A
Ian replied:
If the active harassment of a public figure makes it hard for you to discuss your legitimate criticisms of them, then it is in your best interest for the harassment to end so you can discuss the problem without amplifying the harassment. Your comments cannot be heard earnestly when they are barely distinguishable from arguments made in bad faith.
Anonymous commented:
I have a question with regards to your Why Are You So Angry series and Contrapoints controversy. I'm not asking for an opinion about contra, its just a good example. Also I'm talking about the last controversy with the tweet about pronoun circles, not the one about buck angel which i haven't looked into at all yet. So basically what if there had been a problem with "ethics in games journalism"? In my opinion contra has said some dismissive or uneducated things about NB people that warrent criticism, but obviously not harassment. Whenever i said on twitter or reddit or something "I think contra was wrong" i was accused of being part of a harassment brigade against her. And it reminded me of your videos on how the 4chan chuds essentially used jack to mask harassment. But from my perspective my legitimate concerns were dismissed because other people were using those same concerns as an excuse for harassment. How do you think you have a conversation about "ethics in games journalism" when harassers hijack the conversation? Or when we're so militant about harassers we assume everyone is acting in bad faith?
I always feel weird asking creators things since i can never figure out how to word it without sounding like I'm asking a DEFINITIVE SOURCE to form my opinion for me but mostly I'm just asking for your thoughts on this conundrum since your whole thing basically is talking about rhetoric and junk.