
On Gatekeeping, Complicity, and Arrival - elm_
https://avdi.codes/on-gatekeeping-complicity-and-arrival/
======
haasted
> For years I’ve had a silent policy that I won’t go on any of his shows. I’ve
> turned down or ignored multiple invitations. I’m making that policy un-
> silent now.

It is an important, general point that staying "neutral" when seeing a
bullying situation is actually tantamount to siding with the bully.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The hard part is deciding who's the bully, since both sides invariably claim
(as they did in this case) that they're the one being bullied. Neutrality
isn't a claim that bullying is acceptable, just that you don't have the time
to figure out who's the real bully or whether the person being bullied
deserves it.

~~~
tomphoolery
I mean, when one of them admits to bullying just for the sake of pissing the
other party off, I feel like we can determine who the real bully is.

------
ghostbrainalpha
The direct link isn't working anymore but you can still see the post easily at
the top of his blog.

[https://avdi.codes/blog/](https://avdi.codes/blog/)

------
sergiotapia
link is broken? mirror anyone?

~~~
0xCMP
[https://web.archive.org/web/20191029124730/https://avdi.code...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191029124730/https://avdi.codes/on-
gatekeeping-complicity-and-arrival/)

------
wisty
> His proposed solution is to get John, a man who has publicly stated that he
> speaks in bad faith, together with the people he attacked for a
> “conversation”.

I feel like "bad faith" is now a thought-terminating cliche. As long as people
can suggest someone is acting in "bad faith" (maybe doing a "Gish Gallop", a
"false equivalence" or even just "motivated reasoning") then they can
instantly ignore everything they've said.

The purpose of logical fallacies (as a topic to learn about) isn't so we can
just shout out "FALLACY" whenever we think we see one, it's so it's easier to
find a tool to refute them (if they are indeed fallacies).

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-
terminating_clich%C3%A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-
terminating_clich%C3%A9)

~~~
jaster
I would agree with you in theory, but in this case it does not seems to hold.
Not knowing anything about the people involved I got looking around on the
twitter discussions mentioned to form my own opinion.

Here I found the following message from John S. :

 _I 've said a lot of "odd" things on Twitter recently.

Why? Because this, my friends, is how you deal with SJWs. You troll the hell
out of them and they have no weapon they can use against you.

Stop fighting them with logic. Just say inflammatory, illogical things to
them._

(not linking the exact tweet, I don't want to encourage brigading)

Whatever your stance is on the issue, John has explicitly stated that he is
ready to speak in bad faith here. So no in this case it does not seems like a
cliche or a logical fallacy to me.

