@jukeboxjosh: And I'm absolutely shocked that you think people also getting fired for twitter comments is wildly different than what happened at arenanet.
Well, I don't agree with the "always on" comments deserving a firing. Snarky comments online don't deserve a firing. I don't agree with allowing a hate mob to govern who gets fired because they handled casual sexism in a way some people online didn't like. Defending a bigot from receiving consequences for being a bigot is kinda a bit different than the other two instances.
I know it'd be much easier to frame this all as "twitter comments get you fired," but sadly there's more context you don't get to just ignore because it's easier to make a point.
Weird how GB or the people up in arms over the firings never stuck up for Adam Orth or Josh Olin like this when they were fired for twitter comments. Wonder what the difference is...
Having not heard of these two instances when they originally happened, I went and looked into them. Seems like defending a bigot from getting punishment for being a bigot and some snarky comments about "always on" seems like you're trying to equate two wildly different things, but okay.
Also, Price didn't celebrate TB's death. Being glad someone can no longer cause harm isn't being glad they're dead, as much as people wish that were the case. You can actually care more about the still alive victims and that doesn't make you bad, it just means your emotions and care have different priorities.
That's a whole lot of asserting about intent and belief to a pretty broad degree there. Denying that something is sexist and even suggesting that an accusation of sexism has elements of sexism itself is in no way an automatic marker of those things you suggest.
It's possible for someone to be wrong in defending against an accusation of sexism, absolutely, and it's also possible for someone to be wrong in understanding an act to be sexist. That's all.
You can be wrong about saying something is sexist, but then you'd have to argue the point. And "the real sexism is pointing out sexism" and "the real racism is pointing out racism" and all those similar arguments aren't good arguments, they're deflections. They're trying to shut down conversations because they come from people who think saying something is sexist is a trump card instead of pointing out a characteristic of something being said or done.
Gosh, I'll never get tired of "pointing out something sexist is the real sexism." It's such a bad attempt at sidestepping the issue it's almost funny.
This mentality sets up a game where the first person to shout "SEXIST!" wins moral superiority, whether they're right or wrong.
If people can't literally consider a claim, then homie we ain't havin a conversation.
But if your whole argument against something being sexist is "it's not sexist, and bringing up sexism in the first place is the REAL sexism" then you're not looking to have a conversation in the first place, you're looking to not have to talk about tough subjects or concede that sexism isn't just "I am going to loudly proclaim that women are inferior to men."
Also, boiling down TB to "some gaming critic" is pretty disingenuous considering he was a big part of GamerGate and that's what's referenced in her response about TB.
Which was something that bothered me about both discussions of this, neither coast talked about how it seems like these companies have learned nothing from GG. I mean, neither of them talked about how this would embolden more people to do the same to anyone they disagree with, which is already happening.
These were all skin-deep discussions that I think focused too much on making sure that Jessica Price was "incorrect" in her handling of the situation, but not enough on how this is going to effect the industry as a whole and how this will and has given a ton more power to angry GGers ready to get a minority fired for saying something they don't agree with.
jukeboxjosh's comments