[Lawtonfogle]

>Karunamon - who has also been defending GG on this thread - agreed.

I'm not sure why Karunamon agreed, but I largely passed on this point because that is an argument that would only distract from the overall point. I would assume Karunamon wanted to not get mired down in that point as well.

From what I have seen, I would say that it was not founded for that purpose, but there have been bad actors who have been a part of it.

>Of course, I'd excuse a lot from a civil rights movement that I wouldn't excuse from a movement dedicated to fighting bad gaming journalism

What are some behaviors you would excuse from one but not the other?

[icebraining]

What are some behaviors you would excuse from one but not the other?

Essential, I apply the right of self-defense to a group much like it does to individuals. The justified intensity of the action is relative to the injury being fought against (up to and including "shooting back").

The ethics of gaming journalism certainly don't deserve more than dispassionate criticism and factual accusations of impropriety.

[Lawtonfogle]

Self defense is only justified reactively against an immediate threat. Seeking out and attacking someone is never justified as self defense. We are talking about the actions of a movement... deliberate chosen actions. What deliberate chosen actions, not made in reaction to an immediate threat, is justified if the one doing it says it is for the cause of civil rights?

[icebraining]

That's the letter of the law, but Sheehan was acquitted by people who have a closer perspective to mine: if the threat is reinforced by past abuses/attacks and there's no expected relief from the authorities, even something deliberate can be self-defence. This can be true for a person, and for a group.