts those most likely to want to use/misuse it, it is also in my interest to push for true plurality. Maybe I will be able to find someplace comfortable.
I can’t say that I cannot be dissuaded from my beliefs, but I can say that I cannot think of anything that would do it. This is particularly true in the case of logic/reasoning. The universe may run on math, but people do not. People (actually, life in general) requires impurities and inequality. There’s a synonym for perfect balance, harmony, and equality. It’s death. Attempting to live as an imperfect being in an imperfect world by adhering to any sort of logically perfect or coherent philosophy is a guarantee of failure. Or worse. All the great atrocities of the 20th century are the result of perfect logic being applied to flawed premises (specifically, that abstract entities such as “the state” or “society” actually exist) by imperfect beings.
All that means is that I would have to observe something that makes me understand my past observations in a new way. I can’t say what that is, and the actuarial tables say that I have less time for that observation to happen every day.
Explain Gamergate.
This is the Truth. All else are Lies. Come closer, and I’ll give you the Learning, ‘cause I have the Knowing. I was there, see, when it all came down. I saw with my own eyes the great forests of comments reduced to ash-fields of [deleted].
Gamergate happened because of The Fappening.
What? You thought it was about some dude that was pissed off at his chick? Nah, that’s one of them things that ain’t so. See, claiming that the Zoe Post caused Gamergate is like saying that WWI happened because Franz Ferdinand had coffee for breakfast. Maybe if things had been different, things would have been different, but Zoe was neither necessary nor sufficient for GG. And always remember: you can determine which way the trend goes by cherry-picking your starting point. So go back a little ways, go back to before the beginning.
The internet is for porn, and cat videos, and trolling…
Some people are famous and they are on the internet. Some people are famous because of what they do on the internet. And if you’re the latter sort, you might not be a very good person. Zoe Quinn (nee Richperson Trustafarian) is like that. She has a history. She is what you might call a lolcow or a drama llama. She was a video game dilettante who when she was bored became the master of post-facto harassment (go to a place and loudly proclaim that you are being harassed. Once you piss off enough people, you will be harassed. Use this as proof of your earlier claim.) She wasn’t unique in this, other than perhaps in her access to moola (seriously, when she wanted to shut her ex up, she hired Wilmer Fucking Hale to sue him into submission. Go check their rates. I’ll wait for you). There are lots of people who regularly cause drama on the internet. They flare up a controversy then it goes away and is forgotten be everyone except Encyclopedia Dramatica. So when ZQ was barebacking a handful of guys while telling her boyfriend they were in a monogamous fluid-bonded relationship, it was just another flash in the pan among internet drama types.
Except…
Kate Upton has really nice tits.
Somebody somewhere got a hold of a stash of non-publicly released celebrity nudes. They then released them online. The economics of the situation are actually very interesting, but really beside the point. What is the point is that there was a subreddit /r/TheFappening created to track where and when these pics were released, as lawyers kept shutting down the hosting locations as quickly as they could. LOTS (most? All?) of these pics were hacked (which is why they were unreleased, and therefore valuable) and one of the victims of this hack was Jennifer Lawrence. She was an immensely popular and publicly sympathetic figure. Wholesome. Not someone that people were going to sit idly by while she was sexually humiliated. But /r/TheFappening was insanely popular. Imagine the kind of internet traffic that the Obamacare rollout should have had if it had been competently executed, add the latest World of Warcraft patch, and you get the idea. Now Reddit is very much like the internet as a whole. That’s all it is really, a collection of curated topical internet chunks. And there is (or rather, was) a bias towards “live-and- let-live,” YKINMKBYKIOK pseudolibertarianesque free speech. But shit was really getting out of hand what with J-Law’s lawyers, and the news media, and Reddit’s owners still trying to monetize this whole thing so they brought out the banhammer. And swung it again and again as The Fappening folk tried to create new subs. And once that died down, they were on High Alert for more of this nonsense, and hypersensitive towards the mistreatment of women.
So when reports came out about a drama flare involving a woman claiming harassment, the results were swift and OMFGROTFLCOPTER overkill. Everything even mentioning the words “Zoe Quinn” got censored. Whole subs were banned. Since ZQ had written a twine based game previously, and since one of the dudes she was boinking was an editor of an online gaming mag, the situation was mentioned on some of the biggest subreddits, those involving video games. When the orbital bombardment of the comments happened, literally millions of people saw it. I was one. There is a sizable contingent of gamers that Do Not Like Being Told What To Do. They mod. They crack. And when they see their comments on “their” sub get deleted, the whole topic banned, and anyone trying to broach the topic following them right into the (metaphorical) killfile, they got a wee bit miffed.
It’s a small world
And then there were the articles. Soon after the Zoepost/Reddit omnicommentocide there were a full dozen articles by the gaming media on the same day all sharing the same topic with some of the same phrases verbatim. And these articles hated, just HATED those people complaining about the overkill re: thinking Zoe was less than a perfect avatar of goodness. This is often summed up as “Gamers are dead. Gamers don’t need to be your audience.“ Yes, these are purported gaming mags claiming that it was time to discard gamers. Some people thought it was Quite Odd that all of these articles came out at the same day and wondered if there might have been a wee bit of collaboration among all these soi-disant independent “journalists.” These people were immediately denounced as conspiracy theorists for believing something so obviously stupid – much like believing that Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi being about a Youtube video — and in a sign of the rapidly solidifying tribal identification, the name Gamerghazi was given to the subreddit mocking people complaining about censorship and journalistic incest. It later turned out that yes, there actually is a channel for these writers to communicate/coordinate their stories, called GameJournoPro, but the existence of this did not dissuade those people who had decided that gamergaters were all mouthbreathing basement dwelling cheeto-dust-crusted fat neckbearded virgin misogynist virgins. Who are ugly creepy virgins that no woman will ever touch. Because they are loser creeps. And ugly. And virgins.
So that takes us partway through the first week of Gamergate. The saga involving the Gamergate Wikipedia article is much less pleasant. Also worth noting: The hacker known as 4chan who lives in the darknet also banned criticism of ZQ. Channers roughly number 0.01% of Redditors, but they are several million times more energetic and they REALLY don’t like being told what to do. And then once GG got started, drama hobbyists got involved, leading to GNAA and /baph/ and the real scum of the internet forming a third wing making sure that the Gators and the Ghazelles never got tired of reasons to hate each other.
But what about all this harassment of women?
What about it? Some points:
–The most famous episodes never actually happened. ZQ explicitly tied herself to The Fappening by claiming that nudes of her were hacked. This was a lie. The nudes in question were photos taken by a porn site for which she was paid (and thus she didn’t even own). For more goodness, read what one of her photographers has to say about her. Nobody was ever “forced to leave their house.” One of the episodes was someone who left their house to go on a previously scheduled vacation. One was someone tweeting about having to flee their house – from within their house. The Utah State incident was a “threat” from a journalist in South America which was immediately dismissed by the police. The speaker refused to go onstage after USU officials refused her request to ban guns from campus.
Seriously.
Harassment victim: “I want you to ban guns, or I won’t give my speech!”
Utah State University: “No.”
Harassment victim: “Gamergate is harassing me!”
One of the “death threats” was from a long term, known troll account that even without knowledge of the history involved began thusly: They were going to challenge the victim to a drag race in their mother’s Prius. I am not making this up. Someone actually tried to claim that a multi-hundred word scenario that begins with her accepting and losing a drag race challenge against someone driving their mother’s Prius was a literal death threat.
–Some of the harassment “victims” are long term drama mongers who actively court harassment. Some of them actually post “Gamergate harassed me, please donate to my Patreon.” Is it victim blaming if the blamee is literally a professional victim?
–Hello, is this your first day on the internet? Harassment happens to everyone. Is this minimizing a problem? Maybe. But it’s damn well nothing unique to or uniquely significant/serious to Gamergate.
Autolykos said:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is this?
Well, at least I can’t complain about it being boring this time. Betting on sincere; truth can always be stranger than fiction, since fiction has to make sense.
And if it is a fake trying to pass by aiming for the surreal, kudos, you deserved it.
In any case, the GG explanation paints the whole affair in a new light, and makes more sense to me than the major consensus narrative.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sylocat said:
This one should have been earlier in the lineup. It would have shaken things up even more than the NRx one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eltargrim said:
I’d rate this as sincere, but I’m somewhat confused by the connection to the fappening; the timeline doesn’t agree. The hashtag #Gamergate was coined on Aug 27, 2014; /r/thefappening wasn’t banned until Sept 6 of that year.
It’s certainly possible that the two are related in terms of response, but I’d strongly argue against a cause-and-effect relationship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eltargrim said:
For further context for the poster’s signal-boosting effect, this tweetlonger by John Bain a.k.a. TotalBiscuit (one of the most prominent and successful gaming youtubers) was posted to /r/gaming.
/r/gaming is one of reddit’s default subreddits, with (to date) 13 million subscribers. Practically everyone who goes on reddit will see content posted to /r/gaming, whether they have an account or not.
The mods of /r/gaming left the post up (where it was highly visible), but removed every one of the twenty five thousand comments, as the comments were being posted. That gets some attention, for reasons that I think the ITT participant described accurately.
I completely agree with the ITT participant that reddit moderators gave Gamergate the signal boost of all signal boosts, but I’m still quite confused by the alleged connection to the Fappening, which happened after this post was removed, and involved reddit admins; admins are paid employees, moderators are volunteers with no legal status or dealings.
LikeLike
Mr. Eldritch said:
Anti-SJ, and in the “wildly speculating about identity in the comments” column, something about the language and wording really reminds me of Tumblr user @brazenautomaton.
LikeLike
philosoraptorjeff said:
I wasn’t going to name names, but I was going to say that both the word choice and preoccupations reminded me of a specific Tumblr user. Since I know that person to be sincerely (and very strongly) anti-SJ, I voted anti.
LikeLike
Nita said:
Nah. Too flippant, not despondent enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sylocat said:
Also, none of the Pro-SJ entries were cartoonishly evil enough.
LikeLike
Aapje said:
We should have had a TERF in there to piss everyone off 😛
LikeLike
seapeoples said:
Sounds more like consulo-coniculos; also, I thought we were encouraged to speculate on identity?
LikeLike
philosoraptorjeff said:
We are, but I’m nevertheless not comfortable doing it.
LikeLike
Nita said:
Yeah, that’s more like it.
BA tends to come off as a bitter, but sincere and basically decent human being. In contrast, the OP has put so much effort into looking cool and wise that hardly any signs of humanity are evident in the text.
LikeLiked by 1 person
huitzil said:
It’s not me because I did not participate in this ITT. And I never know how to feel when people start talking about me in terms that seem neither negative nor positive.
LikeLike
silver and ivory said:
I think you should probably feel… famous?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Toggle said:
Within the bounds of our tribe, anyway. Demifame!
Although personally, I might prefer ‘consequential’. Your opinions are a recognized part of the conversation, and form a small but important part of the environment that others live in. People in this little corner of the internet are operating in the context of you existing, as it were.
LikeLike
huitzil said:
“Operating in the context of me existing” is kind of what I’m afraid of
LikeLike
tcheasdfjkl said:
I voted sincere because they don’t seem to have enough understanding of SJ to coherently say why they oppose it, but I’ll be reassured if this is fake. This person seems extremely unpleasant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dantobias (@dantobias) said:
It’s the most entertaining account of Gamergate of all the essays so far (and this is apparently the next-to-last one to be posted, given the number of essays in the pro section). It’s got to be sincerely anti-SJ, as I don’t think any pro-SJ person would dare to write the stuff this one did.
I like the attitude of taking a “when in Rome” view of how to behave in a community with a pre-existing culture; all too many pro-SJ people (the same ones who go on about “cultural appropriation” all the time) will barge into some tech/gaming/geek/rationalist type community and start insisting on pro-SJ codes of conduct and the like, and take the backlash against that as proof of how toxic the community is and how desperate the need for change. On the other hand, the same is true of communities that are founded in a pro-SJ direction; it would be unfair for anti-SJ people to barge into those and insist they change. The group of fan conventions run by Melissa Anelli (and friends), LeakyCon, GeekyCon, BroadwayCon, etc., are explicitly pro-SJ from the start (and predominantly female in attendance), and it’s great that they exist. Nobody should try entryism to them to try to force them into a white-male-centric model. But there are other geek-related conventions that have a different culture less to SJ liking, and they shouldn’t be forcibly changed either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
silver and ivory said:
The entire section about Gamergate was completely bizarre.
Also, I was slightly irked here:
It’s a long explanation that doesn’t really connect to “what would change your mind”.
People are part of the universe, and therefore to the extent that the universe runs on math people run on math as well. And the fact that some people screwed up horribly while using logic doesn’t mean that we should stop using it; if you have better premises your logic should lead to better consequences.
And abstract entities like the state or society do in fact exist. Just because they’re abstract doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
*sighs*
But anyway, voted legit because of Gamergate and the extremely convoluted answer to #2.
LikeLike
sniffnoy said:
Honestly the answer to #2 had me thinking fake; it was just #3 that convinced me it was real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
silver and ivory said:
Makes sense, but I interpreted #2 as too weak for an imposter to create, and somewhat obliviously so.
LikeLike
Katelyn Ailuros said:
I suspect this person either doesn’t care about anti-SJ that isn’t GG, or doesn’t even know that there is such a thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
argleblarglebarglebah said:
Y’know, after part 2 I was all set to vote pro, but that last part was bizarre enough it convinced me this had to be genuine. I don’t think anyone could fake beliefs that strange.
LikeLiked by 2 people
jossedley said:
This has more style than any other ASJ piece so far – I’m hoping it’s the by the author of the “there are no good masters” piece in SJ, and I’m guessing that one’s fake, this one is real.
LikeLike
Aapje said:
Yeah, I was thinking: very bland and probably pro, let’s read the GG answer now…WTF…How long is this answer going to be…fappening…What???
Then after banging my head against the wall for 10 minutes I voted anti.
LikeLike
Walter said:
Now THIS is some ASJ. If this is an imposter then they are fluent in our dialect, and deserve to pass. The answer to #2, in particular, is the good stuff.
Walter’s ASJ picks
#1: ASJ, unsure
#2: ASJ, certain
#3: ASJ, certain
#4: ASJ, unsure
#5: ASJ, certain
#6: SJ, certain
#7: ASJ, certain
#8: ASJ, certain
#9: SJ, certain
#10: SJ, unsure
#11: ASJ, unsure
#12: ASJ, certain
#13: SJ, certain
#14: SJ, unsure
#15: SJ, unsure
#16: ASJ, certain
LikeLike
sniffnoy said:
The answer to #2, in particular, is the good stuff.
Really? Dunno if I’d agree with that. Like, I agree with this author that SJ ideas lead to terrible results when taken seriously… but the conclusion I draw from that is that SJ ideas are incorrect and need to be fixed, not that taking ideas seriously is the problem. Given that this is an LW-diaspora site, I’d be surprised to see a whole lot of the latter sentiment.
LikeLike
Walter said:
I meant “the good stuff” in the sense of sounding like ASJ’s I know. Not necessarily that I agree with it. In particulars “I know that I am and will continue to be unpopular” is a noise that a lot of our guys make from time to time.
LikeLike
memeticengineer said:
Answer to #3 is convincingly anti-SJ, if somewhat factually challenged. The rest of it seems strange and I was ready to vote fake based on #1 and #2 answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jdbreck said:
I voted genuine Anti. I would be totally shocked if this writer were actually ProSJ.
LikeLike
Lawrence D'Anna said:
L O L
This one is hilarious. There’s way too much weird GamerGate inside baseball for this to be fake.
Also the first answer 1 was downright Burkeian. Respect the local norms because they’re the norms? Because they have a moral presumption in their favor by virtue of their incumbency? I don’t think social justice people are physically capable of generating that thought.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Matthew said:
Confusing. I was fairly confident this was fake after the first two questions, but I can’t imagine a pro-SJ devoting anywhere near that much effort to researching question three, even if that explanation is atypical and/or bonkers.
LikeLike
Fisher said:
First, I’d like to thank the author for entertaining me. I particularly LOLed at 1000+ words of the answer to question 3 followed by “So that takes us partway through the first week of Gamergate.”
Second, the third answer is so unlike the first two that I’m more than half tempted to say that this was a group effort. But then again, they did say that they valued pluralism, so maybe that explains the style of the last bit. And was the opening of that answer a pop culture reference to something? It seemed… more stilted than the rest.
Third, this one was so long that it gave me an idea of some traits of the person who wrote it. They’re old. Many many obsolete pop culture references (killfile, roflcopter, world of warcraft). Another term that I haven’t heard this century is “fluidbonded,” which along with YKINMKBYKIOK make me think that they are/were in the fetish scene. I’m guessing midwestern/scandinavian from the first two answers, but the Wilmer-Hale reference makes me think they must be from NYC (I have an ex-GF in biglaw, and I had never heard of them before).
LikeLike
Pingback: SJ and Anti-SJ ITT: The Results! | Thing of Things