You are declared the Glorious Dear Leader of the Peoples' Internet and are given utter control over the internet. In the context of GamerGate what are your first steps in ending the debate?

Not degrade it, but explain why I find it unconvincing.

Basic things need to be done in Psychology studies to make sure no bias or errors occur. He is pointing those out. That is good shit to do and you are actively saying to listen and believe the study. That is not what you do in Psychology.

Like I've explained elsewhere, I see this exact same rhetoric used in other discussions and it's often used to dismiss without giving careful consideration

What? Pointing out potential errors? That is a GOOD thing. Fuck, you are taught in Psychology and Sociology to find those errors and points of bias. You are not told to accept it as truth.

My training is in physics, not sociology, so if someone's going to tell me that a sociology experiment is flawed, I'd like to see someone a little more formal to sway me.

.... I have been having a discussion with you, I am from that background, and you will not accept what I say. Any of it. You do not care about someone showing you why, because I already have.

Pointing our potential for error, bad results (since it does happen, Psychology and Sociology cannot escape bias or errors), is a good thing.

I don't see how this is different from what I said. I don't agree with it, and don't think that he seriously does either, but he raised it as an alternative and I wanted to acknowledge that.

Ok. Fair enough.

I really do, and if you have a rebuttal showing that an experiment was designed poorly, you can pretty quickly (not just "wake up one day" but you don't have to be a Ph.D. in the field) submit something to the Letters variant of the journal.

No, you don't. I come from the field. You cannot do that. You either need to have a Ph.D or a Masters, or be working with someone who has one and has the resources for an experiment. There is a very rare chance anyone who has only a bachelors will publish a journal on their own without help from Ph.D's or Masters.

If you think I'm being intentionally dishonest, please point out where and I can guarantee that you're wrong. If you think I'm being unintentionally dishonest, then I really want you to point out where.

I have, multiple times. In our two conversations.

I've said a few times now - I come from hard science. I am very, very familiar with how that world works and have dealt with it at all levels. The closest analogy to this conversation would be the various climate change conversations you can find all over the internet. That's the model I use for comparison.

Using that analogy is entirely dishonest and shows you are arguing from a spot of bad faith.

/r/AgainstGamerGate Thread