You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
I don't believe that one can be both neutral on and interested in a given subject. Neutrality is an outward quality, something that is manufactured for appearances. I don't think people are neutral on the inside unless they are also apathetic. If they care about a situation, they are not neutral. They lean one way or the other, and they suppress expression of that leaning for whatever reason is convenient. Notice that the "neutral" is the guy in the middle that both sides are fighting over. Some people like to be fought over, to be courted and sweet-talked.
Forget neutrals. They are seen as something that can be held up to say "See? We're not crazy! Neutrals are giving us a fair shake!", but of what actual use are they? PR and nothing more. And to worry about PR is to self-censor, and to self-censor is to defeat the entire purpose of fighting for free expression.
[–]XenoKriss[S]0 points
5 points
5 points
(+5|-0)
ago
Notice that the "neutral" is the guy in the middle that both sides are fighting over. Some people like to be fought over, to be courted and sweet-talked.
I've noticed a lot of supposed GamerGate Neutrals acting like this over the past 20 months, especially the likes of Liana K and even TotalBiscuit, who try to use their alleged Neutrality as leverage to push GG in their preferred direction - which somehow always involves GG abandoning the fight against SJWs and going the Ethics-Only route (except when the Ethics involve critically examining TB's buddies Angry Joe and Jim Sterling).
(except when the Ethics involve critically examining TB's buddies Angry Joe and Jim Sterling).
SO true, I can't stand this neutrality that they take, only so they can cover their asses and not look crazy to crazies. No one holds an absolute neutral stance on things intellectually if they are interested. They may be barely believing of an idea because of little evidence supporting it, but they should just state they believe it, but only slightly more than the other belief that could be taken. These people are only concerned with their images in the emotional persons eye's.
i know for me at least it's a boy who cried wolf situation. when every disagreement or taunt is considered harassment it's impossible for me to take any of it seriously- in fact i pretty much just tune it out by default. especially considering for how long it's been acceptable to treat gamers and gaming as a hobby so poorly.
it's similar to the campus rape/sexual assault situation- when i hear someone in college declaring that they've suffered from some alleged assault my experience is such that unless they've gone to the police i don't believe them and figure at worst they are exaggerating for attention or status. it's a shame really but human nature being what it is i don't feel bad about it.
Sort: Top
[–] user2033 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
I don't believe that one can be both neutral on and interested in a given subject. Neutrality is an outward quality, something that is manufactured for appearances. I don't think people are neutral on the inside unless they are also apathetic. If they care about a situation, they are not neutral. They lean one way or the other, and they suppress expression of that leaning for whatever reason is convenient. Notice that the "neutral" is the guy in the middle that both sides are fighting over. Some people like to be fought over, to be courted and sweet-talked.
Forget neutrals. They are seen as something that can be held up to say "See? We're not crazy! Neutrals are giving us a fair shake!", but of what actual use are they? PR and nothing more. And to worry about PR is to self-censor, and to self-censor is to defeat the entire purpose of fighting for free expression.
[–] XenoKriss [S] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Notice that the "neutral" is the guy in the middle that both sides are fighting over. Some people like to be fought over, to be courted and sweet-talked.
I've noticed a lot of supposed GamerGate Neutrals acting like this over the past 20 months, especially the likes of Liana K and even TotalBiscuit, who try to use their alleged Neutrality as leverage to push GG in their preferred direction - which somehow always involves GG abandoning the fight against SJWs and going the Ethics-Only route (except when the Ethics involve critically examining TB's buddies Angry Joe and Jim Sterling).
[–] TheSilentSnap ago
SO true, I can't stand this neutrality that they take, only so they can cover their asses and not look crazy to crazies. No one holds an absolute neutral stance on things intellectually if they are interested. They may be barely believing of an idea because of little evidence supporting it, but they should just state they believe it, but only slightly more than the other belief that could be taken. These people are only concerned with their images in the emotional persons eye's.
[–] youareivan 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
i know for me at least it's a boy who cried wolf situation. when every disagreement or taunt is considered harassment it's impossible for me to take any of it seriously- in fact i pretty much just tune it out by default. especially considering for how long it's been acceptable to treat gamers and gaming as a hobby so poorly.
it's similar to the campus rape/sexual assault situation- when i hear someone in college declaring that they've suffered from some alleged assault my experience is such that unless they've gone to the police i don't believe them and figure at worst they are exaggerating for attention or status. it's a shame really but human nature being what it is i don't feel bad about it.
[–] SandorClegane ago
He's basically as "Neutral" as the Chief Bainposter