Daniel Carcillo and Sarnia teammates share OHL hazing experiences

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I have no idea what your line of work is but you are the one who I said dead wrong:

https://fee.org/articles/how-the-ter...ame-an-insult/

The ad hominem usage gained popularity in Gamergate.

And the original usage still exists. So it is you who are wrong in claiming that the ad hominem usage is the only one. You cannot tell merely by someone's usage of the term that their argument is wrong or fallacious.

By the way, I probably know a lot more about Gamergate than you do. For one thing, I have been privy to firsthand information from some of the principals, and have not relied upon demonstrably false reports from the media. There is considerable overlap between the game industry and the one I work in.

Incidentally, the clause in boldface above is not grammatical English and does not mean anything. I take it you were trying to say that it is I, not you, who are dead wrong; well, you did not succeed, which is just as well because you would have been lying.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And the original usage still exists. So it is you who are wrong in claiming that the ad hominem usage is the only one. You cannot tell merely by someone's usage of the term that their argument is wrong or fallacious.

By the way, I probably know a lot more about Gamergate than you do. For one thing, I have been privy to firsthand information from some of the principals, and have not relied upon demonstrably false reports from the media. There is considerable overlap between the game industry and the one I work in.

I can indeed tell from a person's usage what they mean by their use of the term. That's called context.

The fact you are sympathetic to principals in Gamergate and are essentially saying "fake news" tells me what I need to know here though. Next you will tell me it was actually about ethics in gamer journalism.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are really making your point well.

I would expect you to make some such sarcastic remark, since you evidently believe that anyone who dares to use terminology frowned upon by the doctrinaire Left is automatically wrong. Sorry, Left is not automatically right.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

None of these things are what I was talking about at all. You have brought all of this to the table on your own.

The only reason I brought up sexuality at all, was as an indicator that professional sports are not a safe place. I wasn't talking about athletes being advocates for anyone. I was referring to the vulnerability of being inside the types of toxic environments discussed in this thread. I was then leading that being homosexual within these environments would increase that vulnerability, and the closeted nature of professional sports speaks volumes about how comfortable its members feel about being different than the cookie cutter jock norm. If anyone would like to dispute this or disagree with this point, the one I was actually making, by all means do.

I agree with the poster above that as an issue this has nothing to do with sexuality, and I am sorry that I brought that into this thread. They really are separate issues and I was careless in the ways that I conflated the two in my first post. As a result, a thread that is actually about very important and sensitive issues has turned into a cluster-. So my apologies to all.

All that said, the reactions to my posts have been completely insane. Safety and growing up in environments in which we as individuals are accepted and supported are absolutely privileges, what ever our personal story, sexual orientation, or whatever. "Check your privilege" is a call for self awareness, an understanding that our own experiences can bias us to not heading the experiences of others, or being obtuse to more complex situations than we have personally experienced. For someone to call that "disgusting" or the worst thing on the internet is beyond me.

You should “check your privilege” before you use the “ check your privilege” line. Unless you want to shut down a conversation. You don’t know what someone has or has not experienced, to throw that line out there makes it seem like you think you do based on what you think you know about a person, which usually pisses people off.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And the original usage still exists. So it is you who are wrong in claiming that the ad hominem usage is the only one. You cannot tell merely by someone's usage of the term that their argument is wrong or fallacious.

By the way, I probably know a lot more about Gamergate than you do. For one thing, I have been privy to firsthand information from some of the principals, and have not relied upon demonstrably false reports from the media. There is considerable overlap between the game industry and the one I work in.

Incidentally, the clause in boldface above is not grammatical English and does not mean anything. I take it you were trying to say that it is I, not you, who are dead wrong; well, you did not succeed, which is just as well because you would have been lying.

BTW, My ungrammatical English was just the product of IPad glitches. My sincere apologies.

But I am certainly not lying.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I can indeed tell from a person's usage what they mean by their use of the term. That's called context.

You said that everyone, everywhere, without exception, who ever uses the term ‘SJW’ is using it in the ad hominem sense and that their arguments can therefore be dismissed out of hand. That's not context; that's bigotry.

The fact you are sympathetic to principals in Gamergate and are essentially saying "fake news" tells me what I need to know here though. Next you will tell me it was actually about ethics in gamer journalism.

As George Orwell observed, Leftists are not good at reading their opponents' minds. Most people aren't, but you seem to be badly afflicted with the delusion that you can read minds. You have no idea what I will be telling you next, and it ill behoves you to pretend that you know.

I am not, in fact, sympathetic to any of the principals in Gamergate – on either side. (I can best describe it as a screaming match between two groups of the most narrow-minded and unlikable people I have ever known.) But I listened to what they actually said, and it is not what they were reported in the media as saying. And by the way, I did not use the phrase ‘fake news’. That's you twisting my words to suit your own narrative, which is utterly uninformed by the facts. That seems to be a regular practice with you.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I would expect you to make some such sarcastic remark, since you evidently believe that anyone who dares to use terminology frowned upon by the doctrinaire Left is automatically wrong. Sorry, Left is not automatically right.

I used a sarcastic remark because it was appropriate in respect of your post. You were simply insulting someone and not making any persuasive or even cogent point.

Now you are making broad assumptions about my beliefs. They are incorrect.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I used a sarcastic remark because it was appropriate in respect of your post. You were simply insulting someone and not making any persuasive or even cogent point.

I was saying that the assumption that ‘person who says SJW’ = ‘Internet crazy’ only holds if you assume that everyone is crazy unless they are doctrinaire Leftists. That is certainly cogent, though I don't expect you to find it persuasive, since your mind is evidently closed tighter than a bear trap.

Now you are making broad assumptions about my beliefs. They are incorrect.

I am making no assumptions. You have stated what your beliefs are, and I went from there.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

BTW, My ungrammatical English was just the product of IPad glitches. My sincere apologies.

But I am certainly not lying.

You were either lying, or making statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, which in terms of ethics amounts to much the same thing. The article you cited does not say what you claim it does.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You said that everyone, everywhere, without exception, who ever uses the term ‘SJW’ is using it in the ad hominem sense and that their arguments can therefore be dismissed out of hand. That's not context; that's bigotry.



As George Orwell observed, Leftists are not good at reading their opponents' minds. Most people aren't, but you seem to be badly afflicted with the delusion that you can read minds.

I am not, in fact, sympathetic to any of the principals in Gamergate – on either side. But I listened to what they actually said, and it is not what they were reported in the media as saying. And by the way, I did not use the phrase ‘fake news’. That's you twisting my words to suit your own narrative, which is utterly uninformed by the facts. That seems to be a regular practice with you.

First, that's nowhere near an accurate Orwell quote. But here is one:
" the right to private property means the right to exploit and torture millions of one's fellow creatures. " Are you onside with that?

Secondly, SJW is indeed always an ad hominem attack, like any name calling.

You didn't use the words fake news. You just said "media reports" were false. I fail to see the difference.

And again, you resort to insulting remarks about me. I don't think that's an effective argument. I can't read minds, but I can certainly read what people write and make inferences about their intent.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You were either lying, or making statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, which in terms of ethics amounts to much the same thing. The article you cited does not say what you claim it does.

Sure it does.

Don't question my ethics. I am bound by an ethical oath. I suspect you are not.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're dead wrong, and by God you ought to know better or else not advertise your ignorance.

In my line of work, ‘Social Justice Warrior’ refers to the sort of person who forms Internet mobs to try to destroy someone's career. It happens with great regularity, and many lives have been ruined because of it.

Looking for people who say "SJW" is how you play "spot the internet crazy".

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I was saying that the assumption that ‘person who says SJW’ = ‘Internet crazy’ only holds if you assume that everyone is crazy unless they are doctrinaire Leftists. That is certainly cogent, though I don't expect you to find it persuasive, since your mind is evidently closed tighter than a bear trap.



I am making no assumptions. You have stated what your beliefs are, and I went from there.

First, you failed to recognize that what was said was a sarcastic joke (and not even by me). But the pith and substance is that you can usually recognize a person who has no substance to their argument by their reliance on an ad hominem generalization like SJW.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

First, that's nowhere near an accurate Orwell quote.

Here's the original:

‘Marxists as a rule are not very good at reading the minds of their adversaries; if they were, the situation in Europe might be less desperate than it is at present. Possessing a technique which seems to explain everything, they do not often bother to discover what is going on inside other people’s heads.’ (The Road to Wigan Pier, chapter 12)

The great majority of Leftists at that time were Marxist to one degree or another; and the bulk of the hard Left today hold views that derive from the arguments of dead Marxists, though most of them don't know it because they never troubled to find out whose ideas they are parroting.

But here is one:
" the right to private property means the right to exploit and torture millions of one's fellow creatures. " Are you onside with that?

No. Orwell was frequently wrong, and this particular claim is absurd. But in fact your quote is inaccurate, because you took only the second half of the sentence out of context. That, by the way, is a lie of omission. Here is the full sentence:

‘But in the stage of industrial development which we have now reached, the right to private property means the right to exploit and torture millions of one's fellow creatures.’

He wrote that in 1939, as part of a tortured and illogical argument against the Catholic Church. Where religion was concerned, Orwell's common sense and dedication to truth generally went out the window.

Secondly, SJW is indeed always an ad hominem attack, like any name calling.

There were, not so long ago, a good many people who proudly described themselves as social justice warriors. They, at least, obviously were not using it as an ad hominem attack upon themsleves.

The phrase quickly and properly became a term of derision, partly because these people's favourite activity – beaking off at others over the Internet, usually anonymously – stood in ludicrous contrast to the actions of a warrior. The label retains some descriptive value, as I mentioned earlier, in referring to those people whose preferred mode of political activity is to try to form Internet mobs to destroy other people's careers.

You didn't use the words fake news. You just said "media reports" were false. I fail to see the difference.

The phrase ‘fake news’ is closely associated with Donald Trump. You were, as I take it, attempting to imply that I am a Trump supporter and therefore not worthy of credence. This is a bad argument, and once again founded upon bigotry, but in fact it does not even follow from anything I said. The media do in fact rather reliably get things wrong. ‘Gell-Mann amnesia effect’ is a real phenomenon. Nobody in academia or even in commercial nonfiction publishing would ever get away with the shoddy research, lack of citations, or use of hearsay and unconfirmed reports that are routinely used in journalism.

And again, you resort to insulting remarks about me. I don't think that's an effective argument. I can't read minds, but I can certainly read what people write and make inferences about their intent.

When you try to tell me what I am about to say next, you are attempting to read minds, and you are no good at it. And if you think that was a valid inference about my intent, you aren't very good at making inferences either.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sure it does.

The article is about how the term, which was not originally a mere term of abuse, came to be used as one. It explicitly acknowledges that the abusive usage of the term is not the only one, when you have been claiming all along that it was. Therefore it does not say what you interpret it to say.

Don't question my ethics. I am bound by an ethical oath. I suspect you are not.

I'll question anyone's ethics I please, if their behaviour warrants it. I could pave the earth with ‘ethical oaths’ that people have sworn and broken. The fact that you have said some unspecified words promising to adhere to some unspecified code of conduct means nothing to me. The fact that you assume, without any evidence whatever, that I have not done so, means a great deal, as it is yet one more proof of your delusion that you know everything you need to know about your opponents' state of mind.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by sempuki

Looking for people who say "SJW" is how you play "spot the internet crazy".

You said that before, and now you have doubled down on your original error.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"Social Justice Warrior". It's basically a catch-all dismissal of the concerns of anyone who makes an argument supporting or based in liberal social concerns. It's a cop out made in order to avoid substance and implies that the person expressing concerns is just out there to make themselves feel good.

I tend to agree with this. It is a way to diminish the substance of an argument on specific topic regarding social concerns by implying one side is fighting for the sake of the fight.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're dead wrong, and by God you ought to know better or else not advertise your ignorance.

In my line of work, ‘Social Justice Warrior’ refers to the sort of person who forms Internet mobs to try to destroy someone's career. It happens with great regularity, and many lives have been ruined because of it.

I disagree with your definition, but there is some substance to this. Some people on the far left are out for blood and want that more than actual truth and justice. They care more about the overall cause than the truth and use the internet as their medium to force public opinion before facts are known. The general cause is just, but the focus on the individual without fair due process in not just. This is wrong of course, but the term "SJW" gets applied with too wide of a brush to dismiss real concerns that need to be addressed.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I tend to agree with this. It is a way to diminish the substance of an argument on specific topic regarding social concerns by implying one side is fighting for the sake of the fight.

I will agree that it is nowadays most frequently used that way. My objection is to the claim that it is never used in any other way.

I disagree with your definition, but there is some substance to this. Some people on the far left are out for blood and want that more than actual truth and justice. They care more about the overall cause than the truth and use the internet as their medium to force public opinion before facts are known. The general cause is just, but the focus on the individual without fair due process in not just. This is wrong of course, but the term "SJW" gets applied with too wide of a brush to dismiss real concerns that need to be addressed.

Thank you. That was very well put.

I happen to be working in a field in which most of the dominant firms are run by people of the far Left. I am appalled by the damage they have done to many of their fellow professionals; I am only slightly relieved by the comedy that results when they turn and inflict the same damage on their own. ’Tis sport to see the enginer hoist with his own petard; and I have seen people in my line of work still leading the mob in one Two Minutes' Hate when they themselves became the target of the next one. And I am sad to say that their cause is seldom just, unless you believe that people ought to lose their livelihood because of the sins of their great-grandfathers.

It is, I think I need hardly say, a profoundly depressing working environment.

[1qqaaz]

Honestly, my eyes just glaze over as soon as someone on either side mentions "SJW", "Fascist", "Misogynist", or "Libtard". Some of these classifications may actually be valid, but unfortunately, they're all so overused that I can't/don't bother putting any weight in these claims anymore.

In an effort to get this threat back on the rails:
This is a pretty tricky problem. Fighting, which was one part of the culture of hockey, has largely stepped to the side in modern times. This was largely a result of the implementation of new rules. Hazing is more difficult, because it's harder to restrict it with rules.

Personally, I am going to give Daniel Carcillo some credit. If hazing is going to stop, the first step is probably to raise awareness. Get the young guys to realize that it's more stupid than it is cool.
This is something that will probably take quite a bit of time to fix. But I'm sure it'll start moving in the right direction sooner or later.

[Northendzone]

Personally I can get having rookies carry bags, perhaps serve a dinner or sing in front of the group or stuff like tthat; however, when you are getting guys to strip down and parade around (even though these guys shower and change together), or start doing stuff that involves various body parts that is where you cross the line.