Slashdot Mirror
Thirty Meter Telescope Likely Never Gets Built ... In Hawaii
An anonymous reader writes: After years of its backers of doing everything the state of Hawaii demanded in order to get permission to build the Thirty Meter Telescope, a state judge today ordered that the whole process should start over again. Since this order was instigated by the protesters, and that it appears the government favors those protesters, it appears that there is no chance TMT will ever get approval to build in Hawaii. We've been following the back and forth, back and forth story of this telescope for a while.
Hippie burnouts. Luddite native simpletons. There are already 4 observatories near the sacred summit of Mauna Kea. What harm would one more do? Whose state is it anyway?
an ill wind that blows no good
Yeah, it seems pretty obvious to me as an American from a different State that this just means some judge doesn't like the telescope. Judges are not generally considered representative of the rest of government. ;)
Actually that idea is what we call "batshit crazy."
"Historically marginalized people are now getting their legitimate say in the process" translates to "they want to be paid a bribe, at which point the construction will stop being blasphemous". It's a shakedown.
We have no business as a society stopping building on the basis of blasphemy anyway.
... that it likely never gets built, when the article says that officials have said that they'll continue the process? You're basically just changing actual reporting into an opinion piece, and presenting said opinion as if it's in the reporting.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
I consider Mauna Kea sacred ground that should be used only for telescopic exploration of the heavens. How can these heretics deny me my constitutional right of freedom of religion? Thomas Jefferson had a telescope, and it was obviously his intent when he wrote the First Amendment that people should be free to practice telescopy in sacred places such as Mauna Kea.
A tiny pressure group can stop virtually any big project, by filing court action after court action, delaying it until everyone gets tired of it and gives up. If they hadn't succeeded this time, they would have found some endangered flea, argued indefinitely until they won or lost, and lose, try again with a newly-invented religious icon.
It happens time and again. For example, the NFL (with regard to the Washington Redskins) is on record for saying "if one person objects, we will take action". Whether you think the word is offensive is beside the point. This sort of thinking allows the loudest complainers to exert veto power over virtually anything. So we get absolutely nowhere.
Another victory of religion and superstition and the self interests of a few people who have appointed themselves as religious leaders over science and reason and public interest.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
No, you need to grow up. If this was a fight over some land with significance to Christians you'd like be all "fuck them."
Those of us with a fairer eye on the question of religion don't play the denomination game. Fuck these savages. Stop your PC bullshit and grow a set. The idea that people identify themselves with something that they had no hand in from their ancestors is simply bullshit.
Science: 0
superstition: 1
greed: 4.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The argument against the TMT is that it would be built on sacred ground, essentially for religious reasons. Isn't that an establishment of religion and, therefore, in violation of the first amendment?
No. This is not, in the words of the First Amendment, about passing a law that prescribes a particular religion or impedes the free exercise thereof. This is a dispute about the usage of land. Scientist want to use it to build a telescope. A group of native Hawaiians object on the grounds that the land has historic and spiritual significance. IMHO, both sides have standing, and I hope they work something out that preserves both of their interests.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"If the telescope doesn't get built it will be because the people who want to build it aren't willing to make the compromises that are required as part of a democratic process."
Hawaii doesn't want astronomy, and it is not the job of astronomers to convince them otherwise. Even if they were to start the 7-14 year permitting process over again, it wouldn't change the opposition. Start construction right away at an alternate site.
Sierra San Pedro Mártir in Baja California is a site on the original list for the TMT, but all of the other sites other than Maunakea were in Chile, which is now the location for its southern hemisphere sibling. The TMT needs another northern hemisphere site. Given the current social situation in Mexico, can the safety of construction and operation be assured? If not, I have suggested that qualified site on the Tibetan Plateau, even though it was not on the TMT's original list because that list was composed before China became a partner in TMT. China is one place where the project will be insulated from its real opponents, the Greens.
Sounds a lot like what happened to the company that tried to run ferry service between the islands, the government supported the company and helped them start up, 2 years (and several lawsuits) later a judge shut them down because whatever law was passed by the government was against Hawaii's constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In December 2008, environmental groups and the company returned to court for an appeal of the previous ruling. On March 16, 2009 the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that allowing the Superferry to operate prior to completion of the environmental study was unconstitutional.[37] The company immediately suspended service and laid off its 236 employees.
Hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment lost.... and probably hundreds of millions of future investments lost because investors won't invest in infrastructure when they have no assurance that when the government says "we need this, do it", that they really mean it.
I actually had tickets to ride the boat, but the company had already shut down before my trip.
Giving people special political rights based on their race isn't part of "the democratic process", it is racist.
And none of the activists that are protesting this were "historically marginalized" because they weren't historically alive. The only thing they have in common with people who were "historically marginalized" is their appearance.
No, what is a tragedy is that the same racists that gave us eugenics, separate-but-equal, and segregation are up to their old tricks again. And by "the same racists", I mean progressives and Democrats.
In the abstract, intellectual sense, you can be all for the rights of "marginalized peoples" and against the "the man".
But when you naively put theory into practice, you start to get some less-than-happy outcomes and get mugged by reality and start to get a visceral understanding of some facts, like
1. Turns out that the marginalized peoples are marginalized not because they're innocent noble pacifists more in tune with nature, but because they're superstitious anti-science savages who worship sacred rocks and can't be reasoned with.
2. The Man actually has a millenia-long tradition of scientific inquiry and exploration, which is how you get to have a roof over your head, food on the table, indoor plumbing, electric lights, and a lifespan longer than 30.
3. Fighting for Justice (TM) is all well and good. But when we're sitting pretty in the civilized world, there really isn't much real injustice to fight against. So like a child raised in a sterile environment only to develop allergies to everything, a society taught to attack "injustice" will turn its energies against itself, and superstition and paganism can trump science.
4. Freedom of religion is all well and good, but we in the west tend to have more personal and private religions, where my faith doesn't place any demands on your lifestyle. The savages, on the other hand, tend to have communal 'religions' with sacrifices to pagan idols in the extreme case, and elaborate restrictions on the freedom of their inherents in the most charitable interpretation. One is compatible with capital-f Freedom, one is not. Our culture is about freedom, theirs isn't. You can't compromise between the two.
There are two possibilities. Either these lands are public or they are private (or could be sold to a private group). If I build a telescope on my private land, you have no right to interfere with that even if it offends your religious beliefs. If the lands are public, then trying to maintain them in a way that caters to the religious feelings of any group amounts to an establishment of religion; that's unacceptable as well.
And, of course, "native Hawaiian" is an ill-defined and corrupt concept to begin with, so "native Hawaiians" ought not to have any legal standing as a group at all. That isn't just a question of justice; if you let people retroactively interfere with property and ownership rights based on their membership in some racial group, you create so much risk and uncertainty that you scare away investments and business. Any sane businessman and investor is going to ask: if we build a new power plant or factory or dock or shopping center, how much risk do we face that some "native Hawaiian group" is going to claim that we are treading on their sacred ground and kill the project halfway through, or demand pay-offs?
This was actually the result of a proxy fight.
It was a proxy for the ke ea Hawai‘i movement, which is a movement that is demanding some form of sovereignty for Hawaii. they have been around forever, and they make themselves a pain in the ass wherever they can in order to attempt to draw media attention to their cause.
Their favorite hobby horses are self-determination and self-governance, for Hawaii as an independent nation, or for people of native Hawaiian ancestry to obtain "tribal sovereignty" similar to the relationship with Native Americans, for Native Hawaiians.
They generally don't care about "sacred spots" unless caring about them publicly will get major headlines.
Alphabetically, the organizations involved include: ALOHA, Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiian Kingdom Government, Ka Lhui, Ka Pkaukau, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Nation of Hawai'i, Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni O Hawaii, Poka Laenui, and Protect Kahoolawe Ohana (PKO).
Frankly, I'm surprised there is not a "Bring Queen Lili'uokalani Back From The Dead Society". They are unhappy with the 1893 U.S. Marine invasion that got rid of the hereditary monarchy, and they are unhappy with the U.S. annexation of 1898.
if Hawaii was still its own country, you'd have your own 1%ers
That was certainly the historical case, and going back into pre-Western-contact days, the ruling class (ali`i) were so elite that if a commoner even looked at them the commoner was subject to death.
Having said that, though, the situation, like everything here in Hawai`i, is complex. Certainly bad things happened back in 1893; it's hard to study the history and think otherwise. But that was a long time ago. What's right? I don't really have the right to be the judge of that.
However, most of the protesters overlook the fact that their ancestors were astronomers and skilled in things like celestial navigation. The ancestors might very well have supported something like the TMT. The ali`i seemed to believe in progress (a little known fact is that Honolulu was, in the days of the Kingdom, an early and enthusiastic adopter of the telephone, under the direction of King David Kalakaua).
Last spring I happened to be on the University of Hawai`i Manoa campus (the main campus, in Honolulu). There was a large group of TMT protesters spread along Dole Street. Granted, they were all very polite and behaved very well, which is a credit to their movement. But was it their movement? I stopped and listened to some of them talking; a number of them were speaking `olelo Hawai`i (the Hawaiian language). Very cool. But they really didn't know what was going on. I overheard them saying that they (at least many of them) were taking part because their UH Hawaiian Studies instructors told them they had to be there.
A little of the money is from Stanford and UC, but most of the $1.4G comes from a consortium of foreign countries. Choose one that has a good site, and build it there.
"That was certainly the historical case, and going back into pre-Western-contact days, the ruling class (ali`i) were so elite that if a commoner even looked at them the commoner was subject to death."
And in particular, only the ali'i were permitted to go above the treeline on Maunakea. The kãnaka, or commoners, would be clubbed to death for venturing up to where the telescopes are now.
Yippee! Macrons work now. Thanks for the encoding fix, new owners!
We know who vigorously supports eminent domain for public projects...
Wrong, Hawaii as a whole might well want astonomy, but a flawed process and flawed judge gave some outcast weirdos a megaphone. Disgusting how the ignorant can hold back human progress.
"Eppur si muove": now a microaggression.
Said the person who lives in neither a totalitarian nor a leftist state. And has experience of neither of them.
And would like to keep it that way. But that requires more people to start saying no to totalitarian-minded leftists.
> Fuck these savages.
I don't see why /. is losing their minds over this. It's just a straight up NIMBY issue. The people who live there don't want it, and obviously nobody has successfully explained why they should care. I don't even know if anybody has even tried. I certainly haven't seen an explanation here about why the TMT is so important, and why we must have it so bad that we should override the wishes of the local residents.
I don't know why everybody here needs to play up the pacific islander aspect, poking fun at their hokey religion and ancient weapons.
Since this controversy started, I've been following the state news closely, and I from what I can see the response to the native oppositions is...lukewarm indifference. I see a few positive comments in newspaper story response threads, sandwiched between huge blocks of misspelled but fervent screeds from the religious opposition. Where are the business organizations like Rotary and Chamber of Commerce? Where are the counterprotests? Where are the academics at UH and other schools?
I get the impression that the natives have been weaponized by ethnic studies programs that nobody ever bothered auditing for historical accuracy.
> At $50 per month per infant,
I say, stick with the boob, it's free!
I have mixed feelings on this after spending 10 years on several Hawaiian islands. Hawaiians have a deep reverence and connection to the land which is one thing they ABSOLUTELY get right. I'm not sure where the sweet spot is w/r/t progress / preserving the land, but categorically reducing the Hawaiians through name calling is not fair, and quite naive in my book, when you haven't lived there to fully grok where many of them are coming from.
If I build a telescope on my private land, you have no right to interfere with that even if it offends your religious beliefs.
My neighbors objected to my building an unshielded reactor on my private property. This is why America is going to hell. No respect for private property.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There's historically marginalized people everywhere, if you go back far enough in time everyone was and everyone has. Those "natives" oppressed other natives at some point (unless you believe in that wholesome native tribe - Comanches, Tibetans, Hawaiians - they weren't very nice to their neighbors) so do those ancestors get to claim the land? If you do keep giving people what is 'rightfully' theirs by going back further and further, then you get into situations like Africa where tribal wars and slavery have been marginalizing the country for centuries, long before a white man ever put a flag in the ground.
To give people like American "Indians", Hawaiians a pittance because someone feels bad about their ancestors' actions is marginalizing them even further. To say they were 'wholesome', peaceful or somehow better than anyone else is racist, it's taking away their humanity, there was good and evil as well in their history, to ignore it is just hiding their rich history of wars, peace, settlement, nomadic life, trade and treaties.
Is it "their" land (as in they own it currently and it was in the process of being taken by the government)? No? If they want it back, they should conquer it and deal with the consequences of trying to stake claim to another nation's property.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Wow... what religion prohibits building unshielded reactors?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If nothing else, the bribes should be more affordable in Mexico. They'll need their own paramilitary force to discourage going back on the graft, however.
It's leftist science types versus leftist racial justice warriors in a dispute mediated by a leftist government in Hawaii. Whichever side loses might want to rethink their allegiance and start supporting laws and due process and legal procedure rather than arrogantly stomping on people in the usual leftist way.
"Why would you object to a stellar observatory on or near Stone Henge? "
Yes I would, because it rains a lot there and the sky is hazy that close to sea level. One passable viewing night every ten years and my detectors would keep rusting out.
are you funny! "native Hawaiins" are only ten percent of the population. a minority should not be given control over what the majority wants.
I'm in Arizona, where the real organizers of this protest tried the same tactics during the Nineties, when the telescope construction was on our Mt. Graham, with somewhat less success. You might want to read their manifesto:
http://dgrnewsservice.org/2015...
Where are the academics at UH and other schools?
They are keeping low lest they come into the sites of the Native Hawaiian groups. UH has some brilliant researchers who do work on marine life and volcanoes. They want to pursue their own research. If they dare to put their fingers into the TMT hornet's nest, they will be hit with lawsuits try to block marine life research, because the marine life has religious meaning ("that fish has the spirit of my great-grandmother in it!"), and lawsuits against volcano research ("that's where my great-grandparents used to toss their virgin daughters into!"
Serious scientific researchers just want to do research. They do not want to deal with protests and lawsuits, that would just distract them from their work.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Wow... what religion prohibits building unshielded reactors?
The church of Christ, nonScientist?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The lesson was this:
Sure we're all supposed to share resources and we all support Bernie Sanders taking from people and giving to others. But if there's a native group involved, then they have an absolute right to completely control any resource, for any reason. Even if the resource is infinitely valuable, and not sharing it will result in poverty and starvation for billions of people. The natives can't even be asked to talk about sharing it; their rights are supreme because they have the righteous skin color.
I consider Mauna Kea sacred ground that should be used only for telescopic exploration of the heavens. How can these heretics deny me my constitutional right of freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter. You don't have the righteous skin color, nor the righteous cultural origins. So, as far as the left is considered, you can fuck off.
There are two possibilities. Either these lands are public or they are private (or could be sold to a private group). If I build a telescope on my private land, you have no right to interfere with that even if it offends your religious beliefs. If the lands are public, then trying to maintain them in a way that caters to the religious feelings of any group amounts to an establishment of religion; that's unacceptable as well.
And, of course, "native Hawaiian" is an ill-defined and corrupt concept to begin with, so "native Hawaiians" ought not to have any legal standing as a group at all. That isn't just a question of justice; if you let people retroactively interfere with property and ownership rights based on their membership in some racial group, you create so much risk and uncertainty that you scare away investments and business. Any sane businessman and investor is going to ask: if we build a new power plant or factory or dock or shopping center, how much risk do we face that some "native Hawaiian group" is going to claim that we are treading on their sacred ground and kill the project halfway through, or demand pay-offs?
That isn't just a question of justice; if you let people retroactively interfere with property and ownership rights based on their membership in some racial group, you create so much risk and uncertainty that you scare away investments and business. Any sane businessman and investor is going to ask: if we build a new power plant or factory or dock or shopping center, how much risk do we face that some "native Hawaiian group" is going to claim that we are treading on their sacred ground and kill the project halfway through, or demand pay-offs?
Especially since the Mauna Kea Telescope is just a proxy fight. This group of Hawaiians at core do not want white people on "their" islands at all. The native Hawaiians refer to anyone not of their race as Haole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , although it is mostly used as a racial epithet against Europeans.
From the article:
In 1944, Hawaiian scholar Charles Kenn wrote, "In the primary and esoteric meaning, haole indicates a race that has no relation to one's own; an outsider, one who does not conform to the mores of the group; one that is void of the life element because of inattention to natural laws which make for the goodness in man. In its secondary meaning, haole ... implies a thief, a robber, one not to be trusted.
In likewise manner, in Hawaiian schools, on the last day of school, they have "Kill Haole day", where natives are supposed to harass and attack the white students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Southern Poverty Law Center has this to say about the incredibly racist Hawaiians:
https://www.splcenter.org/figh...
So sorry Hawaiians, I consider you to be just as racist as the southern preacher in the 1859's preaching how the bible condones owning black people, as racist as any group of KKK members, who lynch and burn crosses on lawns. As racist as any southern state you care to name.
And do not even attempt to hand me the idea that since some white people have been racist, that its okay with you being racist, because you are then condoning their racism. You are 100 percent as big a collection of racist scum as they were.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The new TPP treaty lets foreign corporations override local laws, if money is at stake. I'm sure we can find some excuse to make a claim, and get the telescope built.
It seems like easter Island would be a great spot as there is no light pollution to worry about and all that land with nobody on it for any size telescope.
I can see why the natives would be upset, having been invaded and subjugated by the US army and their land taken. Not sure how that affects building telescopes though.
Rich and powerful my ass. That's the go-to label for anyone that's doing something other than worshipping at the alter of Social Justice. A mom-and-pop operation can find itself labeled "rich and powerful" if they fail to fill their one job opening with people of the favored skin color and the favored Historical Injustice(TM) weighing on their souls to this very day.
> We have no business as a society stopping building on the basis of blasphemy anyway.
Except the top of Mauna Kea was never a holy site. It was a rock quarry, there is evidence all over the top of the mountain. Before Westerners brought metal tools, the natives used stone ones, and the lava that erupted up there during an ice age cooled quickly, making it chip-resistant. So they set up mining camps and dug up the mountain top. They didn't live up there, not enough rainfall to grow things. That's also the reason it is a good telescope site. So the natives commuted from lower altitudes, dug up stone tools, and went back down. Not exactly a religious pilgrimage.
Well, before you get all pushed out of shape, you might start telling us who you define as "Hawaiian". How many "drops of blood" should a "Hawaiian" have according to Ol Olsoc to be legally considered a member of the "Hawaiian race"?
As I said, personally, I don't consider Hawaiians anything at all, since I don't believe there is such a thing as a "Hawaiian".
What there is is "native Hawaiian groups", which seem pretty similar to something like the Thule Society.
I suppose it's not surprising that someone who believes in scientific racism (as you obviously do) also would think that a religious symbol on your neighbor's property is the equivalent of an unshielded nuclear reactor.
I've never seen it explained how a telescope (of which several are already up there) could possibly be a "NIMBY" issue, considering that it has exactly zero possible negative consequences for the locals. It's jot nuclear waste, it's not noisy - shit, it doesn't even block anyone's view. To say nothing of their "hokey religions and ancient weapons" being exactly what they, themselves cite in opposition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Since you were fortunate enough to be under a rock for the last few decades, you've missed the rapid proliferation of "identity politics." The basic idea is to assert that you are a member of a sexual, social, religious or ethnic minority, so that you may characterize any criticism directed at you as inherently bigoted, racist, et cetera. It is a variant of "moral fiat high ground" argument style - the idea being to avoid debates one cannot win by making it impossible for anyone to speak against you.
You have probably seen articles/comments on /. about "gamergate;" this was simply a lot of 20-somethings with no prior interest in politics getting a crash-course in identity politics when they found a "game dev" trying to hype a very poor game on its merits as femenist-affiming art, or something. These same 20-somethings were also astounded to discover that journalists are neither honest nor principled (fancy that,) and they all got very excited. That entire fracas is a case study in how widespread exploiting identity politics has become - and how commercialized. You can reasonably expect to drum up undeserved hype (and sales) for a poor product if you cast it as pro-whatever; by writers seeking to establish their moral righteousness, or just seeking to head off accusations of bigotry or intolerance (i.e. character assasination.)
In this case, identity politics is stopping Science, which /. is fond of. Therefore many cnsider it a big deal. You may disagree with the above assesments (and you'd be a fool not to do your own research on all this and just trust my word, anyway,) but it is a description of the issue as I (and many others) percieve it.
> A group of native Hawaiians object on the grounds that the land has historic and spiritual significance.
It doesn't. The top of Mauna Kea was used by the natives as a *rock quarry* for stone tools. There is literally tons of archeological evidence of that:
http://www.mauna-a-wakea.info/...
https://photos1.blogger.com/bl...
I can see why the natives would be upset, having been invaded and subjugated by the US army and their land taken.
Not sure how that affects building telescopes though.
Yes, wrong is wrong. The thing is that they aren't exactly innocent or pure. Their religion is a caste system, their religion practices human sacrifice, segregates men and women and as far as I can tell, the Tahiti takeover (Disputed) or Maori merely shows whatever they are, they aren't the first, so they have no permanent claim.
Some researchers think they may even had pre-Columbian American contact due to the presence of the sweet potato in Hawaii.
Lest we think only white 'murricans are evil, the Hawaiians (whichever were the presumed original ones) introduced the Pacific rat to the islands, which precipitated an early extinction event.
Here's an interesting link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have great sympathy for a lot of the people that we Americans may have run roughshod over. The "native" Hawaiians simply aren't one of them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
As I said, personally, I don't consider Hawaiians anything at all, since I don't believe there is such a thing as a "Hawaiian".
What there is is "native Hawaiian groups", which seem pretty similar to something like the Thule Society.
Yes, you are right. There is a lot of ambiguity over the original Hawaiians, Polynesians, Tahitian, and Maori and even possible pre-Columbian Americas influence. As well as the dates of occupation. Some have even noted some sort of "little people" living there, although that is disputed.
So Ol Olsoc doesn't think a pure Hawaiian exists at all - and that's just another knock against these folks. I pretty much dispute their claim over the islands any more than anyone else's.
I also dispute that some deity lives in that mountain, and find the original lease agreement is valid. Any claim they have - especially to the mountaintop is as valid as Dominionist dogma. They are part of the US now, and if they want to rebel, they'll need to take up arms and declare war on us.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I suppose it's not surprising that someone who believes in scientific racism (as you obviously do) also would think that a religious symbol on your neighbor's property is the equivalent of an unshielded nuclear reactor.
I am sort of surprised that you took a comment noting that property rights are not 100 percent on the side of the property owner, and gyrating that to scientific racism. Especially, what the hell is scientific racism anyhow?
If I wanted to place a 300 foot cross on my property in my neighborhood, I wouldn't be allowed. If I wanted to pan for gold, I wouldn't be allowed.
What the hell are we arguing about anyhow? We seem to be more or less on the same page, except my attempt at humor upset you. Hint, I don't even think the most rabid property rights advocate would want to put an unshielded nuc reactor on his property. My training tells me that he wouldn't own the property much longer. They're kinda nasty thingies if you don't keep them in their jars.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yippee! Macrons work now. Thanks for the encoding fix, new owners!
Now if only there would be a way to render the `okina correctly, in a way that would display reliably on most browsers!
Sad but not unexpected to see posters slathering on ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the issues. The subtext of most of the messages here today is unmistakable: the nerve of these savages.
I majored in science at university. I read most of the technical books I was supposed to read. I quit religion as soon as I could get away from it. I can clearly see the progress for humanity fostered by reason, empiricism, and applied technology. But.
When I look at what has been done to this world in the previous century-and-a-half, I accept my share of responsibility for what we've done to this incredible, and only, spaceship we have. Here in the US, from the genocides to the atom-bomb to the water in Flint, it's a cornucopia of disasters. We all know the list. And yet, when someone suggests that we step away from the course we've taken, and seriously consider engaging with some traditional notions of sane, caring, thoughtful stewardship, some of us choose to stomp our feet and demand that the Luddites be pushed aside, that their ideas are laughable, that their "feelings" are just manipulation.
Gentlemen (I assert that most of you are), your exhibition of foot-stomping here today reminds me of Sagan attacking Velikovsky. Not of his apology for attempting to crush another POV without regard for its merits.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
It's all playing to hurt an indignation of white poor uneducated americans who feel left behind and carry a big grudge.
There's actually a name for it: "privileged panic." It refers specifically to people who honestly have no clue why the disenfranchised are angry, or that they even ARE disenfranchised. All they know is, they're suddenly under attack for things they've done all their lives and never thought twice about, much less been criticized for. The hue and cry is what happens when you shift a paradigm without a clutch. And as you say, it is playing to the panic - Fox news et al has a very simple model of journalism; i.e. the Jerry Springer one. They take one conservative, one liberal, and then lock them in a cage and give them knives - because clash sells. This is not the way with, say, MSNBC - or even Huffington Post compared to Breitbart.com. They are not seeking to push policy issues - or personal advancement - based on their religion being special. They're circling the wagons and barking at anything that comes close. Abuse of identity politics makes things hard for people looking for real change. You can't impose social change from the top town, no matter how hard you try - Reconstruction in general and Jim Crow in particular, for instance. You have to win hearts and minds. You have to communicate. And that's very difficult to do when the panicking privileged have become accustomed to seeing these issues wielded like just another political club.
I'm familiar with gamergate as well. a reactionary neckbeard riot
I'm a "gamergate" supporter, and a gamer. I also have a bachelor's degree from a four year university. Video games are now a 93 billion dollar global industry with development teams and budgets that rival Hollywood blockbuster movies in their scope, cost and sophistication - and are marketed much the same way. Long gone are the days when computer games were limited to two markets; kids (on consoles) and computer geeks (who were the only people really using personal computers back in the day.) "Gamer" has retained this stigmatic association well into the modern era, and the fact you feel no shame in using it to attack those you disagree with puts the lie to your earlier sneering at the " white poor uneducated americans." You feel no shame or hesitation in attacking their ethnicity, educational opportunities, socioeconomic status or even their intellect (rather ableist of you, chum,) because white males are fair game by dint of being born "privileged." This is, indeed, the beating heart of identity politics. You seek to elevate your voice above reproach - and discredit mine beyond consideration - by holding legitimacy to be intrinsic to socioeconomic status. Naturally, those that disagree with you are categorized as "reactionary neckbeards rioting," and thus, intrinsically, are stripped of legitimacy.
I am telling you all this so you will understand that not all of us "reactionary neckbeards" are stupid, nor are we uneducated. We have voices, and we vote. Think about that.
maybe they didn't want a large industrial installation on top of what the local community feels is a natural resource?
It most certainly is a natural resource - it's a really good place to build telescopes. I would understand completely if the locals were upset over 14 years of construction work going to offshore contractors rather than the locals, or something similar - or if they were lobbying for a rental tax, so the local population with a significant cultural claim to the land was receiving at least as much use of that public land as the astronomers from timbuktu were. Unfortunately, that's not how it has been characterized or argued.
A little of the money is from Stanford and UC, but most of the $1.4G comes from a consortium of foreign countries. Choose one that has a good site, and build it there.
Small correction - that's Caltech and UC.
Generally, you can do both of those things on private property. You are restricted from doing them if you bought your property without mineral rights or if you bought property where there are CC&Rs or zoning restrictions.
Scientific racism is the use of scientific and pseudo-scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority, racialism, racial superiority, or alternatively the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races (Wikipedia). Scientific racism is what caused separate-but-equal, eugenics, forced sterilization, and widespread labor discrimination against blacks. It was widely preached by progressives, and still is to this day. No, 20th century racism did not originate with "southern preachers in the 1859" and only has indirectly to do with slavery at all.
I frankly can't tell whether you're trying to be sarcastic or humorous. What I can tell is that you don't know anything about the history of racism or discrimination in the US.
13 year Hawaii resident, lacking mod points, so chiming in to say that tlambert hit the nail on the head. The sovereignty and similar aligned organizations have little political power, other than what they can exercise in the state courts.
I used to argue with sovereignty advocates (via Maui News letters to editor) that if they wanted to make some real headway, they should consider forming a party and contesting elective office like the various Puerto Rican independentistas, rather than expending all of their energies in front of judges.
But, those at the pointy end of the Hawaii movements seem to labor under the delusion that a tribunal in The Hague or D.C. can and will separate Hawaii from the remainder of the Union by the stroke of a pen, so back to court we go...
Luke, help me take this mask off
OK, thanks for this insightful reply. I had never heard the term privelaged panic. I also appreciate you adding links for more information. tell me more about your perspective on gamergate? I think my understanding is pretty spot on. based on my understanding, the whole thing started when some women were making videogames that were outside of the mainstream and blurred the lines of what a game was. Other women were making cultural commentary videos about videogame history. I never saw any attacks on gamers or direct threats to people's identity. There was an unsubstantiated attack of an inappropriate relationship that led to favorable video game media coverage, but oddly this attack was not on the journalist who supposedly did an unethical thing.
where am I wrong?
I shoudl add that I'm a gamer tool. Currently working my way through just cause 3. looking forward to uncharted.
Um, how many really tall mountains in the northern hemisphere do you think there are among those countries? Ignore any in the US because it'll probably have this same problem.
No, there are not many good sites for an instrument this size. The only other alternatives besides San Pedro Mártir would be Gran Canaria (Canary Islands) or the Tibetan Plateau.
Heh... I've kind of been following this. Just pay the damned bribe. Really. How much do they want? They are taking something of value. Pay for it. Yeah, it sucks but strip all the batshit out of it and just be pragmatic. Promise to not step on the toads, ruin the flowers, let 'em do whatever they seem inclined to say they do up there, and buy 'em off. Just strip the crazy aspects out and understand that they're gonna say it's important to them no matter what you do. Give 'em the money and make 'em go away - but make sure they sign first.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Are they saying it *was* a holy site or that it *is* a holy site? I'd read that they (unless being quoted elsewhere) were using the word "sacred" in the present tense. I've read a few articles on this and I've read them from a few sources. As near as I'm able to tell, they were only claiming that it is now, currently, considered sacred because of it's historical significance. That's a whole other argument than saying it was holy in the past.
I don't know if you'll decide that carries any more or less weight but I believe that's how it was phrased. Given the archaeological evidence of past use, it could be sacred to them now as a tie to their past? Buggered if I know if it really is, by all outward appearances, it looks like a classic shakedown. But, that might give it some more legitimacy and it's quite a bit different than the accusation you're and a few others are using. Dunno if that's significant but it's worth mentioning.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
LOL! You're a scientific racist! That's precious. They're new, you should probably break 'em in right. I was tempted to write 'em a novella on your behalf but I'm just too lazy and you can stand up for yourself.
That is, that's too cute. You scientific racist, you!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In a way, you're onto something. Why not add a casino to the observatory complex visitor center halfway up the mountain, with all revenue going to the natives?
Astronomer here, I live and work on the Big Island. You are completely wrong to assume this means the end of TMT in Hawaii, it was pretty much what was expected to happen after the state supreme court vacated the permit last December. While the new permitting process is going to take more time (months or years, nobody knows for sure), TMT seem to be taking their time deciding on their next step and are still hoping to continue as planned. I have heard nothing that would suggest otherwise. Please understand a big project like that doesn't just up and leave after having so much invested. Supporters of the TMT here (of which there are plenty) are still hoping a new, watertight permit will come out of all this. Frankly, we're more shocked by the recent news about another batch of anti-TMT protesters being acquitted because they claimed to have "prevented a greater harm from occurring". But then again, this is Hawaii, and that's how things work here.
If you have seen images of animist society (Japan for example) you would know that work-tools and religion can be related. And 2000 years from now the telescopes will probably be seen as religious buildings. Scientists are often like religious casts more concerned by status and building temples than science itself.
as for the negative consequences, maybe they didn't want a large industrial installation on top of what the local community feels is a natural resource?
No. No, that is not at all possible. That is not possible because there is already a large industrial installation on top of what the local community used to use as a natural resource, also known as a rock quarry. The local community doesn't use the site at all now; it's actually set aside specifically for building telescopes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
f I wanted to place a 300 foot cross on my property in my neighborhood, I wouldn't be allowed. If I wanted to pan for gold, I wouldn't be allowed.
Generally, you can do both of those things on private property. You are restricted from doing them if you bought your property without mineral rights or if you bought property where there are CC&Rs or zoning restrictions.
Actually, you're only half right. You're right about the panning for gold, but absolutely not about the cross. Any structure that large will surely fall afoul of some kind of restriction. You will at minimum require a permit. You can't just go off half-cocked and do it. There will be meetings, and your community will decide if you can build something that big. If someone complains there will be more meetings.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, sorry, that's not true. "Your community" has no input into whether you build 300 ft structures on your 1000 ac of private property out in unincorporated land. The only thing you have to do is to file an FAA notice, but even that isn't a "permit". In addition. objections to any structure on someone else's property traditionally can only be justified on utilitarian grounds, i.e. that they cause someone else demonstrable harm or risk in some way.
In any case, this b.s. about height and mineral rights is special pleading and straw men; what we were discussing is whether there is any basis for religious objections to what other people do on their property. The idea that "my feelings are hurt" or "it offends my religious feelings" should give you the right to interfere in the liberty of others is incompatible with American values and American legal tradition. It's even worse when those ideas are combined with racist ideas and those newly created rights are only available to members of select races ("native Hawaiians", "native Americans").
And the primary reason for objecting to such racist legal ideas is that they end up hurting the very people they are claimed to help, not that anybody else is hurt by it. It makes little practical difference to anybody else what kind of shithole activists for "native Hawaiians" turn Hawaii into, but this sort of nonsense hurts many innocent people who call that place their home regardless of their "race". This is nothing other than segregation warmed over.
No, sorry, that's not true. "Your community" has no input into whether you build 300 ft structures on your 1000 ac of private property out in unincorporated land.
HAW HAW HAW
Tell you what. Go forth and give it a shot, and see how it goes — make sure to defend it to the bitter end. You won't have to get back to us to let us know how it went, because you'll be on the news.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you didn't see any attacks on gamers, you are willingly blinding yourself to the issue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
http://imgur.com/gallery/FzbfI...
http://www.reaxxion.com/10765/...
http://sjwar.blogspot.com/2014...
It appears that this tumblr collects information about people being harassed for supporting gamergate.
http://gamergateharassment.tum...
And here is a site that explains what happened from the gamergate perspective. Since your post above is so wildly accusatory, it might be good for you to read it as it goes into quite a bit of detail about the ethics issues being brought up, and how it was the gaming journalists themselves that were talking about it being a harassment campaign when they didn't want to defend themselves for the clear ethics violations being brought up.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-h...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 1860, Lincoln secured the Republican Party presidential nomination as a moderate from a swing state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He was the first president from the Republican Party.
What is incorrect about Lincoln being a Republican?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Those who install telescopes out of view of inhabited areas generally don't throw large sums of money at politicians. Those who build cell towers near inhabitants generally do, if needed, and generally get their way. Those who wish to strip coal from the tops of mountains generally do as well, and generally get their way. See a pattern?
Tell you what: before you keep demonstrating your ignorance, I suggest you actually spend a little time in rural America.
In any case, as I was saying, whether there are height limits is irrelevant to the question of whether your neighbors should be able to prevent you from building something on your private property solely based on their religious feelings.
If you believe anybody ought to have that right, you are opposed to a modern liberal society.
I should say that the no-hassles limit is 200 ft. Above 200 ft, you need to interact with the FAA, but that is a notification requirement, not actually an approval process.
The impression I've been getting is the group opposing the telescope are more interested in being oppositional/defiant, and are using the sacred site angle to facilitate that.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
That does seem to be true. I've followed this with some keen interest and people keep pointing to the group in Arizona (anti-science) as being behind it but, from what I've read, I don't actually know if they're behind it so much as they're useful idiots and allowed to participate/help because the more noise the more notice.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No, sorry, that's not true. "Your community" has no input into whether you build 300 ft structures on your 1000 ac of private property out in unincorporated land.
HAW HAW HAW
Tell you what. Go forth and give it a shot, and see how it goes — make sure to defend it to the bitter end. You won't have to get back to us to let us know how it went, because you'll be on the news.
I think ooloorie is just here to disagree with others, and I'm certain he'll defend whatever the hell he is talking about to the bitter end.
Maybe he lives in Houston Texas, Where you might find a 1950 mobile home next to a skyscraper, but I have a number of restrictions I have to deal with. Less restrictions than many places, I can put up a radio tower, but it can't be so tall it will fall on my neighbor's house. I can't park an unregistered vehicle on the street. I can't allow my grass to grow taller than 6 inches without cutting it.
And I can't keep chickens - although they are working on allowing that.
And his scientific racism bullshit still has me scratching my head. Kinda like that uncle who comes to family functions and wants to argue with everyone even when they agree.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
LOL! You're a scientific racist! That's precious. They're new, you should probably break 'em in right. I was tempted to write 'em a novella on your behalf but I'm just too lazy and you can stand up for yourself.
That is, that's too cute. You scientific racist, you!
My gast has been flabbered! But stand by, I shall reply to the lad. I'm now dealing with the urge to be unkind, but.... Ah, to heck with it...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I dunno what it is but "scientific racist" is now associated with you in my mind and vice versa. 'Snot my fault, blame them - you evil scientific racist!
I read a few more of their comments, how could I not notice their name after that? I have decided that they were drunk. I hope so. Heh... Ol' Olsec the Scientific Racist. Chances are, ten years from now, someone will use that term of phrase and I'll recollect this very thread. That may not have been their intent but it's how it's gonna be. I'll refresh later and see if you've said anything that made 'em cry or if they double-down on the accusation. That's rich, it really is.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Scientific racism is the use of scientific and pseudo-scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority, racialism, racial superiority, or alternatively the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races (Wikipedia). Scientific racism is what caused separate-but-equal, eugenics, forced sterilization, and widespread labor discrimination against blacks. It was widely preached by progressives, and still is to this day.
And I have a lovely bunch of coconuts! Have you perhaps been indulging in the more potent forms of Kava to extrapolate that from my postings?
Even from my other posts on this subject, I've noted that even the southern poverty law center, considers the so called native Hawaiians a racist group. https://www.splcenter.org/figh...
And they are just that. I don't say they are racist because of some DNA heritage, but because they have left adequate proof of their racism. From "Kill Hao
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I think I can add to this...
I live in one of those "unincorporated" areas. In fact, I not only mention it often - I've publicly given directions to my home. It's very much in an unincorporated township with no municipality of its own.
No, I still had to file for an apply for all the various permits to build. No, I can't just construct a tower (but I own a disassembled one). No, I'm not exempt from the various regulations and that's probably for the best.
I'm pretty sure that oloorie is just an idiot.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
1) breitbart is a notorious troll right wing 'news' site. It is the Donald trump of news aggregators.
2) the article makes no sense. It says it's the media fault because a total 'blackout' of coverage led to interest and rage. Maybe they didn't think it was a story worth covering?
3) your justification doesn't explain all the Anita sarkeesian nonsense, which was clearly about a girl getting in the boys club.
I didn't look at the rest of the links, but undoubtedly there was all sorts of nastiness going around on all sides once the issue was raging. My point was that the original ignition and first blows were all done on the neck beard side.
I read your posting as sarcasm, based on the fact that the link you provide for "Kill Haole Day" basically says that it doesn't exist, and your over-the-top comparison that "Hawaiians [...] as racist as any group of KKK members".
If you say that wasn't intended as sarcasm, I'll take your word for it.
Not sure if that is true where you live. Where I live you would need a building permit. There can be several reasons why it would be denied. Depending on where you live, it could be because it does not fit in. That means it does not look enough like the rest of the buildings.Or the neigbours do not like the design.
Another reason can be that you are not allowed to build there, even though other buildings are already present. This because it is destines to be farming land or whatever. Just because you own something does not mean you can do as you wish.
There are even places where you MUST build within X time. This can change from village to village, let alone country to country, so it might or light not be the case here.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1) breitbart is a notorious troll right wing 'news' site. It is the Donald trump of news aggregators.
If you discount news sites because they have differing opinions to yours, you are intentionally blinding yourself to half the story. And no, they are not a troll site, they just aren't coopted by the left wing media hug machine.
2) the article makes no sense. It says it's the media fault because a total 'blackout' of coverage led to interest and rage. Maybe they didn't think it was a story worth covering?
No, the story says that it was the media organizations making it all about Zoe Quinn, the Gamergate issue was with the journalist, not Quinn, it was never about Quinn or her crappy game, it was about the journalist starting a relationship with her, and not disclosing the conflict of interest.
3) your justification doesn't explain all the Anita sarkeesian nonsense, which was clearly about a girl getting in the boys club.
You mean the same person who felt that doxxing was perfectly acceptable to use against people who disagreed with her? The same person who was caught red handed being the person making the threats against herself, and lying about being forced from her house? Also, the same person that says she felt her life was threatened, but yet still hasn't filed a police report because she knows the police will find she threatened herself?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The European EELT will cover the southern hemisphere. So it is logical the TMT people want to build their instrument in the northern one.
Except there are no that many sites. You need a calm and clean laminar atmosphere and a high altitude. Sites facing an ocean to the west are good because it is where the dominant winds come from. No hills or mountains there to create turbulences.
South California is in Mexico, a moderately stable country plagued by banditry and mafias. Some people have suggested Morocco for European scopes but the country isn't very secure either. The Tibetan plateau is behind mountains which generate turbulences. The Canary Islands are nice, but not as nice as Hawaii in term of altitude and dryness of air.
The only important thing to know is that "Gamergate" ceased to be about "games" very, very quickly. Some indie game developer (who happened to be female) received a glowing review of her game from a game journalist. Said journalist was accused of being her boyfriend and demonstrating favoritism. Even if it was true (and it was likely not,) it was just another tempest in a teapot - games journalists have been fired for giving bad reviews to games whom their publication were currently running expensive advertisements for, so the low standards of game journalism were hardly news to anyone. Gamers accused reviewers of being biased, reviewers accused them of being sexist basement-dwellers, the Earth revolved around the sun, etc. It would've ended there, but for what the journalists did next.
About a day after the #Gamergate hashtag was created, several game journalism media outlets published almost the same article - all of them consistent in tone, topic and message. The message was "Gamers Are Dead." The Gamergate wiki has a fairly comprehensive list of said articles, the archive links are dead, but googling the article names brings them up on their own site. The Gamasutra article is fairly typical, so I'll quote from it briefly:
‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.
Subtle, they were not. These articles basically said two things: gamers (especially the ones criticizing the journalists) were all angry white males (and this implicitly without legitimacy) and it was high time they all just fucked off and died. And they were published by multiple media outlets all around the same time. This isn't news to anyone who follows politics, of course - but for the 20-something video-game playing college students who'd never showed great interest in politics, it was a very rude shock, and a crash-course introduction to identity politics as used in the modern age. This event is what put GamerGate on the map, because it drew in a huge groundswell of support. Overnight it had went from sniping over a mostly-forgettable spat to a full-on cultural war.
Note that this isn't acknowledged by the "anti-gamergate" crowd - they still portray "gamergate" (insofar as it can be identified as a unified entity, which isn't much,) as a bunch of angry white misogynistic males who're just screaming because girls with cooties got into their clubhouse. That, alone, is a testament to the power of identity politics. By portraying her game as some sort of feminist critique, that original developer was able to decry any criticism as sexism - and in so doing, immediately tapped a much, much, much more powerful bloc of people; pundits and writers who've been involved in real politics for decades. And they wasted no time in bringing the brunt of it to bear on their opponents in a coordinated campaign to demolish their legitimacy - character assassination by the city block, you might say. This is the heart of complaints about "Social Justice Warriors"- their critics consider them people who exploit the legitimacy of worthy causes to destroy the legitimacy of anyone who opposes their views, on almost any topic.
"Gamergate" isn't clean or innocent, of course. I'm familiar with the communities from which it spawned; mostly occupied by young college students with too much time on their hands. They follow the "game industry" like others follow Hollywood gossip or the internal politics of major-league sports; i.e. as a hobby. Combine this over-investment with the air of young folk who believe they've
Some indie game developer (who happened to be female) received a glowing review of her game from a game journalist. Said journalist was accused of being her boyfriend and demonstrating favoritism.
this is an important statement for two reason. First, it's notable that if the event were true, then the person who committed the ethics violation was Nathan Grayson, the writer for kotaku. Yet Zoe Quinn caught all the rage and hate. If #gg was all about ethics in journalism, why was Zoe demonized? This says to me that the movement is not in fact about ethics.
Second notable thing: your statement is false on its face. Nathan Grayson never reviewed Depression Quest. See this kotaku statement. If this is incorrect, please provide the link to the review. So the entire rage against Zoe and the entire genesis of #gamergate is based on a false premise. A good question, how could so many people get so upset about an issue that can be demonstrably proven false with a simple Internet search? This confirms to me that the whole thing is invalid and about hate for uppity women.
Your thoughts on this?
Your thoughts on this?
My thoughts? Personally, I think the whole "Zoe Quinn" scandal was bullshit as well. Considering how much of the "evidence" came from her ex-boyfriend calling her an evil manipulative bitch (no ulterior motives there, no sir,) it just cannot be taken seriously. The most damning thing, in my opinion, is that it wouldn't be big news even if it was true. It wouldn't hold a candle to much more serious ethics problems that have been documented beyond a shadow of a doubt (like the writer fired for giving a bad review to a game who's publisher paid for expensive ads on their news site; see link in prior post.) A few writers getting doe eyes from an indie dev cannot compare to instituitonal editorial corruption. And none of it matters because it wasn't true.
"Gamergate" only became noteworthy after the remarkably shady way several gake journalism publications responded to it - but I think you raise a good point. Was the initial furor that needled thr journalists into that response born of petty sexism? As one familiar with that community, my take on it is thus: yes, but not as much as you might think.
What made the "zoe quinn conspiracy" so attractive to the bored 20-something hobbyists was that her game was more of a "disabilities awareness" interactive fiction than a game. Thus it smacked strongly of "SJW." "Social Justice Warrior," among my generation in general and among the 4chan community in particular has a more narrow connotation than most think. It refers specifically to self-righteous youth/young adults whom engage in constant mutual outrage/agreement with one another on social media for the purpose of moral self-aggrandizement. (Currently this trend is most visible and famous on tumblr.) Games promoting "social justice" themes - especially if they have little actual gameplay - are generally seen as the video game equivilent of "Emmy Bait"; movies that pander shamelessly to this or that sancified cause in order to win awards that enhance the director's reputation as Righteous. In this case the "Emmys" were the many glowing reviews the game recieved, which irked an audience already rightly distrustful.
But for all that, its hard to explain the vehemence with which the tempest was stirred in that teapot without at least some sexism. Yes, a great deal of it owes to bored 20-somethings treating rather minor matters with the gravity real adults save for national politics. They sit around and bitch about game publishers like you or I might bitch about major leauge teams. But anyone trying to tell you that young 20-something males on the internet is a demographic devoid of sexism is lying their ass off. 4chan and such is no exception. The angry lneckbeard sexists you sneered at? Oh yes, my friend - these petty little trolls exist.
And before the "Gamers are Dead" articles, that's exactly what the whole thing was - petty. A rather small number of clowns "sticking it to the biased media Man" who was backing up some "tumblr-tier hack." And many of them went about it with the same air of righteous crusaders as the "tumblrinas" they so despise. Kids sniping at kids sniping at writers so corrupt even journalists (with their own remarkably low reputation) won't deign to call real journalists.
But when it went big, it went BIG - and that's because sexism (and identity politics) are things that have been batted around by REAL adults in REAL politics for decades. And when THEY came in, "shit got real." You don't hear much about Zoe Quinn anymore, but you always hear about Anita Sarkeesian's latest tweet - because she's a femenist pundit/blogger that grown adults pay attention to. Her counterpart is Milo Yiannopoulos, the right wing pundit for Huffpo's dark mirror, breitbart.com. His original blog posts were remarkably candid: "Listen, I don't know shit about video games, but I think you're being left out in the cold."
The effects were felt very fast on 4chan. 4chan is a big damned site, and given th
what a fascinating post! you definitely know the subject very well and were clearly in on the ground floor. You're absolutely right, ethics in journalism is paramount, whether we're talking about AAA videogames or war in iraq. we rely on the free press to tell us what the world is like. This is why journalism is a "noble profession", and the history and ethics of that profession are what make it different than just being a blogger.
and I think you also make a good point that whatever organic movement was quickly co-opted by people who piled on just to make noise, on both sides, because they are professional agitators. And once this happened, the whole thing turned into a shizz show.
The only remaining question mark is you. If you feel passionately that game journalism has an ethics problem, why are you trying to make this point through the #gamergate platform? You must understand that many (I would say most?) people who would otherwise be open to your message just reject it out of hand because of all the baggage.
Surely there must be a more effective platform from which you can advocate for change.