I really love when people make demands for a consumer revolt, such as #Gamergate to stop, because people are not playing nice. I'm lying. It actually saddens me, because it shows how deeply in their own cocoon shielded from the outside world such individuals really are. It saddens me to see long posts with no actual content beside appeals to emotions full of logical inconsistencies, half-truths, and plethora of logical fallacies. But I do not think people who make these kind of arguments actually realise it. And thus they show their lack of perception about the world. Wilful ignorance truly is a sin worth of all contempt.
If you are able to mark the whole movement as terrorist, just because it demands of you to act as a moral being, or it demands you show proof for your claims, then you are already a lost cause, and I am already speaking to the quire. If you are able to mark a couple of internet trolls, and mark them as terrorists, I seriously question your judgement. While I agree that all threats should be taken seriously, that is not an act of terrorism as we know it. Not when you have beheadings, bombings, ethnic cleansing, suicide bombers and other methods like these to contrast with. All of a sudden I am able to understand how you get to the absurd claims, such as patriarchy oppressing the world and other silly notions like that. Doesn't that sound like a "theoretical conspiracy", Blaze?
I pride myself in being a rationalist. So when I see appeals to emotions I am disgusted. Not because I would think emotions are inferior to the critical mind, but because they occupy entirely different area. Like the debate of positive science and religion. I find it silly to try to mix or even compare the two, when they focus on entirely different matters, and occupy completely different territory. One talks about cars, the other about boats. As much as you cannot have cars driving on water, you also cannot have boats driving on the roads. They are like water and oil. No matter how much you try, they do not mix.
What Blaze doesn't seem to realise, is that Brianna Wu's allegations of #Gamergate for threats made against her were her own fabrication. Nowhere in these threats is #Gamergate ever mentioned. So when people ask of Wu to present the evidence of #Gamergate's involvement, and all she does is scream misogyny that does not help her case. I firmly believe that every single individual is entitled to his or her own opinion. But when it comes to allegations, I demand proof. Because that is the reasonable thing to do in a rational world. We are not Inquisition, are we? We do not smite first, and ask questions never. It is rational thing to presume innocence until proven otherwise. And in the absence of any kind of evidence, innocent shall remain innocent, and walk away without a single hair on their head missing.
There was plenty of others refuting Brianna Wu and her ludicrous demands that grow with each day. If you would ask her, she would probably support most totalitarian regime as long as she would not have to show any evidence of #Gamergate's involvement in the threats made against her. Breitbart wrote another excellent piece, and the women of #Gamergate did an excellent job presenting our side of the story with facts and logic on HuffPost Live. The administrator of 8chan did awesome job as well debating Brianna Wu. I am probably forgetting dozens of others, but to anti-gamergate group they do not matter in any case. Their only purpose is to redirect the discussion from corruption to harassment.
Next up, we have Blaze and his nonchalant attitude toward corruption in journalism in general. I find that disturbing to be honest. I would think that in civilised world you would actually try and root out the corruption, collusion, and other unethical behaviour. Instead Blaze takes it as something of a normality, and wants us to just move on. Because in his view #Gamergate hurt someones feelings, and that is the real problem in his view. Latest threats made against Sarkeesian? As dangerous as the memory of last year's snow. A question for Rowan Blaze, do you accept corruption because you are a part of it?
In his whole post, it is obvious that Blaze does not understand what fallacy of composition is. Just for him, I will elaborate.
statement A: Socrates is a philosopher.
statement B: Socrates is a human.
Result: All humans are philosophers.
This right here is a perfect example on fallacy of composition. Just because one individual, who also happens to be a member of a group A is B, does not mean that all other individuals who also happen to be part of a group A are B.
In simple terms, that anti-gamergate current seems not to grasp at all, even IF a member of #Gamergate is bad, that does not make the whole movement bad. And behaviour of such individual certainly does not represent what #Gamergate is all about.
Or would you like to say that because of the actions of Black Panthers, the whole movement for the rights of black people is invalidated? Do you support that claim? Do you actually support the statement that black people should not have the right to vote, because of what Black Panthers Party did?
Would you dare say that because of the actions of the terrorists such as ISIS and al-Qaeda all Muslims are inherently evil? If your answer to any of these two questions was affirmative, you really need to take a deep look at yourself and rethink your life. It might actually help you broaden your horizons.
Next in the wonderful world of Blaze's ignorance we have to examine his statement about literary critique. Thankfully, I did listen both in high school, as well as at university on what is valid literary criticism, and what is not. Here is the quote from Blaze:
It is a literary critique, not a scientific survey; something you would understand if you had paid any attention at all in your high school or college English classes.
Literary critique, last I checked was based on facts. You don't get to twist something out of your ass in literary criticism just because you want it to be so. You are the slave of the work you are critiquing, not the other way around. You don't get to bend and twist the truth until it resembles whatever you want it to be. You get to evaluate the work for what it is, not for what you perceive or want it to be. So when a random Anita appears and cherrypicks to her hearts content in order to fill the requirement for her preconceived notions, that is not literary criticism in any way, shape or form. It's just furthering of her own agenda, and people generally don't like that.
You know what is another field that is not science? Philosophy.
Philosophy is not a science. But if you dare present an inconsistent argument, you will be laughed out of the room trying to defend it. Because philosophers love to poke holes, and test things out, to see if their arguments can withstand the full force of the attacks. Only by going through the trial by fire can a good argument come out as a cut diamond. Untested argument is not worth the breath you waste uttering it. This is nothing personal, it is actually encouraged. Because feelings in a philosophical debate do not matter, all that matters is the validity of the argument you are debating.
Lastly we have Blaze, and his passionate speech about bullies. It seems #Gamergate did it just to spite him of all the people. #Gamergate has in time of this writing amassed more than $16000 for a charity anti-bullying campaign. The campaign that was a result of calls for bullying and insults written by a writer, and editor of Gawker, a website that took anti-gamergate stance.
I would really love to hear Blaze's opinion on the statements made by these two. I would really love him defend these two, or even distance himself from Gawker's writers by using the logic he presented in his own post. By his own logic, the actions of those two clearly represent the whole anti-gamergate thing.
I dare you, Rowan Blaze, to try and defend the actions of Sam Biddle, and Max Read, who are on "your side". I dare, not because I think you are capable of doing it, but simply to see how you cope when faced with paradox.