Of course, the point is that they can't be refuted. They're not claims for which a refutation is a well-defined concept.
Sartre once wrote this about anti-Semites, but it applies equally well here (and, to be clear, I am making no implication about whether the people using the same tactics today are also anti-Semites, just that they're using the same tactics):
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side."
The only winning move, for those of us who believe in words, is not to play.
It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a random indie developer who was a woman.
You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet 'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to take what I said seriously.
In any case, the rest of Sartre's essay is completely on point. Among other things, it addresses this exact ability to believe a thing and its contradiction, and make it only a problem for the people who are trying to argue against them in good faith - it's quite scary how accurately Sartre in 1944 was able to understand these modes of trolling (and trolling is really the term for it). Harvard has the first chapter online:
There's an interesting question in there of what, exactly, the anti-Semite is going to do once they're not able to hate the Jew. That's the only thing Sartre couldn't see in 1944, but he did see that it's not about anything the Jewish people are or do, but as the other. Today we've declared anti-Semitism unacceptable, but we've got enough other others.
If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.
I don't think Guardian is a trustworthy source on this, having in mind their heavy left bias. They won't present any arguments which could undermine the narration that it was pure anti-women witchhunt, simply because it won't fit their ideological line.
Look, they even managed to somehow connect the 2-years old event to the last month's three most hot keywords of left-leaning media: Trump, alt-right and hate. This shows that this article is a opinion piece targeted to a specific group of readers in order to amplify their existing beliefs, rather than a balanced description of facts.
Please argue from facts rather than accusations of bias. Otherwise you can never get to the heart of the matter: you can always dismiss your interlocutor or some source because of bias, or position, which everyone has because we're human.
If you question the facts of the piece, please do and point out what they are and provide evidence for your position. If you think there are no facts in the piece, point that out, too. If you think it's not the whole picture, that's another great idea: show what's missing. Lots of great opportunities to say something constructive.
Go to the Guardian article, press ctrl+f and type:
- corruption
- review
- buy
Now you see what is missing. I don't say that Gamergate didn't evolved into mostly hate driven movement in its latter phase, but its primary cause must not be ignored.
Nevertheless, I don't want to waste my time on discussing it, since my comment was about mjg59 behavior, not Gamergate (and I didn't followed it enough to discuss it in details).
He was neglecting his maintainers duties, for example he accepted a patch from a well-known troll, which in fact broke some things. So he would have to step down from maintenance anyway. (This is not any secret info, it all can be read on LKML.)
Instead he decided to play drama and presented Gamergate as a reason of stepping down. And replaced all comments who were disproving his statement with "Fart fart fart".
Having in mind all of that, I don't thing calling him 'clown' and describing his actions as childish is an exaggeration.
Sartre once wrote this about anti-Semites, but it applies equally well here (and, to be clear, I am making no implication about whether the people using the same tactics today are also anti-Semites, just that they're using the same tactics):
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side."
The only winning move, for those of us who believe in words, is not to play.