Slashdot Mirror

It's almost as if that's not the issue at all, and female/LGBT/non-white authors are in fact regularly celebrated and embraced... when they're not being terrorized by SJW trolls. It's almost as if all that talk of "equality" and "diversity" from SJWs is provably just a smokescreen for toxic bigotry and a violent hatred of dissent.

It's not a lie in the slightest. SJWs stacked their vote to "No Award" anyone, especially women (like Toni Weisskopf) and minorities, tainted by crimethink and in the process handed out more No Awards in one year than in almost the entire history of the Hugos. These are the same people who had no issue supporting vicious trolls like RequiresHate for a long time.

Toni Weisskopf was No Awarded for being contaminated by crimethink. Meanwhile SJWs had no problem for years with supporting RequiresHate, a vicious troll who overwhelmingly targeted women and non-whites for her self-aggrandizing hate campaigns.

What's particularly interesting is how often those ideologues are some combination of rich, white, and often even male and how often their victims are none of the three.

First off the word "reactionary" doesn't mean anything the way you're using it, it's purely a scare-word. Everything is a "reaction" to something.

Second if you want to talk about diversity you're supporting the wrong people. You don't get to side with (mostly rich, white, often male) people who call women "nouse ni**ers", mail people knives, syringes, and dead animals, make credible bomb threats that force multiple evacuations, and overwhelmingly target women and minorities for outright criminal abuse and claim to be supporting "diveristy".

And when it comes to scifi you're on even worse ground considering the actions of people like RequiresHate.

It makes perfect sense. The puppies spread their votes among authors they liked while SJWs, enraged at women like Toni Weisskopf being nominated after they were tainted by crimethink, concentrated their votes on "No Award". Had someone like Benjanun "Requires Hate" been on the ballot they would have voted for her by a landslide instead.

MRAs literally had absolutely nothing to do with this, it was a reaction to the hugos becoming a cliquish groupthink approved voting slate that rewarded toxic bigots like Requires Hate while ostracizing people like Toni Weisskopf for their crimethink... or even purely because crimethinkers liked them.

Congratulations AniMojo, once again you've proven unequivocably that you don't give a flying fuck about women or equality and only use that line as a cover for siding with toxic bigots who disproportionately target women and minorities.

This goes way beyond offending people, though. This is abuse and harassment, which is not the not the same thing at all.

Anyone who has been paying even passing attention to Gamergate knows by now that in the vast, vast majority of cases, this doesn't go beyond offending people. This doesn't extend into the territory of abuse or "harassment" at all for any sane definition of these terms. Claims that it does are being used as a tool to censor and shut-down discussion around this issue. Case in point.

Since you obviously can't tell the difference, you are directly part of the problem. There is no right to make rape threats.

Case in point. A slashdotter makes a comment about the right not to be offended, and is all but called a rape supporter within 4 sentences. This is the standard, now tired tactic gamers have been exposed to for over three months now: Kafkatrapping. Refuse to agree, and you must support rape and need to "sit in a corner and think quietly before joining the rest of the online community again". Discussion terminating cliches like this would not be so serious if the main stream media hadn't engaged in a propaganda carpet-bombing of gamers and indeed wider geek communities on the internet over the last three months.

I defer to sci-fi author John C Wright's description of these tactics. "You are the boy who cries wolf"

And boys like you have cried about "misogyny" in video games for years, from accusing Super Mario of objectifying women all the way up to using absurdly unrepresentative footage to accuse gamers of being out to "derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters". When most gamers object, protest, or declare these arguments absurd, we are accused of harassment, "mansplaining", "internalized misogyny", or inevitably "supporting rape culture". This has simply kicked into overdrive in the MSM since gamers resisted the pulpit declaration that "Gamers are Dead".

And the reason is simple. Money.

What Gamergate has uncovered, more so than any other factor, is how tactics such as the parent's post are being used to censor artists, blacklist developers, and stifle creativity and competition in the games industry. Even when industry professionals know that misogyny is not a problem in gaming, these tired claims are repeated with the express intetion of shutting out competitors, even those who ostensibly support the same causes.

These tactics and other forms of cultural scarring are being used across other geek communities and only now, in the wake of gamers consumer revolt and continued resistance, do other communities finally feel safe enough to stand up to intellectual bullying of the new Internet Red Guard and the cultural revolution it has declared on geeks.

Anyone who wants to know more about the re

for being women ... for being men.

Who are you who have insight into the ultimate motivations of harassers?

I have as a basic assumption that men are no better than women, and vice versa. If there's some way of being evil that's dominated by one sex, then you can assume that is not for lack of evil in the other sex, but rather that they have some other way of living out their malice.

It's a doctrine of faith in some circles, that you should not only believe the victim, but not question the victim's interpretation of events. If she says the motive of her harassers is that she's a woman, then you're a monster for questioning that (even if the "harassers" deny that it was harassment, and assert other motivations for it.) This is obviously and blatantly abused in "social justice" circles on the internet.

Let's NOT take gamergate as an example. Let's take the Requires Hate drama instead - there you have identity feminists on both sides, both sides claiming to represent the true, unsubjugated, authentic feminism, defender of all minorities. There's this hate blogger, Requires Only that you Hate, who has a long history of "criticizing" fantasy authors, stalking them for years, saying they deserve to be raped by dogs and have acid thrown in their faces etc. She used to get away with it for a long time. Why? Because she always claimed to "kick upwards". If you're a man, you're obviously fair game. If you're a white lesbian feminist, you're fair game too. If you're an asian, you're still fair game if you are "diaspora". You're mixed race? well fuck you, appropriating scum! Don't you dare write about your minority parent's culture!

Now, she was "doxxed". Her identity (or rather, her literary pseudonym, as opposed to the blogging one) was exposed by a friend of hers - she is a well-known Thai writer - and people started assembling the pieces. It looks like she has systematically targeted competitors. Especially competitors in the niche of "writing for the oppressed". More and more people come forward with stories of whisper campaigns she's waged, open hostility, stalking for years, online community after online community that has went down in flames from her warfare. And she has been at this for almost 15 years.

How? By saying the right things, with unshakeable conviction. By using the social justice people's own rule about "tone policing" - that you're not allowed to protest against the ways an "oppressed person" lashes out at her "oppressors". For over a decade she's played them like a fiddle, for personal gain and personal satisfaction. The social justice people's beliefs have a hole in them wide enough that a psychopath can drive right through it with a truck and set up shop. The "cheap moral glow" of siding with someone righteously proclaiming their oppression, was a tool she used to build an army that could make a talk radio host green with envy, to sic on people who fell afoul of her or competed with her.

I've said "her" throughout. But technically, we don't even know that. So even for the purpose of protecting/advancing minority women, the SJ crowd's own principles fail disastrously. There's no reason to think Requires Hate even believed in the rhetoric she was spouting.

Now, I said let's not use Gamergate as an example. But let's, now. Most of anti-gamergate missed one rather important thing: the initial post was a callout of a similar nature.

The ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn had story to tell about infidelity, emotional abuse and cynical career promotion - he told it because he had come to the same conclusion that the social justice folks in SF/Fantasy now believe about Requires Hate - she may not even believe those things, she certainly uses them with extreme cynicism for selfish ends.

And is he right about that? Judge for yourself