I will optimistically assume I am being downvoted for off-topic rather than further whitewashed.
>justify some pretty terrible actions
I'm asking that the terrible actions of BOTH sides are reported. There is an awful, hateful minority on both sides, but in the mainstream media, only the terrible actions of the GamerGate side is reported.
(And there is surely legitimate argument on both sides, too.)
People have even called for gamers to be forced to use their real names as a solution to the harassment, which would of course make the harassers' lives even easier - but hey, it'd let the people making the proposal bring down social consequences on supporters of GamerGate, so why not?
The whole thing's fucking ridiculous.
I know this is off-topic, but the statement above is literally objectification, because it refers to a body (which is an object) instead of a person.
You can appreciate a persons body, you can appreciate a persons personality. Doing the former doesn't magically invalidate the latter. That I appreciated just the body with a glance, at a point in time, doesn't mean the women has no worth other than this.
If I went around saying women had no value other than for pleasuring a man - now that would be objectification. I do not think that.
Making a statement about a body excludes the personality from the statement. There's nothing to invalidate because there is no content on that subject. I'm not making a value judgment here about you--this is how language works, logically. The word "body" exists to distinguish from the mind; talking about one excludes the other.
Generally speaking, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by restricting references to the "body" to a medical context. In every other situation, refer to the person. There's no downside to it, and it avoids misunderstandings.
> If I thought the owner of said body had no value other than their body, you would be correct.
No one but you knows what you think, they only know what you say.
Just to be clear: I'm not judging you as a person and I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm trying to give you advice about how your use of language will be interpretted.
Edit: Just to be super clear, if you had written "whether appreciating an attractive person is the same as objectification", I would agree with you. But by referencing the body, you're using the word for the object.
But, most people know who threw a punch first and who keeps throwing punches below the belt from their painful, awkward youth. The framing of the situation is not within the control of those who started the mess. Fewer and fewer 3rd parties give a shit about any morsel of authenticity in the game media ruse. More and more people are seeing people they know and/or care about get impacted and think, "Fuck GG's and anyone who stands anywhere near them." There's not enough time to separate the wheat and chaff - time to just burn the rotting pile.
Yes, there are. The majority, in fact. And there are a fair few women in the movement too, but I suppose you think they are poor deluded fools who are oppressing themselves and need the guiding arm of the authoritarian left (including its legions of male feminists) to help them think proper thoughts.
Your justifying it right now, for the second time. Hence the cognitive dissonance.
I'm beginning to think you are willfully misunderstanding me. I think I'm done here.
The article in question could have addressed the real issue of doxing and online threats without taking a side in this political GamerGate fiasco.