I'm quite content smirking at the moment, because the evidence in support of deplatforming has been provided to you in these last ten posts and all you've done is ignore it.
Two Riot Employees "Leave" Under "Complicated Circumstances" After PAX Session Excluding Men.
- Thread starter Deleted member 5853
- Start date
Everyone's told you why you're wrong but you ignore it - just keep worrying about those bigots being pushed out, it's a shame you don't seem to give even a smidgeon of thought to the minorities that are being pushed out by the bigot's uncivil behaviour.
Sounds like an improvement to me! Again, punching Richard Spencer worked. The guy is a laughingstock, and now he's flat broke because he got his alpha, master-race ass knocked out. All the people talking to him for years didn't do shit but give him a megaphone.
That they do! And those people's actions should get run out of town on a rail. If they can't find jobs and can't socialize (because decent people won't let them instead of hugging them, paying them, and giving them platforms), then they can change or rot. Either way is better for society.
His numbers have been shit ever since the ban. There's a reason he's fighting his bans and harassing the people bringing suits against him. He's had a website of his own for years, but it doesn't see any traffic. If you think people like him can sustain the same viewership on their own sites instead of on places like Twitter, Youtube, and the App Store, then why don't they? Why give a cut of your revenue to Youtube if your followers will still support you afterwards?
Here's Milo crying about it:
They get de-platformed, and then they wither and die. If you think de-platforming doesn't do anything, then why would they fight and cry about it?
Also, I'll point out that it's not just me that I want them to leave alone. I want them to leave everyone alone. Get these pitiful fucks away from the rest of us. They can all go crying back to their impotent thoughts and just leave us all alone.
It perfectly and succinctly describes the problem with your post. If you'd wanted to argue that the exclusion was bothering you, you could have done that, but you seem to have granted that you only object to the language that exclusion was dressed in, seeing as how your contribution was "here's a way of showing them the door while adhering to my standards of civility". You were literally only arguing on tone.
The work that has to be done to change attitudes is extensive and often doesn't work unless there's an existing relationship to use as leverage. Random people on the internet are pretty much never going to be good at this.
If the person doing this shit is someone you can have a private conversation with and have them actually listen, and you feel like you've got the time and energy to educate someone, by all means, do it. If you're just a random person on the internet, then what we have is just to do the work to keep spaces clear of that bigoted bullshit. It's not as good as eliminating the attitudes, but it's the work that can actually be accomplished and sets the stage for people still learning to get the lesson that this bigoted crap is unacceptable and gets you relegated to hanging out in the sorts of places that have a "You must be at least this bigoted to ride" sign out front.
Yeah, you don't give a shit about the issues. You're more worried about their professionalism. We get it. You weren't coming in here to understand anyway.
Historically, and from what people have said in the thread, there's no point in coming here to gain understanding anyway. Y'all just push everyone (including bystanders) away.
If DZK's tweets had instead said 'Hey guys, just to clear some things up - we feel it would be a step forward to provide opportunities for women/NB to get into the gaming industry and these sessions are specifically tailored towards helping this audience, so don't worry men - you're not missing anything' do you think that would be:
a) more or less likely to result in a community uproar
b) more or less likely to result in DZK keeping his job
than the aggressive nature of what he did actually tweet? When you are interacting with a community, tone is important.
Pushing people away? Naw. You say that but the only people pushed away are those who don't want to accept how shitty Riot is. They gave into a hate mob. This shouldn't even be a point of discussion, but since some people really want to hide behind the mask of "I don't agree with the firing, but they should have been more professional with their customers", we are here. Like, we know what you're doing. Maybe you don't realize that's the tactic GamerGate wants: to make sure they're not the root cause but their professionalism is.
I don't quite understand this part. Could you rephrase that?
You understand.
GameeGate wants people to believe they are fired due to their professionalism. It's why you see people say, "can't be rude to your customers no matter what" because it absolves the hate movement and puts the blame on the employee who spoke out against hate.
Sorry I actually didn't, the way you worded that was funky. Thank you for clarifying.
Yeah, I was just going to say this. It's mind boggling how much of an issue giving minorities a safe space is in this community.
With that said, Riot had a clearly stated social media policy and most likely had a specific protocol to handle those losers.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Community whining, homophobic language, and repeated hostility towards other members.
Because tone/content/etc matters, despite the desire to pretend otherwise. If I respond to your post with "Fuck off faggot", is no one allowed to criticize my language because they might be "tone policing"? Invoking the phrase "tone policing" isn't an argument in and of itself.
And you came in here just to circlejerk in the echo chamber. I guess we all suck.
My goal was to read people's opinions on the topic at hand and then express my own.
That seems like an easy way to say, "I can share my opinion but never have to learn".
Deplatforming people does make society better. There's a reason why Fox News's "fair and balance" is anything but: they give voice to views that no rational individual should be giving voice to in the first place. Giving voice to people whose views are inherently irrational only gives them *more* power, not *less* - simply allowing them to disappear quietly is exactly the sort of thing that keeps them from gaining any traction.
Converting people with calm reasoning and logic only works on those who were amenable to being convinced in the first place. These bigots are precisely the kind of people who aren't amenable to reason and logic. We know this very well at this point, because it's been the subject of a significant amount of research. That's the sad truth of the matter. The idea that you can convince anyone of such fundamental truths is a thoroughly liberal delusion, one that is unfortunately divorced heavily from reality - and one that we have to let go of if we actually want to take steps forward.
Deplatforming works. The way to correct this error of society is not with words, but action. Banning people for engaging in bigoted behavior is currently our best option in the Wild West that is the Internet. Putting across the message that no one can be a bigot without consequences is a powerful thing. On the flip side, showing that bigots can get people fired for just getting a bit too heated only makes things worse, and it's sad that we even have to argue that point. Bigots do not need to be empowered any further. The pendulum has clearly swung too far in one direction. We need to force them to rein it in.
So, in short, fuck Riot and fuck bigots. Show no apology nor remorse. Get rid of them wholesale, and the world would start to take a turn for the better.
You're completely dismissing legitimate concerns raised by marginalised groups while passionately pushing for coddling bigots.
You're nothing more than a fluffer for bigots, I am not surprised that people like you would consider that a compliment.
No, tone policing is policing someone else's tone. I am kind of shocked this is a confusing concept.
Even if you want to get picky, tone policing is typically used in the context of criticising incensed speech that defends disadvantaged groups vs praising polite speech that attacks those groups. Criticising the tone of the tweets that got the Riot employees fired is a textbook example.
I know you're banned, but holy shit at equating calling someone a manbaby and actual homophobic hate speech. I guess not being able to tell apart bigotry from "regular" rudeness explains a lot of your behaviour.
This is actually a good point that I've not yet considered. I knew that the argument around "professionalism" was sitting badly with me, but haven't yet formulated why, and yes, it's absolutely that.
It really is a horrendously devastating message to send when your company fires people who confront hate movements. Just imagine being a current employee who's suffered from GG online harassment, and the two people who actually step up to draw a line get fired straight away after speaking out. The barriers of reporting being a victim of that shit within the gaming industry must be incredibly high - is there any kind of research into how many incidents go unreported within the industry?
I don't know what's worse, the false dilemma (as if deplatforming bigots excluded any other avenue of combatting bigotry), or the nebulously vague "make society better" goal, common to all of us, that you disguised as actual methodology in an attempt to delegitimize them and legitimize you; an applause light that excuses you from having to actually think or engage with any part of the problem.
That's not really the point I was making. What I was trying to say is that I feel being aggressive and shunning people can be counterproductive.
I'm not offering any suggestions to improve the situation because I don't know. All I am saying is I think aggression on Twitter boards doesn't help and if your priorities are right then the counterproductivity of that outweighs the desire to make sexists feel bad.
Where is the evidence that it's counterproductive? The individuals you're ' upsetting' are already arguing from a position of bad faith, knowingly. Their emotion is false, it is an act of performance to cause grief and strife. They aren't legitimate feelings. Their position is false and incorrect. You aren't actually upsetting anyone by insulting the misogynists, definitely not the bigots who are already gleefully churlish about their bigotry.
It's a false premise. You've appeased a subgroup that has no legitimate concerns and further pushed away those who actually care about the issue at hand. Who, by the way, suffer far more outrageous and cruel insults on a daily basis just by partaking in a community that accommodates these bigots. Their discomfort is because they cannot share, cannot let anyone but themselves breath the air, maintain their own space...and it is not deserving of sympathy.
No sympathy, no quarter for the intolerant. That is the solution, and the cry of ' corporate professionalism' is just another smokescreen for the intolerant.
You have zero suggestions to better society but you absolutely know shunning bigots isn't one of them?
Hmmmmmmmm