Quote from: Shipyard Locked;792243Forgetting the GGers themselves for a minute, consider this. Thanks to this mess we will not be able to discuss ethics in gaming journalism or overreaching social justice advocates for a while without someone conveniently tarring the critics as part of a "hate group" with a hidden agenda, even if they don't use the gamergate label on themselves. It's just too good a tool to pass up.

This doesn't strike you as somewhat worrisome?

SJWs are a hate group. And they engage in a lot of 'projection'.

Quote from: Will;792288(Though feel free to point out the rash of pro-feminist killers, if I missed them)

Jared Loughner was left-wing, but AFAIK his politics weren't the main reason for shooting Gabrielle Giffords. The Leftist assassin who murdered Pim Fortuyn in Holland would have been pro-feminist, but shot Fortuyn for his anti-Muslim-immigration stance.

In general there are not shootings motivated specifically by being pro or anti feminist, compared to eg immigration or abortion it's typically not a shooting issue. Someone who shoots abortionists may be anti-feminist but they don't shoot abortionists for being feminists, they shoot them for being abortionists. Likewise I don't think pro-feminists have shot anyone for being anti-feminist.

One common feature of nearly all shooters, including pro-feminist shooters, is that they are male. And lone shooters are usually mentally disturbed, possibly made worse by drugs, including steroids.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;792335To claim that someone has made a death threat is to make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken as valid; such evidence must be independently verifiable in order for the standard of fallibility to be met. Not one death threat claim made to date achieves this goal, including the present one. Instead, we see theater made to manipulate the emotions of observers into mindless support of the drama-makers. That, folks, is fraud.

I would say that if someone has a history of lying, there is a good chance they are lying. OTOH it doesn't take much to make an anonymous death threat on the Internet with no intention of carrying it out.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;792337There were Democrats who tweeted death threats about George W. Bush. Does this make every single Democrat an asshole? Is every single Republican an asshole because of the idiotic things Republicans says on Twitter about Obama?

There have been death threats directed at Michael Bay because he makes shitty movies. Does this mean everyone who thinks Michael Bay makes shitty movies is part of an "anti-Michael Bay hate group"?

Of course it fucking doesn't.

Agreed - you only share responsibility if you endorse the behaviour.

I don't know about Sarkessian, but I give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to threats. Though, it goes without saying, that she is opportunistic in taking advantage of them when she chooses to highlight them while almost completely ignoring well reasoned critiques of her ideas.

I also know that she completely distorts her examples in order to support her point. I don't know if she is sincere in that she actually has a distorted view, or if she is machiavellian enough to  distorting things on purpose.

Quote from: Teazia;791902I think Bart Simpson may have been correct, Gen Xers needed a Vietnam to even them out and perhaps the Millennials need something a bit stronger.  Its a pity neither of them have gotten either to date.

;p

Gen Xers? We're all grown up and in our 30s and 40s man. This is a Gen Yer's thing.

Quote from: apparition13;792274And the idea that this is okay is part of the pernicious erosion of peoples' support of the right to free speech.

Not liking it doesn't make it less true. If it wasn't website administrators would have to deal with legal rigamarole in ejecting serious problem users. Run a couple sites a while and you will understand full well why people sit on that issue for a while. There are some true blue lunatics out there.

QuoteWhich is awesome, if there is public property. Where is the public property on the internet?

You can get decent hosting for five bucks a month, less if you're willing to learn a few things. Most hosts could care less unless they get threatened with legal action. HTML basics can be picked up in a few minutes.

If Timecube guy can, so can you.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310...There is no free speech on the internet as we know it. It's a brave new world where what you say can be remixed to mean anything anybody wants, and bad faith assumptions are the rule of the day. Hell, people don't even worry about being anonymous before they say terrible things anymore, because they figured out there's no repercussions for the harm they cause.

...FUCK!

Pretty much, unless you're running your own hosting company or fuck, internet provider, you're at the mercy of somebody saying you can(or perhaps more correctly not saying you can't). Run through this issue a handful of times. Look at any of the attempts to get porn banned on the internet, between laughing bouts you might learn something about skimming free speech out of the system.

Quote from: Will;792277I don't think any group is intrinsically immune.

There are certain phrases and views which often herald bullshit arguments, though. One is 'both sides!'

When one 'side' has hateful invective from a few folks, and the other side has pervasive social power, loads of hateful speech, and mass killers eager to do it's bidding, the argument of 'both sides do it!' comes across as a bullshit ploy.

There can be legitimate commentary. But when it overwhelmingly isn't, one is inclined to look for extraordinary evidence that THIS TIME it's not going to turn to vile crap.

Funny thing is, I completely agree with you here. I'm fairly sure I'm doing so from a position which is the polar opposite of your own, but I do agree with the idea expressed.

Quote from: Will;792288Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

In addition to the person who mentioned Valerie Solanis up-thread, it bears stating that Elliot Rodger never once self-identified as an MRA. That's a bold-faced lie from the keyboards of feminists and SJWs. The closest he came to having even a tangential connection to the MRM was having an account on an anti-PUA forum.

For the record? PUAs have nothing to do with the MRM either. The imagined association between them is yet another lie from the keyboards of feminists and SJWs. In fact, PUAs and MRAs generally dislike each other; most PUAs see MRAs as beta losers whining about not getting laid while most MRAs see PUAs as social nihilists who've decided nothing can be done about everything going to Hell so they may as well enjoy the ride.

James Desborough seems to have had a meltdown, and there is some worry he may harm himself.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GRIMACHU/status/522851034147094528

If anyone has a means of reaching him, or friends and family that can check in on him ease do so. I don't know him personally, but I'm posting here in case someone does.

Well, I will admit that 'crazed killers' is a cheap shot anyway, and the weakest point of my argument.

Because crazed killers are, well, crazy, and while I think certain mindsets might appeal to them more than others, that is the faintest of damning, because they are PRIMARILY motivated by being crazy motherfuckers.

(It's been noted repeatedly that mass killers show almost no common characteristics, beyond the typical 'most violent criminals tend to be men.')


A stronger argument would be to point out that, on the smaller scale, misogyny causes a huge amount more day to day suffering than feminism.

But, again, as folks have suggested in various ways, Gamergate and most of those involved in it (on any 'side') is ultimately mostly about slacktivist online posturing and nothing real. At least until doxxing ends up with someone out of a job, raped, or murdered.


While I am sympathetic to a lot of their philosophy and aims, I will agree that SJWs are largely engaged in slacktivism writ large.

I know a lot of folks spectating this and feeling deeply involved who really really really need to unplug for a week.

Quote from: Novastar;792338I'll back that up a little, though.
Anita's death threats have been investigated by the FBI.
At Utah, the University statement does say they talked with local and federal Law Enforcement.

I can't speak for Zoe or Brianna (though Brianna says she did file a report with Boston PD, which should be easily verifiable), but I do think legitimate death threats have been issued against Anita.

And death threats are one of those things you really don't want to be wrong about...

Anita says that they've been investigated by the FBI; I have yet to see an independent statement confirming that. The University's statement does confirm that Anita presented them with the anonymous email threatening a shooting spree; it does not confirm that it is substantial- and law enforcement's reaction indicates that it was not. Again- no arrests, no independent confirmation of inquiries, nothing but the say-so of the claimants. I am disinclined to give them any further benefit of the doubt.

QuoteThat's one of the parts I don't get; anti-GG brings up anons and trash accounts, and accuses us of bad behavior off them; I show you bad behavior from mainstream people, supposedly professional journalists, and they get a free ride? WTF???

And this is one of the reasons why. Savvy folks who've paid attention know that "anonymous" isn't, for the most part, a thing in reality; if it is wanted, your identity can be traced and confirmed well enough to hold up in court. What you have to do to acquire and maintain sufficient anonymity is such a bother for most people that they don't do it- and that includes most folks at the *chans and so on.

Hell, the anti-GG reaction is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

• Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
• Never go outside the experience of your people.
• Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
• Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
• Ridicule is Man's most potent weapon.
• A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
• A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.
• Keep the pressure on.
• The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
• The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.
• If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
• The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
• Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You can see this all through the anti-GG side of things from the get-go, and that they are failing (and they are; one of the signs is the continued insistence of success) is in part due to the pro-side having some semblance of tactical sense and sussing out what's being done and countering it.

However, the real strength--as this pushes beyond gaming and into the wider cultural warfare, starting with a push to aid atheists resisting this sort of shit in their sphere--will be on the consistent stand to demand verifiable evidence or Get The Fuck Out (i.e. to cease paying any heed to individuals or institutions making such claims if they can't be bothered to allow for them to be falsified). The purpose is to allow for onlookers to review the evidence and confirm on their own what is claimed, de-politicizing the process in the long run and restoring confidence that folks doing this aren't working a con- and that is the big issue, that the anti-GG crowd are covering for a big, long con.

Quote from: Will;792444A stronger argument would be to point out that, on the smaller scale, misogyny causes a huge amount more day to day suffering than feminism.

But, again, as folks have suggested in various ways, Gamergate and most of those involved in it (on any 'side') is ultimately mostly about slacktivist online posturing and nothing real. At least until doxxing ends up with someone out of a job, raped, or murdered.

While I am sympathetic to a lot of their philosophy and aims, I will agree that SJWs are largely engaged in slacktivism writ large.

I know a lot of folks spectating this and feeling deeply involved who really really really need to unplug for a week.

I can agree with all of this.

Quote from: wmarshal;792443James Desborough seems to have had a meltdown, and there is some worry he may harm himself.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GRIMACHU/status/522851034147094528

If anyone has a means of reaching him, or friends and family that can check in on him ease do so. I don't know him personally, but I'm posting here in case someone does.

It seems like his wife has found him. He seems to be safe.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Kostika/status/522868985550086144

Quote from: Will;792444A stronger argument would be to point out that, on the smaller scale, misogyny causes a huge amount more day to day suffering than feminism.

Globally? Probably. In Sweden? I doubt it (though the Muslim rape gangs in Malmo may be misogynist, but I think their main motivation is racist). In the USA? Hmm - looks about a toss up to me. The US does have a lot of misogyny. OTOH, a lot of that misogyny is a reaction to feminism. OTOH, the radical feminism may be partly a reaction to the misogyny, which would make it completely circular... two bad things, each feeding on the other.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;792450Hell, the anti-GG reaction is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

• Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
• Never go outside the experience of your people.
• Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
• Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
• Ridicule is Man's most potent weapon.
• A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
• A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.
• Keep the pressure on.
• The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
• The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.
• If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
• The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
• Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You can see this all through the anti-GG side of things from the get-go, and that they are failing (and they are; one of the signs is the continued insistence of success) is in part due to the pro-side having some semblance of tactical sense and sussing out what's being done and countering it.

Well, Alinsky developed his system for use against bureaucracies, it works against magazines and games corporations, but it's not really designed to work against a group as diffuse as 'gamers', who are more akin to a general population. I think that is the problem they (the SJWs) are having. If they could control all avenues of communication they would be ok, and they made a strong attempt at that, but the Internet of course was designed to root around 'damage' (originally nuclear strikes!) - individual sites can be taken out, but silencing communication is nearly impossible unless they can jail everyone who expresses an unapproved opinion.