ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Cras wrote:
Not a challenging concept.
Read these words slowly so you can fully absorb what I'm saying. I'm not knocking your desire to conflate two different types of people who operate differently under the same banner (although I could), I'm calling you stupid for trying to argue that you think calling one bad because you consider the other one bad is *different* from calling them all bad outright, which is the sentiment you were saying
didn't exist in my earlier quotes. You've just contradicted yourself utterly and then tried to bafflingly dig your way out of your own hole.
Seriously, a person could go mad trying to unpick this pinhead-dancing bullshit, but instead I think it's time to call it a day.
But you can think people are bad for different reasons, and at different levels.
A workshy benefits cheat, a tax evading millionaire, a rapist, an armed robber, a sexist pig, an internet troll, a murderer, someone who wilfully parks in disabled parking bays, someone who commits genocide.
All these people are bad, and you can distinguish that there are different levels of badness, and hanging out with these people might reflect poorly upon you. If you hang out with a murderer and implicitly condone his actions, then you are bad. Are you as bad as the murderer? No. If you hang out with him but don't know he's a murderer are you bad? Not so much... but if it's widely publicised and the murderer has shown no repentance, and everybody knows it, then yeah, that reflects badly upon you.
Saying that hanging out with a massive truckload of unrepentant, blatant misogynists reflects badly on non-misogynist Gamergaters is hardly a massive stretch. You seem to be saying that you think it is some kind of broad brush "Oh, they're all equally bad" generalisation. It isn't.
And it's not like you wouldn't think less of someone who was a frothing, rabid Cybernat, or who threw tons of money at Stuart Campbell, would you?