Since you're a lazy fuck, Doc, I'll do a little digging myself...
OK, so my first contribution to the GG thread was actually a continuation of an argument with Lithose that started in the Butthurt thread. Lithose was talking about how the mainstream media portrayed Sarkeesian's work. His underlying point had merit, but he exaggerated with statements that didn't reflect the reality of the situation and I called him on it. He claimed that the mainstream media showered her with praise ("you can find 2-3 dozen articles on Anita's work, and how amazing it is; fairly easy") and that criticism of her work was all but nonexistent. Did he respond with "OK, so I exaggerated a little, but my point still stands?" No, he attempted to actually list several articles praising Anita in an attempt to show that he was not exaggerating. In the meantime, I'm being pelted with straw men and dishonest attempts to try to misrepresent my position (for instance, claiming that I believe the media is "fair and balanced" when I said no such thing). Anyway, within that list we got
- Articles from non-mainstream sources.
- Articles from sources that also featured criticism of Anita's work.
- Articles that themselves contained criticism of Anita's work.
- Articles that were not about her work, but about her harassment.
So in the end, his exaggeration did not reflect the reality of the situation. It's not that big of a deal. His underlying point about media bias was spot-on, but I take issue with people using a foundation based on valid points to go off on flights of fancy. Now Lithose is a proud man. He's not one to say "Fine, I exaggerated. Let's move on." No, he has to rationalize and twist things around so he can come out on top. Reference to praise = Praise. Publicity = Praise. Apparently if the goal posts you shift are small and numerous enough, you can get away with retconning your original statement into whatever you want it to be. Please note that not in a million years would I be allowed to get away with that. For fuck's sake, I used the literal and explicit definitions of words to show how Ebonics is a language and people jumped down my throat accusing me of re-writing reality. But if Lithose decides that black is white, well that's just fine. And then, to further try to shield himself from being contradicted, he attempts to discredit me by claiming I am "manipulating every level of rationality"... How? Well, by pointing out a mainstream article that showcases criticism of Sarkeesian. Yes, the article debunked that criticism, but it showed alternative viewpoints and put them in the spotlight, something Lith claimed was nonexistent.
Now I'm not attacking Lithose here. He has taken a MUCH more reasonable stance towards Sarkeesian that most, in that his beef is with the media and not with her. He has very good reasons for criticizing how the media treats her. He makes very good points, but he also suffers from enough hubris that he doesn't like to have the things he says get challenged. Therefore, instead of considering the possibility that he was, in fact, exaggerating, he had to fight tooth and nail, turning what was essentially a minor disagreement into a full-fledged debate. This happens a lot when I contradict somebody. Nobody wants to be the guy Tanoomba exposed as wrong about something (especially, apparently, anything Sarkeesian-related), so the community at large will often join in to make sure the consensus is "Tanoomba is wrong", logic and reason be damned.
My stance:
- Lithose exaggerated with statements that didn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Was I proven wrong?
- No. He did, in fact, exaggerate.
Did the community come to the conclusion that I was wrong?
- Yes, based on a willingness to accept anything Lithose says at face value.
OK, that was one example. Have you found one yet, Doc?
