On a popular table top rpg site I visit, I saw another person question the progressive social justice movement. In this case, the issue was over #GamerGate. The user was given a lengthy ban for daring to question the SJW narrative that they spin about #GamerGate.
These people usually seek out alternative places to speak their minds. KotakuInAction, 8Chan, the MRM, MGTOW boards. They still want to talk about the issues, and the tendency for SJWs to ban and silence just makes them more eager to speak.
Some of those who have been following gamergate see the pattern. A woman gets threats over the internet, inevitably gets a plug for their product or video, and uses the threat as a shield against criticism.
Hell, Davis Aurini and Jordan Owen are attempting to get a documentary made on this subject, aptly named, The Sarkeesian Effect.
Digging deeper shows that there is more going on under the hood of these threats.
Brianna Wu was not above making troll accounts to attack gamergate supporters.
We may never be able to confirm where these threats come from, or if they are intentional fabrications or trolls trying to play both sides, but they do happen, and they're the strongest weapon the SJWs have in their arsenal, since they play on emotions instead of logic.
"If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments" -Children of Dune
I started looking into framing these past few days, in response to the #gamergate issue in specific, but in the general topics of feminism, social justice, etc.
I started with this video, by a progressive, on using framing as a tool in debate with conservatives, and how conservatives use framing.
I then did a little reading on how framing is affected by the amygdala, inspired by this blog.
I then did some watching of Robert Sapolsky videos, especially this one on the limbic system.
I'm still digging, but my opinion so far is that while facts and stats are good, they don't necessarily win debates or influence people. Emotions are the motivations to accept or reject those facts.
There's some debate on the value of engaging with social justice warriors and feminists at all. I think that engaging with them is inevitable. Either that, or they will continue to co-opt various areas of interest and twist them to their agenda. Atheism, video games, comics, etc.
Alison Tieman recently did a great video on how feminists frame the issue of sufferage.
I think this illustrates the value of framing and reframing well.
My road to Men's Rights started with dealing with my own oneitus.
(oneitus is PUA terminology for limerance...)
Once upon a time, I pinned all my romantic hopes on one woman. This lasted for literally about a decade and a half, where I "lost" her, "found" her and despite all my efforts, finally lost her again.
After first losing track of this woman, I reconnected and found that she had gone through a dysfunctional, abusive relationship. In a moment of despair, I finally asked myself the correct question, that led me slowly out of the oneitus trap.
"Why did she choose to be with an abusive partner?"
Up until that point, I had been pretty blue pill, believing that if I did the "right" thing, she would fall in love with me. Buy her crap, treat her right, etc. But I then went through a rather unhealthy (but necessary) period where I determined that if an abusive partner could "control" her, then I could too, for her own good and for my romantic gratification. I then looked into pick up artist techniques, and divorce councelling. The two combined gave me a pretty good picture of human dysfunction and contrariness in relationships. I learned to let go of limerance and instead focus on my own health and happiness first. It wasn't instantaneous, and took a lot of introspection and work, but I finally let go.
Thunderfoot recently posted a video criticizing Stephan Molyneau.
I'm going to focus on Thunderfoot's comparison of Stephan Molyneau to Elliot Roger. Being critical of a person, a demographic or a gender is not, repeat not, indicative of hatred. Hell, we could go down that road and say that Thunderfoot's criticism of Anita Sarkeesian is misogyny if we accept that tactic.
For those asking my @xoxo talk should be online soon. In it I discuss how defamation, libel and slander are often deployed to harass women.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 1, 2014
They key to dealing with my limerance was being critical. Of women and men and relationships. The difference between Stephan Molyneau and Elliot Roger was, of course, that Elliot Roger shot people. If we fall into the trap of considering anger to inexorably lead to violence, then I suspect all people are just like Elliot Roger. The guy in the bar bitching about his wife. The woman bitching to her girlfriends that all men are assholes because the guy she slept with won't return her calls, etc, etc.
I've been thinking about online threats, and their value. I think the two problems with this is-
1. There will always be a troll or jackass or, in extreme cases, false flags. No matter how squeaky clean a community is, it only takes a few moments for a troll to create a new user account, and go threaten somebody. Bonus points if they do the research and use a real phone number or address.
2. Accsuing someone of faking a threat opens the accuser up to refutation if they aren't dead goddamn certain of their facts.
Trolling for threats is easy enough as well. Feminists and social justice warriors have been attacking various groups for a long time. Eventually someone will lose their cool and post something embarrassing.
And I've been clued in to the phenomenon of search engine optimization revenue tactics.
I'm pretty sure this is what was behind the Emma Watson nude picture threats. Another source of real and false threats that cannot be prevented by self-policing.
But also the value in threats is that it plays on people's sympathy. The focus is shifted from the arguments to the threats. This is how Anita Sarkeesian operates, and in a lesser fashion, Zoe Quinn.
If you haven't been following #gamergate, well google it. There's far too much to go over.
But I saw a twitter log that confirms what I've been worrying about.
The participants of #gamergate are going after small potatoes, making up silly accusations against indie devs instead of chasing real corruption. I can only hypothesize that the accusations of "misogyny" worked, and they've gotten cold feet over challenging feminists and social justice warriors, which was where the corruption originally came from.
With all the hostility and confrontation and frustration... Someone is going to be goaded into stepping over the line. Danielle D'Etremont. Zoe Quinn. Anita Sarkeesian. Threat narratives get people scared, and scared people do things...
Well, maybe not as dramatically as V for Vendetta, but still.
