Is public outrage similar to a temper tantrum?

First, you don't know that. The devs could have thought "Hey, they have a point, that joke is transphobic", and then decided to change the joke. Second, caving to pressure was entirely their choice to make. Angry tweets couldn't force them to do anything. And third, the point remains that your claim of moral arguments being "bound to fall on deaf ears" is demonstrably wrong. Stop moving the goalposts.

It's called rational inference. You'd have to be quite foolish to genuinely think just a single backers piece of content was coincidentally not vetted, said content was found immediately following moral outrage an the content. But more than that, the devs didn't change it. The backer did - and he already stated he would've rather it was kept in the game. So yes, pressure.

And the moral arguments advanced in defense of slavery have long been defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Largely by better and more persuasive appeals to morality.

Define better, define more persuasive. Those are relative terms. But then that is literally all your argument can be summed up as, so I'm not at all surprised. As we've already established, winning doesn't set a precedent for who was right, merely whoever played the politics game better.

And yet I made both of those statements before you basically accused me of being a moral absolutist. Did you jump to conclusions about my meta-ethical beliefs based on my first comment, consisting of exactly two sentences? If so that's hardly my fault is it?

Lets go back to exactly what was said, in context. You said:

Yes I know about it. I didn't see much outrage so much as criticism, and yes I did see it as legitimate because I also read the joke as transphobic. The intent of the joke's author does not alone determine its meaning.

This was in direct reply to my comment:

I'm curious - do you know about the whole obsidian drama? The backer said their joke wasnt even directed at trans people - to you would the anti-gg outrage still be classified as legitimate [when it's fundamentally misplaced] or not?

Your statement was entirely in conflict with your first response:

I think it depends on whether or not the justification for the outrage is legitimate, and also on how that outrage is expressed. I've said a number of times that GamerGate is basically a giant collective temper tantrum, so I have to agree that comparing public outrage to tantrums is at least sometimes apt.

So it's legitimate because it hits you right in the feels? Fabulous. Guess what hun, homophobes have feelings to. So do racists, sexists and any other bigots. Does that make their non-argument feelings "legitimate" too by your estimation? No. So again I'll ask and one last time because I'm tired of this - why the double standard. Answer it directly. No shifting goal posts. That is what YOU said.

Your answer?

Outrage is legitimate if it's rooted in a (proportionally important) moral principle, as opposed to something petty like one's selfish desires or bruised ego. Outrage over bigotry is legitimate, outrage in defense of one's bigotry isn't. Of course, people will disagree over the moral principles in play over any controversial issue, and that's fine.

Basically, outrage is important if you think it is. You wonder why I think you're a moral arbiter? THAT'S why. You did NOT qualify your statement by stipulating YOUR morality for just YOURSELF.

I don't know how I can be clearer with you. In fact I literally can't, I cannot make it any clearer than I already have. Your views are in conflict with themselves. Directly. You state outrage is legitimate if it fits a proportional moral principle, a fundamentally subjective appeal. Then you say outrage isn't legitimate if its in defense of bigotry, because feels.

The point that you apparently missed is that your "fact" is not a fact. Normative statements are value judgements, not facts. I can't believe you don't know this.

Saying we're all human is not a normative statement. It is a fact. Are you honestly trying to contest that statement?

So only modes of discourse that produce objective imperatives matter? Debate and disagreement are signs of a bad way to reach normative claims?

Could you shove some more words in my mouth please? Moral and objective imperatives are exclusive, as one relies on subjective appeal, one relies on objective appeal. Moral reasoning is entirely dependant on persuading [or forcing] someone to bend to your subjective view. It can just as easily be flipped, as all subjective things can, and therefore is a fundamentally unsound base for rational discourse.

That doesn't mean you can't do it. But again, it's the equivalent of throwing bibles at people. I'm liberal, I'm not a progressive liberal, and I didn't find the joke transphobic despite being part of the LGBT community. Good luck persuading me otherwise with your feelings, I don't care what your feelings are.

You decried what you incorrectly thought to be moral absolutism on my part, but it's looking to me that you're a moral absolutist of sorts yourself.

Blinded by projection.

Except that you claim to be basing your "objective" normative claims on (badly applied) amoral logic. It's sort of like a Kantian approach to ethics, except that Kant reached his conclusions by using moral reasoning, not rejecting it.

We're all humans is not a normative claim, it's an objectively verifiable one. By the Gods.

You said yourself that there was a misunderstanding over semantics. Suddenly my intended meaning doesn't matter? You were singing a different tune earlier.

I've decided to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, sorry.

Well yes, considering that you don't acknowledge the validity or relevance of moral suasion, I'm certainly less than impressed by your grasp of politics, your undergraduate major notwithstanding.

A random moral absolutist stranger has called my political understanding poor because it doesn't fit their world view? By the gods! I totally didn't see that coming, you're definitely not that type of judgemental person who lends themself well to moral absolutism:

I've said a number of times that GamerGate is basically a giant collective temper tantrum, so I have to agree that comparing public outrage to tantrums is at least sometimes apt.

You don't strike me as someone who's winning or correct.

You took the words right out of my mouth darling. It makes a nice change from you trying to shove words into my mouth, I'll admit.

/r/AgainstGamerGate Thread Parent