Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
20 
Rapporter dette indlæg
The first point he makes is that all the other women supported him. This means little to female feminists for a very simple reason. They all remember a time when they went along with the group even when they didn't really feel that way because they were afraid of the consequences of speaking out. And they've seen others fail to speak up also.
When Brad says that women defended him, that doesn't prove anything. A lot of serial killers and abusers are shocking to people because they had been pillars of their community. Everyone including their wives, ex-girlfriends, kids etc. believed them to be innocent and often moral paragons.
Now we get to the letter. The letter means nothing. Brad talks about how she knew she couldn't win in court. Court is not an objective determiner of facts. Brad is WAY richer than this woman. She'd have to have EXTREMELY solid evidence to win in court. That he forced her to write a confession letter only proves that she believed she could not win. An innocent person is just as likely as a guilty person to give in if they think they can't win. Consider people who accept plea deals rather than go to court even though they were actually innocent.
None of Brad's defenses are actual proof of anything. At best they are weak Bayesian evidence, as the rationalist community would say.
Again, I'm not speculating on Brad's case specifically. I'm just surprised that no one has presented a good faith argument for why many feminists haven't conceded that he is innocent.
Now if he had let it go and 10 years later the accuser gave a deathbed confession that she lied, that would be much stronger Bayesian evidence since she gained nothing from doing it. As it is she may have confessed to avoid legal proceedings she couldn't afford.
For reference, Donald Trump has made the same arguments as Brad. He had the first female architect of a sky scraper. His daughter is a powerful executive in his company. Women who work for him having nothing but good thing to say about him. Yet Trump has publicly said things about women that are worse than what I can recall of the complaint of the person who accused Brad.
Again, I'm not saying Brad was guilty. I'm just saying his arguments for why the accusation is ridiculous are not super convincing.
Well the key issue here is that everyone is innocent before proven guilty? Did she have any real convincing evidence that proves Brad did anything? No? Then why the hell is this still an issue? If Brad's case is an issue then what about all of us? I can't say anything would definitely prove I didn't sexually harass her or any other woman other than I don't know her or where she lives let alone what she looks like. But those are all bayesian evidence. What kind of metrics are we using here?
@Mezmorki
Brad can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he's pro-GG but not a gamergate member by his own admission.
@Rogue_love
I'd love to tell people that if you ignore these people and "journalists" they'd go away, but they honestly don't. And if you don't take them to task they won't stop. Just to let you know the "journalists" up until a year or so ago, still pretended that Brad was a sexual harasser. Woe to you if you don't even have any history of sexism because AVGN can also attest to be called a sexist and "suddenly gaining" a history of sexism just because he doesn't want to watch the new ghostbusters movie. You can't ignore a dozen articles being written about you by people who don't have journalism degrees but have the job anyway.
What irks me the most about this whole situation is that SJWs and gamergate members are equated to be equal in terms of the tactics they use yet no evidence is provided to show that gamergate members resort to SJW tactics. Every gamergate member who tried to lead other members using sensationalist and hostile tactics have been quickly told to screw off. I know because I've seen it alot on their forums and their meeting spots. From my perspective, the only reason you wouldn't identify as a gamergate member isn't because they use bad tactics or are misconductful but because if you do, you invite harassment and doxxing of your location by anti-GG members who listen to types like moviebob "no bad tactics just bad targets" or sam biddle's "bring back bullying". I've yet to see any well respected gamergate member spout things like the above and remain well respected and beyond criticism.
It's not his job to give a convincing defense of his own innocence. A core tenant of western liberalism is that people are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof should not be on Brad's shoulders. Coming at it from the other angle is regressive, and is equivalent to a witch hunt.
Your post is probably spot on regarding the arguments of the other side, and it's an excellent example of the instinctual goalpost moving highly tribalistic groups will use to support their narrative: Outside of a deathbed confession there's nothing much Brad can do to clear his name in the eyes of his accusers (and even then that might not be enough)
(For the record, while I obviously don't have a very high opinion of SJWs, I'm not particularly a fan of MRAs either. The important difference, in my mind, is that an MRA is not going to shame others on their own team for not being MRA enough. The reverse is not true. This tribalistic positive feedback makes it possible, if not inevitable, for SJWs to take things to really absurd levels)
(As for gamergaters in general, they should have rallied around something like the reviewer who got fired for writing a negative Kane and Lynch review, not around a sex scandal involving some then-obscure indie)
Not in the way Brad used the legal system. He threatened her with court action without evidence she was lying. So while she didn't have the evidence to prosecute him, he didn't have the evidence to push legal action on her either, but he did, because his position is the default.
Of course its not all about court. I already conceded she couldn't win in court. But social consequences don't require court. She and her supporters have the right to organize against him if they want. He fired her without going to court didn't he? Legal standards are not required for all human interaction.
She could indeed have been making it all up. But Brad didn't prove that. That's what I'm saying. Her feminist supporters have no reason to believe she was lying based on the defense he gave in his post.
Innocent until proven guilty is a court thing. I already conceded she lacked sufficient evidence for a legal action. What I'm talking about is that Brad expressed disbelief that they continued believing her after he used legal action to obtain a confession and defended himself by saying no other women spoke up. The argument I outlined deals with why he can present his facts and fail to convince people who believe he sexually harassed the woman.
Again, I'm not saying he is guilty. I'm saying he provided no smoking gun of his innocence. He clearly feels that her coerced confession vindicates him and I presented an argument for why it doesn't. She could have given that confession to prevent legal action and told her major supporters and close friends and family that she did. She also could have been telling the truth in the confession. We have no strong evidence either way.
Since they settled out of court, it seems disingenuous to make any kind of claim regarding how much or how little evidence existed. If the case had went to trial, then we would know exactly how much evidence had been accumulated. I'm not sure what you mean about Brad's position being the default. I'm pretty sure that in the US legal system, the plaintiff needs to prove defamation took place, unlike the (often disgustingly backwards) legal system over here in Canada where the burden is on the defense.
I don't think you'll find anyone on either side who would argue that Brad's accusers should be gagged. It would be a gross affront to freedom of speech.
Belief isn't binary, it's gradiated. I might be more inclined to believe one person's story over another's, but I would be wrong to attack one side while lacking conviction, and it would be highly irrational of me to have conviction without sufficient requisite evidence.
Brad "proved" defamation by saying she made false statements. Its not like either of them had an audio visual recording of the incidents. Potentially he had people ready to testify, as you say we don't know. But its unlikely the accuser didn't have at least a few accusations where no other people were present as witnesses.
As far as the default thing. The default setting of people in our culture is that claims of sexual harassment are overstated and unjustified. If two people were to make conflicting statements the accuser would be the one that people took less seriously.
So then let me ask you something then. What evidence would you or me have to provide that would ensure that you or me did not and were not involved in the sexual harassment of this lady?
Well has she accused you or me of sexual harassment? Why would we need to provide evidence of that?
By your logic all someone has to do is accuse you for no reason with no evidence brought up for your innocence to be considered void. You apply the same logic to brad no? Who cares if we're accused? You've already established that there's no evidence that would allow someone to get out of a sexual harassment accusation.
No I haven't. I have established that different people require different amounts of evidence to be convinced. She did have evidence. Her personal testimony. Some people were convinced by that and not others. Every person sets their own standard for every disagreement between two people on who is right based on their life experience. You don't have to agree with the people who think Brad is guilty. No one has a gun to your head. Legally Brad is in the clear. He might in fact actually be innocent. I don't know. But I was explaining why some people aren't convinced by his arguments for his innocence.
Those arguments are weak Bayesian evidence. A Bayesian reasoner who has a reasonably strong prior that a majority of sexual harassment claims are valid would be able to consider that evidence insufficient. Granted no one involved is explicitly and consciously applying Bayesian reasoning. But most people apply a less formal version of it in their daily life.
You clearly have very different priors from the people who believe the accuser. You defend GamerGate so I'm not surprised. You haven't made any sort of argument for the validity of your priors compared to theirs. From my perspective they are behaving as reasonably as you are. Neither of you have convincing evidence for Brad's guilt or innocence.
And there are mud slingers in both camps
It must have been awful for Brad to get caught-up in that mud slinging
I'm not going to read the rest of the comments before commenting on this because I find this to be an interesting and very clear suggestion of what you think the gamergate debacle has been all about.
I guess I should point out that I'm personally not a gamergater nor, I guess, a SJW but I have taken an interesset in boths sides of the issue and I still find it to be both interessting and important from a political perspective.
That said I find the gamergate part of the list to be pretty accurate except that I have found no evidence what so ever for the doxxing, death threats, rape threats etc part of gamer gate. And I have tried, hard to find something, anything of that sort.
Gamer gate being about ethics in games journalism however is a sham, it has never been about that. It's just a small part of what gamer gate is really about. Gamer gate from their own perspective is about pushing back at a narrative that in their view is activly trying to co-opt gaming for political purposes by trying to push out people from gaming that don't share those (extremist) political views. That is really at the heart of the whole movement. The ethics in journalism angle is more that they feel that was the vector this attack took more then anything else. The movement has also grown far far beyond the Zoe Quinn part and in all honesty, the modern gamergate movement didn't acctually start with Zoe Quinn (from the gamergate perspective). The movement didn't even take off until gaming media, instead of saying that it's an ethical problem that you review games of your friends or partners choose to attack their audience on all fronts basically saying they where evil people. From the journalists perspective it did however start with Zoe Quinn, that is why those articles where written in the first place.
**
As for the SJW. Well I'll only comment on the last point for now, social progressives in general (speaking from my nordic perspective now) have always had a thing against free speech and that has been taken to an extreme the last 30 years. If anyone is for censoring free speech it has always been the progressives and most progressives today over here do *not* claim to support free speech, they claim to support free speech that is acceptable, what I guess you would call PC-friendly.
Another way of looking at PC is as a responsible use of freedoms
Making false accusations against someone, or death threats is not a responsible use of free speech
Okay, I am not taking sides, but your logic is flawed. Your argument is based on emotion, not history or fact. She lost because she blamed him for god knowns what and couldn't substantiate it.
If Brad was vindictive, he could have have stayed in the fight and destroyed her in every sense of the word.
I can create plenty of situations trying to explain this, but I do not want my words taken out of context or stupid conlcusions being drawn from people incapable and/or uninterrested in the conclusion of my examples.
I stayed out of this for a reason. The situation sucks for Brad, for her, for Stardock, for the gaming community and for the cause.