It was always the intolerance of the "pro ethics" crowd (the very few who were) which was the problem. They wanted to ban generic "anti-SJW" content, while the anti-SJW folks made no such demands about ethics. If the roles were reversed, and the anti-SJW crowd was demanding bans on ethics content, I would have been on their side. Basically, don't ban stuff.
I agree with the rest of your comment. It's populism or political suicide for the right. "Muh capitalism" and "cut taxes for the 1%" aren't going to cut it. They were never popular, but going against a hard-left that is so radicalized, you're not going to win if you do not stand against it - nor do you deserve to win.
Yeah, I know. I knew from the very beginning of GG personally that there was a poisonous ideology fueling the behavior of game journalists. That just forcing game journalists to be "ethical" isn't going to fix the problem. Their unethical behavior is motivated by an ideology that believes in the ends justifying the means.
For the right-populist/actual libertarian side, we try not to adopt that "ends justifies the means" position, we only resort to it when it becomes impractical to maintain our position or if we end up risking being completely eliminated to maintain our position. For us, it's more of a "you left us no choice, I don't want to do this" position, which IMO is a far more defensible position than what the crazies on the far left use which is the "morals be damned, what we do is justified" position.
I stopped worrying about optics once the other side stopped being honest about their ideology.
Rolling out a pet theory here: positive goals versus negative goals; alternatively, constructivism versus destructivism. "I don't want to fight, I just want to play games in peace" is a positive goal, as it expresses an outcome where something is created or a lost thing is regained. "Your ideas are an evil and I must see you undone" is a negative goal, as it expresses an outcome where something is destroyed or a desired thing is taken.
Argument is simple, that the maintenance of civility demands positive goals, because negative goals are a direct threat to civility. The implication is basically a meme: that "ends justifies the means" may be just only under a positive goal.
I'm inviting feedback because I've hit a wall in development. (I'm still considering whether it could also apply to uncivil scenarios, such as military strategy, but it's looking doubtful so far.)
It was always the intolerance of the "pro ethics" crowd (the very few who were) which was the problem. They wanted to ban generic "anti-SJW" content, while the anti-SJW folks made no such demands about ethics. If the roles were reversed, and the anti-SJW crowd was demanding bans on ethics content, I would have been on their side. Basically, don't ban stuff.
I agree with the rest of your comment. It's populism or political suicide for the right. "Muh capitalism" and "cut taxes for the 1%" aren't going to cut it. They were never popular, but going against a hard-left that is so radicalized, you're not going to win if you do not stand against it - nor do you deserve to win.
Yeah, I know. I knew from the very beginning of GG personally that there was a poisonous ideology fueling the behavior of game journalists. That just forcing game journalists to be "ethical" isn't going to fix the problem. Their unethical behavior is motivated by an ideology that believes in the ends justifying the means.
For the right-populist/actual libertarian side, we try not to adopt that "ends justifies the means" position, we only resort to it when it becomes impractical to maintain our position or if we end up risking being completely eliminated to maintain our position. For us, it's more of a "you left us no choice, I don't want to do this" position, which IMO is a far more defensible position than what the crazies on the far left use which is the "morals be damned, what we do is justified" position.
I stopped worrying about optics once the other side stopped being honest about their ideology.
Rolling out a pet theory here: positive goals versus negative goals; alternatively, constructivism versus destructivism. "I don't want to fight, I just want to play games in peace" is a positive goal, as it expresses an outcome where something is created or a lost thing is regained. "Your ideas are an evil and I must see you undone" is a negative goal, as it expresses an outcome where something is destroyed or a desired thing is taken.
Argument is simple, that the maintenance of civility demands positive goals, because negative goals are a direct threat to civility. The implication is basically a meme: that "ends justifies the means" may be just only under a positive goal.
I'm inviting feedback because I've hit a wall in development. (I'm still considering whether it could also apply to uncivil scenarios, such as military strategy, but it's looking doubtful so far.)