Slashdot Mirror
Why the Trolls Will Always Win
It turned out that a man named Andrew Auernheimer was responsible for having harassed Sierra. Known as 'Weev', he admitted it in a 2008 New York Times story on Internet Trolls. There, he spoke to the lengths which he and his cohorts went to discredit and destroy the woman. "Over a candlelit dinner of tuna sashimi, Weev asked if I would attribute his comments to Memphis Two, the handle he used to troll Kathy Sierra, a blogger. Inspired by her touchy response to online commenters, Weev said he "dropped docs" on Sierra, posting a fabricated narrative of her career alongside her real Social Security number and address. This was part of a larger trolling campaign against Sierra, one that culminated in death threats."
Now, seven years later, Kathy Sierra has returned to explain why she left and what recent spates of online harassment against women portend for the future if decent people don't organize. The situation has grown much more serious since she went into hiding all those years ago. It's more than just the threat of Doxxing to incite physical violence by random crazies with a screw loose. Read on for the rest of maynard's thoughts. These days, malicious trolls have taken to SWATting, where harassers call police and make false accusations to induce a SWAT raid. One prominent example is that of game developer Chris Kootra, who experienced a SWAT raid on camera while playing an online video game recently. There is also the troubling trend of developing malicious software intended to harm victims directly. For example, posting images on epilepsy forums which flicker at rates known to induce epileptic seizure. Given that Sierra is epileptic herself, this kind of harmful trolling hits home personally. She writes:
[While not photo-sensitive], I have a deep understanding of the horror of seizures, and the dramatically increased chance of death and brain damage many of us with epilepsy live with, in my case, since the age of 4. FYI, deaths related to epilepsy in the US are roughly equal with deaths from breast cancer. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that if the troll hackers could find a way to increase your risk of breast cancer? They'd do it. Because what's better than lulz? Lulz with BOOBS. Yeah, they'd do it.
And yet Auernheimer, the man who put her through all this horror, has for entirely different reasons become a kind of 'Net cause célèbre for Internet freedom. After having committed a hack against AT&T where he obtained the email addresses of thousands of iPad users, he attracted the attention of federal authorities. In due course he was convicted and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for identity fraud and conspiracy to access a computer without authorization. Many thought his conviction and sentence egregious. Weev attracted support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and prominent Georgia University Law Professor Tor Ekeland, and they worked together to craft an appeal and overturn the conviction. In April 2014, they succeeded. Auernheimer is now free.
Ekeland wasn't the only one bothered by the government's case. Even Kathy Sierra disagreed. Yet she's appalled that somehow she'd been dragged into supporting the very man who'd abused her.
But you all know what happened next. Something something something horrifically unfair government case against him and just like that, he becomes tech's "hacktivist hero." He now had A Platform not just in the hacker/troll world but in the broader tech community I was part of. ... But hard as I tried to find a ray of hope that the case against him was, somehow, justified and that he deserved, somehow, to be in prison for this, oh god I could not find it. I could not escape my own realization that the cast against him was wrong. So wrong. And not just wrong, but wrong in a way that puts us all at risk.
The lawyer Ekeland, in recent commentary at Wired, continues to defend Auernheimer as having been wronged by an overzealous prosecution, the precedent of which could have significant ramifications for 'Net freedom. "...the crucial issue here is not weev or his ideas but the future of criminal computer law in the U.S. You may think weev is an #@$hole. But being an #@$hole is not a crime, and neither is obtaining unsecured information from publicly facing servers."
Which leaves Sierra lamenting that Auernheimer still hasn't been charged and convicted for what she considers the real crime of harassment he'd committed, harming her and countless others. Where's the justice? Inciting violence and dissemination of "fighting words" are not free speech. Yet, as she admits, unless you're a celebrity, you're "...more likely to win the lottery than get any law enforcement agency to take action." So there is none. "We are on our own," she laments. "And if we don't take care of one another, nobody else will."
Thus, Sierra returned to push back — to push back against prominent journalists and members in the tech community who'd conflate prosecutorial violations of due process with the right to disseminate harassment and cruelty.
I came back because I believe this sent a terrible, devastating message about what was acceptable. ... To push back on the twist and spin. I believed the fine-grained distinctions mattered. I pushed back because I believed I was pushing back on the implicit message that women would be punished for speaking out. I pushed back because almost nobody else was, and it seemed like so many people in tech were basically OK with that.
Auernheimer, for his part, remains unapologetic. Responding to Sierra on Livejournal, he writes:
Yesterday Kathy Sierra (a.k.a. seriouspony), a mentally ill woman, continued to accuse me on her blog of leading some sort of harassment campaign against her by dropping her dox (information related to identify and location) on the Internet. ... Kathy Sierra has for years acted like a toddler, throwing tantrums and making demands whenever things didn't go her way. She rejects any presentation of polite criticism or presentation of evidence as some sort of assault on her. She was the blueprint for women like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, who also feign victimhood for financial and social gain. Kathy Sierra is the epitome of what is wrong with my community. She had something coming to her and by the standards set by her own peers in the social justice community, there was nothing wrong with what she got.
Some people never change.
Time for a Second amendment solution.
Best Slashdot Co
It's about anonymous online sexual harassment, particularly when it's done by packs playing the part of street gangs.
Trolling is like ranting about systemd in response to every single /. article.
Don't try to play the sex card, that guy is an asshole. Do you think the reactions 'round here would be different if it had been a woman harassing a guy?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I really wish we could just drop the sexism part of this right now. Both genders get attacked by these people.
The second issue is if you want Anonymity than you will have this issue a lot.
Third is the simple fact that it is just a small number of folks causing the issue. The trouble is that it does not take a lot of folks to cause a good amount of harm.
The issue is that some people make heroes out of the idiots that do this when they do it to someone they do not agree with or like.
It really needs to be a time where all attacks are looked down on and discussion takes it place.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
He's a dick. On his nice days.
More bullshit from the "people regularly threatening women in public is no big deal" crowd.
Nobody said women are "always victims" but you shits have absolutely nothing to attack unless you can craft fake arguments to dismantle. You're trapped in a room with straw walls closing in, and only you can dismantle, their evil insidious not wanting to tolerate misogynistic assholes in public spaces.
People are bigots to other groups too, and feminists, by and large are quite reasonable in their acknowledgement of that.
Who's not being oppressed? People who are being told that maybe they can't threaten the lives of women freely. Those people are meeting the boundaries known as "the law" and "common decency" and feeling just so oppressed by it.
The problem is not feminists or anti-feminists.
The problem is sociopaths, and sociopaths come in all genders and races.
Sociopaths are very good at mobilizing well-intentioned humans for their own purposes.
Humans tend to conform to the desires of sociopaths instead of confront them, because natural selection did not historically favor humans who opposed sociopaths.
But acting upon it is.
Nobody really cares if you know a fool proof way to kill the prez (well, aside of some professional paranoiacs). As long as you don't act upon it, you're fine. If you DO, though, don't expect to remain free (or, for that matter, alive) for any measurable stretch of time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
For some reason, it's culturally acceptable for men to learn how to defend themselves from sociopaths (who, like all predators prefer soft targets to hard targets).
However if anyone ever tries to talk about teaching women any kind of self defense, the accusations of "victim blaming" start up immediately.
Which is exactly what you'd expect sociopaths to instigate. Of course they'd oppose any effort to turn soft targets into hard targets.
I think you're minimizing things just a bit, aren't you? While trolls may not focus specifically on women (my opinion, is that they do), women certainly face much more intense and prolonged harassment in the form of campaigns. How many men have had death/rape threats against them AND their families AND have been forced to move AND taken a 7-year hiatus?
In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win. This has been true since democracy started - "politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"
We see this in our current political system as well - wingnuts running the show in both parties because reasonable people won't speak up.
Time and again I've seen this on forums I've been on that have been unmoderated, such as the OkCupid forums. After awhile, only the rudest and the crudest remain there along with those willing to tolerate them.
Yes and no.
Sociopaths are a problem, but we're also facing people who think there shouldn't be consequences for how they attack others. That's not a symptom of anti-social personality disorders(they tend to know that what they do is condemned and lack the self control to stop themselves). That's strictly a matter of people who specifically think what they're doing is acceptable. Which suggests, as lots of people have said with various evidential justifications, that culture is part of the problem.
Anti-feminists, on the other hand, are only a problem in that they will cry "false flag" at literally every situation that implicates a culture hostile to prominent women, turning every discussion about solutions into long drawn-out dismantlings of their conspiracy theories.
Here is the short paper by Jospeh Reagle "Free as in sexist. Free Culture and the Gender Gap" :
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4291/3381
mirror:
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4291/3381#author
Very interesting.
That isn't true though. Men work very hard for what respect they get. They take a lot of abuse and say nothing when it comes. We take the hard work and the shit people throw in our faces for granted.
We call that tuesday. Then we go to bed, get up the next day, and go through it all over again.
This notion that women are disrespected or given lower pay is based on statistics.
And if you know anything about statistics, then you should know that how they are handled allows you to make the stats say whatever you want. Especially if the numbers aren't that far off one way or the other.
In the case of female compensation, they never account for women that had children versus women that did have them. The difference is that women that have them tend to take time off work or do part time work or intentionally take easier jobs so they put less stress on the home life. The result is that over their lives they tend to make less money because of these choices.
The men they're compared against do none of these things.
If you instead take the same data and filter out all the women that had children and compare them to men, you'll find they make the same or more then their male peers.
This whole thing is another product of idiots that don't know how to read statistics.
Pass a law right now making it illegal for people that do not understand statistics to either read or quote statistics. I am that annoyed by how many issues are fucked up by fools quoting stats that they don't understand.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
In the fact that it specifically threatens them with bodily harm?
Oh.
"Where is the threat in words on a screen?"
You are a dumb fuck.
And, apologies for replying to myself, this actually is WAY closer to "News for Nerds" than a lot that has been posted lately. It's about someone teaching a programming language getting trolled on the internet, how detailed the trolling was and how she dealt with it, as well as the legal repercussions of the trolling. How much more "News for Nerds" does it get?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think he's referring to the following:
"I came back because I believe this sent a terrible, devastating message about what was acceptable. ... To push back on the twist and spin. I believed the fine-grained distinctions mattered. I pushed back because I believed I was pushing back on the implicit message that women would be punished for speaking out."
I wouldn't be surprised if some of his "trolling" was gender based, but I don't know why she has to make some sort of connection between internet trolling and gender. Exactly as you said, had this been a guy it would have been exactly the same - up until the comment quoted above.
There is a convenience store near where I live where one of the cashiers is for lack of better words an asshole. A girl I know at work attributed that to racism. I think a lot of times if you consider yourself in some minority or group, and you meet an ass, you often jump to conclusions about bigotry etc.
Auernheimer is one of the reasons we nice people can not have nice things. The worse problem is his supporters supporting his underhanded crusade against anyone he doesn't like. He is a threat to the safety of his targets to the extent that it most people would be imprisoned for decades for doing what he did. The message our justice system say to would be Auernheimers is "don't screw with the businesses and don't get caught threatening and underhandedly attack people" meaning doing what he did to Kathy Sierra is OK as long as you do it in a way that law enforcement won't care about it.
You take basic precautions and do your best to avoid being a target. As to who is more or less likely to be a target? Anyone being obnoxious tends to get some focus.
I disagree. If a small group of trolls are being trolls, and you "do your best to avoid being a target", they've won. A small group of trolls have had a chilling effect. We need to do more to uncover and punish that kind of behaviour. And, was Kathy being obnoxious when she was targetted? I don't see any evidence of that, and even if she was, I don't care. That's no excuse for death and rape threats.
The thing that astonished me most about trolling is, there was a case over here (UK) where someone was targetted with rape threats for organizing a campaign to get a woman onto our banknotes, and one of the trolls sent to jail for it was a woman. Which tells me it's nothing to do with sexism, and all about personal power. Sexual threats are just a tool in the box.
I truly don't understand this. When I was a young awkward geek with very specific interests, I would have absolutely LOVED there to be women around with those same interests. Us guys totally loved the few geeky girls that were around and always wished there were more.
Yet today we see guys trying to scare the women away. What the hell changed?
Some people just like to see others suffer. It's a shame that his punishment was overturned. Freedom is not infinite, in the real world we don't have the freedom to cut each other with knives, why would we need that freedom on the internet?
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
This isn't about women, or trolling, or "culture". Andrew Auernheimer is a fucking sociopath loser who has no concept of what it means to live in a society of decent human beings. that he thinks he is "fighting the rich" or "part of the struggle" is fucking meaningless. It's just the stuff he tells himself to try to give some meaning to his pathetic, pissant little life where no one gives a fuck about him or who he is.
I think that the reasonable people do speak up. The trouble is that the press doesn't cover their input to the discussions. We end up only hearing from the extremist crazies because that's what the press thinks will attack more ears and eyeballs and sell more advertising.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
First, shooting the guy is _not_ a solution. The problem is not him, but what conditions allowed a vermin like him to arise. You solve the general problem, then instances won't come up again. Well, sickos will always exist, but then they will be just a bunch -- much easier to handle. The way things are now, there are loads of trolls. And that is what we must end.
Second, next time I hear someone talk about spying is OK because he who does nothing wrong has nothing to fear, I guess I'll nominate the guy for the igNobel prize. Privacy is necessary exactly because of these trolls. Stop defending illegal actions from authorities: that is a crime, too.
Third, it's not about gender, it's not about that particular woman. Some people wield a post like a little piece of power and dream about destroying things. Great minds build, small minds destroy -- because that's what they can do at most. Evil has a way to make great guys frustrated with trolls... and that might turn some themselves into trolls, too. Let's not fall for that dumb trap.
Fourth, even troll judgment must take time to allow reflection. Remember last time when that Boston bombing occurred? IIRC, someone killed the wrong guy out of haste. It's not fun when they say you look like someone bad and decide you're better off this world. When you got 7 billion people, there's a good chance that someone looks just like you...
Fifth, trolls do not win. Winning should be reserved for great accomplishments, not foul play. Imagine a basketball game with a final score of 6 to 4 (they usually end in the hundreds range IIRC). This is not winning. There has been some badly thought out responses like /. automatic moderation; it doesn't work. But that doesn't mean there isn't a solution. This problem is akin to rescue a broken neighborhood: it's hard to do, but not unfeasible. We need expert help to exterminate weeds.
Trolls of this nature are unusual and they don't just target women. They target everyone.
In a pinch, yes a troll will go after your default WASP male. I once saw a troll reduced to attacking someone for being Canadian. (!)
However, what they target is a perceived weakness. If they find out you've posted in nudist or drug forums, they'll go after that. But if you are a woman or a minority, they don't even have to do research to find your weak points. They can paint you as driven by your sexual urges and/or overly sensitive and emotional, and a large amount of the audience will be receptive to that message because that is the preexisting prejudice for those groups. So if you are female or a minority (or God help you, both) you will always be their first target of choice.
Agree. Guilt by association is not the solution, it's just another way to victimize other innocent people. Neither is victim-worship, or the idea that victims of alledged harassment should have power over others and be immune from criticism of their actions.
Because to be beaten by a woman would utterly destroy them.
If they can scare the women away, they can preserve their illusion of superiority (in a mythical competition in a mythical world).
There are more gamers in the world now, and with the Internet we're all far more connected than we used to be.
There are a lot of sociopaths and other unpleasant, selfish people in the world. Some of them play games.
You do the math.
But she was making the hobby of video games look bad, she deserved it!
That may sound insane but it's what I've learned from reading Slashdot.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win. This has been true since democracy started - "politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"
Not quite... Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens")
Rich or not, you always end up dying...
"What is the threat with squiggles on a piece of paper?"
"What is the threat of vibrations in the air?"
"What is the threat of someone pointing a metal tube in your direction?"
I hate to be rude, but that line of logic sounds quite sociopathic, and a good line of reasoning for offending someone and justifying the actions.
Precisely. Women tend to call for help or say comments hurt their feelings or otherwise give the EXACT reaction the trolls want.
They do the same thing to most men and... no reaction.
This is what is causing the focus on women. Not that the trolls are against women though I'm sure some are... but that the women often do not know how to deal with bullies.
Men are taught how to deal with bullies from a very young age. You toughen up or you're a weakling. The boys will literally call you "a girl" if you complain.
To not be "a girl" boys must hide their feelings and laugh off abuse. And then at some later date... taking some revenge is generally considered par for the course.
Women need to understand that they can't rely on men or society to come to their aid on the internet. They're going to have to take care of themselves and toughen up a bit. Crying foul just causes a troll feeding frenzy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
For some reason, it's culturally acceptable for men to learn how to defend themselves from sociopaths (who, like all predators prefer soft targets to hard targets).
This has nothing to do with self-defence. Believe me, no respectable troll will ever attack you in any manner that you can fairly fight back. I got the full package once. Personal details published, implied threats to my family (nothing over the line to prosecutable of course), calling up my company and my company's customers in an attempt to get me fired, etc. Until you've had one come after you, you really have no idea.
No, children, the trolls were not here first. Some of us remember that human beings inhabited the Internet before the Eternal September.
I actually think 4chan is kind of an interesting study in this behaviour.
When you exclude external activities, and look at discussions within 4chan, it can be surprisingly level. When you give everyone anonymity and let them be the biggest assholes they can be, you end up with a culture that shows little reaction to horrible social behaviour, making horrible social behaviour boring. It makes for an interesting forum for discussion.
Kathy Sierra did no such thing. Making shit up just makes you exactly the like the OP I was chastizing for needing a straw-argument to dismantle, all the while feeling SOOOO oppressed.
As for the 1 in 5 women thing... well
The CDC just recently verified that number that MRA types have been insisting is biased. Every study comes up with markedly similar results about that.
Politics comes from politeia, which comes from polis (city) and a suffix meaning person. It has nothing to do with shouting down.
This is not a problem exclusive to women.
As a man you can also get your life disrupted by death threats, unordered pizzas/taxis/products and doxxing.
It's probably easier to get singled out for it as a women, but if you are subject to it as a man you'll get much less support to cope with it. This is reflected in the offline world too as a MUCH higher suicide rate for men compared to women. Trying to construct this as some purely misgyonistic issue is just reinforcing the gender bias of men as some disposable soldier caste and is likely to aggrevate misgyonistic tendencies overall in society.
If you insist that this is just about females then you're a proponent for gender privlege and not equality.
Really? Then burn a Koran on national TV right now...
Oh wait... then the extremist muslims have won. Because you are so concerned about getting beheaded by some crazy person that you wouldn't dare burn a silly book.
Same thing on the internet. And I am not comparing the internet trolls to people that cut people's heads off. However, you don't go out of your way to draw their attention if you can help it.
Why? Because life is too short and it is a giant waste of time to deal with those people. I don't fear trolls. I fear trolls wasting my time. So I avoid them because they turn everything they touch to shit.
That realization on my part does not mean they won. It means they're something that has to be avoided.
As to a chilling effect... there is nothing the trolls prevent me from saying. It is all about how you say things and where you say them. Take any dumb position you like and it won't automatically get a response from the trolls. Take any position that is delivered in an irritating fashion and the trolls tend to respond.
Is this a hard and fast rule? Nope... just what I've noticed.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Worse, you seem to think that collusion between game journalists and game manufacturers is someone: 1) Being denied 2) Important
Let me set the record for you. Reviewers LIE about games. They get paid to do it. Not with sex, but with actual hard cash.
No sane person really cares about it. Game journalists are not important. I am GLAD they are corrupt We need insignificant jobs for corrupt people to take. If we kick the corrupt people out of game review, they might get into something important, like health inspection, real estate inspection, politics, etc.
What's going on is simple. Someone found out that the cake is a lie, so they broke into a cake store and started stealing cake and throwing it at people. Then they get all puzzled about why the cops are arresting them instead of the man that promised them cake.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
She has a point around the Tech community. Maybe the whole reason the Tech community is so masculine is because of the treatment women receive when they enter it. I've seen time and time again women (of different sizes shapes and looks) from other departments walk through IT and get either pervy looks or guys who are too shy to answer their queries.
I'm glad to be a guy, but I feel for them...
Kathy Sierra has written several books that were very helpful when taking java exams. She has the ability to clearly explain things that not many people have mastered. She also created the javaranch.com site which is a great place to look when you have questions about java. I appreciate her contributions to the community and wish there were more people like her.
Let me stop and mention here that last week weev caused a storm when he wrote a racist screed for a white supremacist website. As usual I found out about it when my twitter timeline lit up with exhortations to do something about my client, the unpopular defendant. To me his bigoted viewpoint is just noise; the crucial issue here is not weev or his ideas but the future of criminal computer law in the U.S. You may think weev is an asshole. But being an asshole is not a crime, and neither is obtaining unsecured information from publicly facing servers.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Derpy do. You didn't threaten me. Everyone knows what "fuck you" means. The article on the other hand, mentions people photoshopping a woman's face with bruises and abrasions with the caption "Women are like grass, they need to be beaten and cut sometimes" after she voiced an objection to some torture porn.
That's a fairly targeted and overt threat.
Words on a screen with her address, social security number, and a made up story designed to manipulate the public into wanting to do something to her? I can imagine a campaign like that being rather frightening.
I love how you conflate disregarding constant, unsubstantiated claims of false flags with believing they can't exist. It shows just how deep in your own conspiracies you've gotten.
In the context of the Internet, the word "troll" used to mean, (according to Wikipedia):
"...a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
The campaign that Kathy Sierra was a victim of goes far, far beyond this. How does it make sense that one word is used to describe such a wide range of behaviour? It's like calling a violent rapist a 'cad'. Trolls, (in the original sense of the word), are assholes. Auernheimer and his associates exhibited obsessive, psychopathic, downright evil behaviour and attitudes. We should never equate mere assholes and psychopaths - doing so trivializes destructive psychopathic behaviour while making assholery seem much worse than it really is. And the latter is perhaps more dangerous; it gives authorities one more excuse for implementing draconian laws in response to minor social infractions.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Why the hell is Weev such a dick?
Really? Why? It's so beyond pointless.
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Gamergate was all about mysoginy. As has been pointed out, hitching up with the gamergate guys in order to complain about journalist corruption is a bit like marching with the armies of Sauron because you don't like the feudal inheritance of title at Minas Tirith.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-...
Gamergate is ans always was primarily abiut mysoginy and harassmet. Anything else has been a poor attempt to legitimise it afterwards.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"
Bullshit. The word "politic" is derived from "polis", the Greek word for "city". So "politics" is the art of running a city (or city-state, as most cities were back then), not the art of shouting your opponent down...
Spot On.
It's about corruption in gaming journalism and game journalists constantly slagging off their own readers.
The same technique is used by Marc Morano to silence climate scientists:
Whether one agrees with that message or not, there’s no denying that its tone is drastically different from much of the email Hayhoe has been receiving after Limbaugh’s denunciation, Gingrich’s decision to kill her book chapter, and the repeated publication of her email address by an influential conservative blogger who ceaselessly campaigns against climate science and climate action, Mark Morano. - http://texasclimatenews.org/wp...
Morano has sicked his minions on her for the crime of publicly discussing her scientific findings. Here is an example of the vitriol she is now receiving: Nazi Bitch Whore Climatebecile [] You stupid bitch, You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Reality TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania. AGW has never been anything but a Rockefeller depopulationary eugenical scam. [] After the Grand Jury indicts you, I would like to see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if they are going to take a man’s job, they have to take the heat for mass murder, just like the men do when they get caught. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead, when they see your baby crying next to the basket next to the guillotine.
They'll go after anyone. Yes they are drawn to weakness. But being a woman isn't a weakness unless women are inferior to men.
I don't believe women are inferior to men. So I don't see why being a women is a weakness especially on the internet where strength is irrelevant.
Why would a man on the internet be more powerful then a woman? Are not women supposed to be superior at social dynamics? Social intelligence? Then if anything women should have an advantage.
So I don't see why men or white men are more able to fend off attacks.
I have fought a LOT of trolls. I am a battle hardened forum warrior. I have been called everything under the sun. I have been doxxed. I have had my sexuality questioned. I have had... anything else you and imagine really. But whatever I felt when that was happened, I showed no weakness. No reaction.
I laughed at them. I showed them contempt. I gave them nothing.
And I won every single fucking time.
On the internet... so... whatever that is worth. But if these women did what I did... they'd win too.
They're big girls. I don't see why this is so hard. Why is it that I can read harassment posts directed at me and respond with cold ridicule and these women can't?
Is it sexist for me to suggest that an equal sex should be able to deal with this? Because men deal with this crap all the time.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I wish people would fuck off with calling shit (blahblah)gate.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
It's not the same guys. Don't attribute the bad behavior of a few sociopaths with the majority of guys who still enjoy the company of women. What's that hashtag? #notallmen
[John]
Shit better not happen!
In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win.
If this were true, systemd would be gone, dice wouldn't own slashdot, and they'd stop accepting submissions from Bennett Haselton.
Blame Adam Baldwin.
Dying before being brought to justice only means you got away with it.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of his "trolling" was gender based, but I don't know why she has to make some sort of connection between internet trolling and gender. Exactly as you said, had this been a guy it would have been exactly the same - up until the comment quoted above.
There would have been one major difference, though: it wouldn't have happened. Trolls love to bully women. Women do visibly get the shitty end of the stick on the internet.
(FYI: I'm a guy.)
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Why post AC? Are you afraid of the same thing happening to you?
>> Do you think the reactions 'round here would be different if it had been a woman harassing a guy?
Clearly you haven't been hanging around this site for very long.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
It's a mix of two things.
Firstly you have frustration and anger that women don't seem interested in these guys. Like that Rodger guy they really can't see what is wrong with them and vent that anger by attacking women, who must all be stupid evil manipulative whores because they only sleep with guys they can get something out of and never the poor troll.
Secondly the trolls are in serious need of some men's liberation. I bet you know exactly what a "real man" is. Masculine, strong, breadwinner, protects his woman, has loads of cool stuff. Now ask yourself what a "real woman" is. Not so easy to define.
It wasn't always that way. Back in the 1960s the ideal woman was the model 1950s housewife. A mother, good at cooking and cleaning, beautiful but homely, always trying to satisfy her man. Women's lib changed that. Women became free to break away from that model, be what they wanted to be, not get neurotic about their weight or finding a husband by age 25. Now they get to decide what matters to them, not what society expects of them. Men need that too. These trolls only feel threatened because they are so insecure, and see women participating in any traditionally male dominated area as a threat to the ideal they are trying to live up to.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is not a problem exclusive to women. As a man you can also get your life disrupted by death threats, unordered pizzas/taxis/products and doxxing.
It's probably easier to get singled out for it as a women, but if you are subject to it as a man you'll get much less support to cope with it. This is reflected in the offline world too as a MUCH higher suicide rate for men compared to women. Trying to construct this as some purely misgyonistic issue is just reinforcing the gender bias of men as some disposable soldier caste and is likely to aggrevate misgyonistic tendencies overall in society.
And who do you think is out there telling men to keep their feelings bottled up until they explode? Women? Misogyny hurts men, too.
It's about corruption in gaming journalism and game journalists constantly slagging off their own readers.
Then tell me, why did it start with false claims of sexual infidelity etc by a raging asshole who got his ass dumped? But hey, if you hate corrupion, why not fight alongside the armies of Sauron in order to root it out.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Listen the the podcast on 5x5 called "overtired". In episode 15, the incredible Christina Warren describes the shit that she gets every day, and how she deals with it. I have some hope that a younger generation of women like Ms Warren will be able to react to attacking idiots without disappearing from the 'net.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
nothing over the line to prosecutable of course
This:
calling up my company and my company's customers in an attempt to get me fired
Is prosecutable in civil court, particularly if it's false.
As to paternity leave, that is a different issue and really many women choose to take time off their career because THEY WANT to spend more time with their children. You can give people all the social care in the universe and many women are still going to stay home because it makes them happy.
And if you combine statistics of all women without excluding those that had children and stayed home... you're going to get a biased result.
The whole perception is based on a misunderstanding of the numbers.
This was debunked in the 1970s. Literally that is how long ago this was shown to be a sham.
Women want better pay? Work the same number of years that men work. Put in your time.
Period - End of Story.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'm afraid you are no longer allowed to wield the armies of Sauron because social justice warriors at Gamasutra have decreed they're too male, too violent and subconsciously promote the Patriarchy by excluding transgender Orcs. Check your privilege before disagreeing with them.
We just had an article a few days ago where the male architect of systemd got similar hate. We all condemned that too, the difference is there was no one in that thread arguing there was some double standard.
People who don't think that is threatening, should post their own SS#, Address, Children's names on a picture on the internet and see what happens. I mean, if there is no threat, what are they afraid of?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Really? Then burn a Koran on national TV right now...
Oh wait... then the extremist muslims have won.
Where did that come from, and what does it have to do with women being attacked just for being women on gaming forums? "If you want to have the right to campaign to get Jane Austen on British banknotes, then you also have to be prepared to burn a Koran" is something of a non-sequitur.
It doesn't suggest that at all. It does suggest that these kinds of attacks on women are worse, and well, that's pretty obviously true. Can you imagine a male blogger on his private blog receiving that kind of over-the-top campaign if he considered moderating comments?
As to paternity leave, that is a different issue
No it isn't. You clearly missed my explanation or chose to ignore it.
If paternity leave is bad and a couple wishes to start a family, then the woman taking time off is the only option. A baised system like that will cause more women to work less time (and hence receive lower salaries).
Therefore by ignoring that fact, you are manipulating the statistics to prove your point. That's exactly what you accuse other people of doing.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why did it start with that? Why were all gamers painted as sociopaths, nutters, trolls, sexists, racists, homophobic by subsequent gaming journalist coverage?
I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell us. It seems to me that whatever it was when it started, it's no longer that.
Or Jewish. Or gay. Or black. Or of a different political party. Or with a different opinion on a subject.
"Trolls" (they aren't trolls, they're ass-holes) will attack anyone for anything that the ass-holes do not approve of.
Anything.
The ass-holes are not attacking women because the ass-holes are misogynists. The ass-holes are attacking because that is what ass-holes do. Their attacks are phrased in misogynistic terms because the target is a woman.
Except you douchebags have been wrong every fucking time.
Like when you pretended there was no police report for the threats that made Sarkeesian move out of her house, without even a hint of investigating it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is an obvious manifestation of misogynistic stereotypes of women being manipulative liars, not any sort of rational consideration.
Nobody objects to women learnng useful skills like self-defence. What they object to is lack of such skills being used to blame the victim: "she shouldn't have waked down that street at that time of night".
[FUCK BETA]
It's so beyond pointless.
Worse (for him) is the fact that his identity is known now.
At some point he'll target the wrong victim, and he will end up dead - all "for lulz".
"Lame" - Galaxar
Sorry, lameness filter found something wrong with my post. I have no idea what it was complaining about.
I'm going to post it somewhere else and link it. I don't know what else to do since the stupid thing is clearly insane.
http://pastebin.com/XWJCLcBX
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It isn't exclusive to women at all. There are plenty of men's lives that have been ruined by false claims of rape. Hell, if I wanted, I could make the same claim about entire races, as Al Sharpton created a fiction that people STILL believe to this day, which was proven false a long time ago.
Trolling is easy because WE (all of us) want to believe the worst in humanity. Humanity is flawed, often terribly so. But we are also exceptional. And often, we are both, at the same time.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
does that number include 'i was not really feeling it but had sex anyway', 'it was a drunken sex therefore the consent was invalid', 'construction workers catcalled me the other day' and 'the guy confused about my feelings toward him attempted to kiss me'? [checks the article... yep]
The definition of sexual assault is so broad it can mean pretty much anything depending on who you ask, which only waters down the words 'assault' and 'rape'. I can only assume it's done to manufacture the perception of a dire crisis despite the crime statistics steadily going down.
Bullshit. I'm not going to deconstruct this "there's a double standard" argument every fucking time.
Let's go over the differences here:
A. The threats in this case specifically made it clear that it was because she was female. Like the threateners made absolutely zero pretense at hiding that. If you argue with this at all, I'm going to assume your entire argument is predicated on it. Consider carefully.
B. I personally, along with a lot of other slashdotters have indeed condemned internet threats directed at the architect of systemd just a few days ago. Who is male.
Did I say anything about fighting back?
You and the "i kan reed" are both right. You humans in general have a very strong mentality to act as "herd". And is very easy for psychopaths take control of these herds and it is very difficult for reasonable people to avoid this, since to convince a flock that they are doing something wrong is necessary that the flock can be able to think, and this is beyond the capacity of the herd (as many have already noticed, an individual is more intelligent and reasonable than a group of humans).
I'm seeing a great example of that right now in my country's elections (Brazil), where the flock moved by the local media (newspapers and television) wants to kill and segregate all who do not conform to the "shepherd" (the media). And the situation is so bad that if the flock win, I may have to leave the country to stay alive.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
social justice warriors
Isn't social justice what all the heroes of the 80s were fighting for? So wouldn't "social justice warriors" describe people like Knight Rider, the A-Team, Batman and so on?
And you're saying "social justice warrior" is a bad thing?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Did you even read the main story. It cites the SWATting of Chris Kootra, who is a male gamer. Regardless of whether you think that women suffer disproportionately from this kind of crap, the trolls are out of control.
We are the 198 proof..
Once again I have the "obsessed with false accusations of rape" reality denier. Because you are a person who believes in an a world where women are serial liars, and you're inured to observational evidence about it by some mental block I don't get.
But here. Here's how wrong you are about false rape accusations.
False accusations do exist but those 2-5% of cases are for our justice system to handle, and not a widespread systemic issue(and there's all sorts of clues as to when an accusation is made up).
Also unfortunately, our judicial and prison systems do not understand this either. People aren't maliciously the way they are. They get broken for a reason. Our prison system acts as a punishment and as a profit center for for-profit companies who run them. They should be a place where the broken people put into them can receive the discipline and structure they need to cope with an adult world without endangering society or themselves in the process. If we ever actually manage to reach that point, I think our species would be able to evolve just a little bit more. I don't have high hopes that it's possible.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
NO. YOU. MISSED. THE. POINT.
LISTEN.
If you work fewer years FOR ANY REASON then you worked FEWER years.
That you had no choice is besides the point. If I am a company and you work fewer years, and are therefore less experienced... why should I pay you as well as a man that worked those years you did not?
You say it is unfair if people want to have a family? In what way is it in unfair? What does fair even mean?
If I am a company, do I have to pay you more as a women for LESS work to be considered fair in your eyes? Because that isn't what equal pay means. You apparently want MORE pay for LESS work.
If I have to pay you paternity leave and I don't have to do that for the man. If the man works more years and you work less years. Then he working MORE and the woman is working LESS. Also the woman costs more to employ because I have to pay her paternity leave and other assorted stuff. So it isn't equal.
If you suggest one more time that I didn't read your post or didn't understand it then I am just going to break off this discussion. Because it was in fact YOU that did not read or understand. I will not have you blame me for your own mistakes. It is beyond what I should be expected to put up with in this discussion.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This is not a problem exclusive to women. [...] but if you are subject to it as a man you'll get much less support to cope with it.
That's true, and an independent yet important problem as well. However, I think we can agree that when men get less support (or even suffer stigma from not being "manly enough" to cope with it, which is pure BS), women face an echo chamber of aggressive misogynistic a-holes, ready to take on a crusade against them on a scale that most men never face. Just read the first comments here. In short, the harassment of women is more intense (from more harassers) and is pandemic.
Of course it is, but your "just asking questions" is bullshit. The way you assume it's a likely situation is your problem.
She clearly didn't fabricate this fucking case, because the evidence made it onto the damn news, and faceboook has fucking records. Now you can "investigate" well established facts all you want, but the fact that you didn't even look at the article before "questioning" the threat is your fucking problem
There's a double standard here.
In every other context, lack of due diligance is cause for concern, and that's not considered "victim blaming".
For example, if somebody leaves their car parked on the street with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition prior to it getting stolen, then anyone hearing the story would not be out of line asking them why they thought that was a good idea.
Their question would never be construed as absolving the car thief of responsibility for their crime, except maybe if the car owner was a woman.
> After having committed a hack against AT&T
Is this that thing where he looked at the public page that AT&T offered freely? And please don't equate it to yet another unlocked house door, which is still designated property. It was more like leaving your "private" shopping list posted on a Public Notices board.
I think weev is a fucking douche, but I won't let that turn me into a puppet that can have right and wrong blurred or manipulated. Or "misstate" his life details to advance my agenda.
> she opined that maybe forum moderation wasn't a bad idea
> suddenly, death threats
I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for being a witch here, but maybe, just maaaaaaybe, I should listen to the voice of logic that's whispering "there's a rational gap here; maybe, just maaaaaaybe there's more to the story than this."
Or maybe there isn't. Hard to know. The more time that's passed, the more we're stuck with mere He Said She Saids. I'm sure there were assholes involved, at least.
When I was a young awkward geek with very specific interests, I would have absolutely LOVED there to be women around with those same interests... Yet today we see guys trying to scare the women away. What the hell changed?
Nothing but the volume. I loved geeky women back then, and some geeky men were hostile. Now, I still like geeky women, and some geeky men are still hostile.
Nothing has changed, except the amplification of the extremists on both sides. The extremists on both sides want to drive a wedge to consolidate their base, just like the Republicans and Democrats. They use kernels of truth wrapped in emotionalist rhetoric to do it.
Black people aren't gangbangers. Muslims aren't terrorists. White men aren't aryan supremecists. Women aren't hyperemotional basket cases.
And male geeks aren't misogynists.
When you pick a bad characteristic of a subset of a group and label the whole group with it, that is prejudicial sterotyping. Doing so does not help feminism or technology.
Men aren't trying to scare women away from gaming, assholes are.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
if its vaginal society, it must make you a complete c*nt
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Don't try to play the sex card, that guy is an asshole. Do you think the reactions 'round here would be different if it had been a woman harassing a guy?
True enough. But why shouldn't everyone be protected against death threats and harassment? Why would women get special justice (anybody remember "equal justice")?
Kathy Sierra has returned to explain why she left and what recent spates of online harassment against women portend for the future if decent people don't organize.
Why not just say against people? "I was harassed and received many death threats" - "So, what, dude? Man up!"
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I am not anti-feminist, but what I am about to say is likely something they might say. The problem with many Feminists (and others) , is that they cry wolf. And there is a whole group of people that follow after those claims, repeating them ad nausium, long after proven false. Earlier this week, there was a suggestion that we need more women in IT, and it was due to some sort of latent sexism or whatever in the industry. The reality is, IT might have all the women interested in it, and that women aren't really all that interested in IT careers. Crying "sexism in IT" is not helpful in the discussion, and quite frankly, tends to end any discussion. The cry itself is a kind of "troll" comment. It requires no thought, and causes great harm.
Is there sexism in IT? I'm sure there is. Is it endemic to IT? I'm pretty sure it isn't.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I agree with you up to a point. Empty threats of violence can be dealt with. "Come at me bro. I got a glock and a big dog. Internet fucking tough guy..."
But it's something else when they start calling your place of work and harassing your boss and your customers trying to get you fired. That's actual harm.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
No I heard you and you are missing the point. Again. There is a social/legislative/whateer structure that specifically creates an environment where it is harder for women to work the same number of years as men.
Everything else you say is just meaningless semantics because you're ignoring WHY women are working fewer years than men. And it's not "for no reason".
If you have a system set up that makes it much harder for women to work fewer years than men AND people working fewer years get paid less, then by transitivity it is making women earn less money.
But fine, keep ignoring my point while pretending I haven't read yours. At this point reaking off the discussion is a strong indication that it's not a discussion but a failed platform for you to keep recycling the same tired and logically incoherent talking points.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Upbringing has a well understood implication on anti-social personality disorders. Very early upbringing. (Warning, "I watched a documentary" level knowledge) Parents who are scared or nervous around their children greatly increase the likliehood that that child will turn out sociopathic.
But in spite of its primarily environmental cause, we don't have any known treatments for it. It's a disorder, and that sucks.
And, of course, upbringing affects more substantive things like beliefs and behaviors. How that in turn interacts with culture is extremely complicated and is probably not within the bounds of currently understood sociology.
Your data set doesn't compare women that have never had children against men in the same career.
Unless it does that, it won't be comparable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So you're saying That is the lesser of two weevils? :-)
With apologies to Paul Bettany in Master and Commander
What is there to take his word over her word, or even to take either's word at face value? Exceptional claims require exceptional proof, and all that... The safest stance, without lots of corroboration, is for me to assume that they've both got serious issues. Sometimes the simplest explanation might be the correct one. I'd love to be shown otherwise, but whatever I could find online was just rather unconvincing.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Humans tend to conform to the desires of sociopaths instead of confront them, because natural selection did not historically favor humans who opposed sociopaths.
This is true. But this is why we have codes of honor (machismo, chivalry, etc.) in various societies. Courage, honor and a duty to defend the weak. Yes, these traditions were somewhat mysoginistic as well. But we can update them to suit modern society.
Natural selection dictates that we protect ourselves from harm. So we avoid violent sociopaths. Or leave them to law enforcement, the people who are paid to confront such threats counter to the laws of natural selection. But weev isn't a physically dangerous individual (unless he gets hold of a gun). So the nature of an on-line confrontation and resulting harm wouldn't be life threatening. So unless we want some institutionalized Internet police force to be imposed upon us, we need to face some risk and stand up to these sorts of threats to social order as individuals.
Or, like in medival times, a system of Internet 'knights' could arise to do battle with the trolls in exchange for public recognition and reward for their efforts.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's an interesting point. I was thinking that the internet, especially when anonymous, has the effect of multiplying the perceived/apparent impact of a small number of actors. It's kind of like terrorism, in that it's asymmetric. For this reason, I can kind of understand the concerns over the apparent threat, but I find the people claiming it's a "cultural problem" aren't understanding that a big part of the reason the crowd isn't reacting the way the critics want is because the crowd intuitively knows what a small number of people there are purveying this antisocial behavior, and thus feel the claim of "cultural problem" is at best improper, and at worst slanderous.
Judging from the rest of your comment, you probably didn't mean this, but this makes it look like, from your viewpoint, the only alternative to "doing your best to not be a target" is "doing your best to be a target."
To some extent you're right. If you're rambling over in the corner and nobody notices you, you're good. But if you have something useful to say and a forum where you can get noticed, you will definitely be noticed by people who don't like what you say, and if they happen to be trolls, they will troll you.
Weev is an asshole, no question and it'd be nice if he were reprimanded for his crimes.
Somehow though, I have to be another one of those assholes and say that trolling is a big issue, but not solely a women's issue. If you want an example of trolling that reached an entirely new level and has most definitely contributed to the failing mental health of an autistic man, look up the story of Christian Weston Chandler.
Trolling isn't new, it's always been mind-boggilingly terrible, but we couldn't be arsed to do anything but laugh back when the victims were usually mentally ill and male.
you ain't going to convert misogynistic trolls who think they are above women, the sort of fundamentalist religionist type that thinks their place is in the kitchen
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Or maybe, many women want to be treated that way by sociopath predators like Politicians. A lot of women are attracted to power and wealth and tolerate the abuses because it garners them access to their goals, and IT people offer no such attraction or access.
Sorry, but being socially awkward is not a crime, and perpetuating stereotypes of men in IT is just as bad as your claims of sexism in IT. I'll paint you with the same brush you paint others with, nice n broad.
I happen to be in IT, and the women in IT I know are strong healthy and don't let a little social awkwardness affect their view of guys in IT.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It seems to me that whatever it was when it started, it's no longer that.
It's inseperable from that and there's still plenty of "that" left in it. If you side with the gaters on "rooting out corruption" you are also aligning yourself with a massive group of raging douche nozzles who simultaneously trying to shit on everything.
basically, if you don't like gaming journalism corruption the best thing to do is start a new initiative against it becuase the gaters are pure poison.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Sounds like someone with a self-esteem problem around women and highly jealous of them
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Oh, so it's entirely genetic, and that's why 20 years ago, the field's gender mix was almost 60-40 and now 85-15. Because genetics change dramatically over short timespans.[1] [2]
Bio-determinism bites. And it's an easy, lazy, insufficient answer. I, and others, are prepared to accept that there exist biological gender differences. But, given human history, you can't say that gender differences are strictly biological without evidence. And you can examine socioeconomic factors that influence gender-based occupation decisions. In the previous link, girls(and boys) with higher self-esteem are more likely to avoid gender-typical job roles. Rather substantially, if you can actually read the article, and not just the abstract. Primitivistic psychoanalysis suggests that people who fill gender-typical jobs are likely following social pressure, than innate instincts.
Sexism in IT is real, I mean, hell, ask a transgender person whose seen both sides. But even if that were 0% of the problem, it wouldn't imply genetic determinism.
Why the Trolls Will Always Win
They don't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
And sometimes they really don't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
And they do that to men as well.
Ever been Swatted? A friend of mine was swatted twice.
The troll called the police, said there was a murder in progress, and men with machine guns showed up at my friend's house... kicked the door down, slammed him to the ground, handcuffed him, searched his home, and then questioned him in a hostile manner for about an hour before leaving.
So I know how bad this can get. But saying they go after women is just false. They do not. They go after everyone. You make it easy for them or you do things that annoy them or you show that they're getting to you... and they'll just keep doing it.
People need to learn how to deal with bullies and trolls. The answer is not some PSA talking about feelings and awareness. That is useless clueless bullshit. If you want to have a positive influence on this situation, then you need to get people that are reacting badly to trolls to react in a more effective manner.
Know what the troll wants and what the troll needs... and deny that troll both.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wrong. The reason I don't want people to know who I am is because one of my goals in life is to avoid the judgements of others. That is to judge me rather than some online persona I may choose to have. We escape here where we can be ourselves. In the real world we can't necessarily. But that does not imply we're trolls, engaging in trolling, doxxing, or any other kind of sociopathy.
I thank God that my two boys live in a house where we've NEVER told them to toughen up or compared weakness to being a girl.
You realize that's a token indicator of a lot of what's wrong here? That men are seemingly most insulted by being called feminine slurs, and women by calling them feminine slurs. So we have people that intentionally or not reinforce the idea that being female is a problem.
That little tidbit, plus another one that's been passing around social media are so telling to me: (summarized) "When you send a girl out of class / home from school for 'inappropriate' dress you're telling her a dress code or preventing male distraction is more important than her education, and that the boys' distraction-free education is more important than theirs."
My boys are in high school now, but I also have a young daughter. I'm trying to ensure she lives in a world where equality (gender, sexual, marriage, etc.) is a goal if not reality. I want all of my family to live in that world.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
You're talking about a very small subset of assholes. The "gamergate" (god I hate typing that) thing is about a few obnoxious assholes and some SJWs. It in no way represents the vast bulk of people who play video games. That's the problem. It takes just a few vicious sociopaths to ruin shit for everybody.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Perhaps you should live the life of a woman for a while and see how it feels. Women usually try and talk out the problem in order to educate and eradicate the problem. Trolls who hide and make threats from under cover are basically shitty little cowards. Women and men should have recourse to the law for protection from trolls who intimidate by making death, rape threats etc and these trolls should be exposed and jailed in the same way if they had made the threats face to face. Just because its digital doesn;t make it any less a threat.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"None, just as no women were forced to move and take a 7-year hiatus, that is simply how one chose to respond." - if you have to move, you are forced. you are part of the problem if you don't understand that.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I don't think it's just a narrative, but I also don't think anything changed in the culture. Rather, we've just made it waaaay easier for the .1% of men who happen to be crazy and/or psychopaths to be really loud about it, totally drowning out the other 99.9% of the male population who aren't crazy, aren't starting disgusting trouble, and thus aren't noticed. I like to think that most geeky guys are like you, still, young and old. The crazy ones just get all the press.
Here's a group of totally sexist women gamers discussing it. As you can hear, they're totally poisonous.
Do get a grip of yourself.
No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that the trolls win simply because you take some measures to avoid them.
I didn't start with the extreme IF/THEN logic.
The other party in this discussion said if I change my behavior in any way to avoid the trolls it has a chilling effect and the trolls win. that's just bullshit.
Next issue. This is boring.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I don't think it's a concious decision about scaring someone away. The reason some people do this trolling is probably not even obvious to themselves, it's a deep psychological cause and effect. The incidence of trolling towards women may also be over-represented if women are more likely to take this kind of abuse seriously, especially threats, and also if women are more likely to report the experience in public, instead of silently wtirhdrawing. I can't back up any of those theories, but they should be considered before concluding that the abuse is especially bad towards women.
If it turns out that women are indeed "trolled" more than men, that wouldn't be a surprise either. There is so many expectations related to dating and relationships, and the "creepy" label is dealt at the slightest deviation from the norm (this seems especially bad, almost ridiculous, in the US, based on TV and movies). If failure at dating constitutes the majority of ones experience with the other sex, it's not that surprising that some minority of people online will react in devious ways. Don't know how to fix it, but if more kids had friends of both sexes that may be a start.
20 years ago, was DotCom bubble. Go back 40 years. If you're going to cast a wide net, cast it all the way back to the start of the industry, watch the bubble come and go, and watch the rise and fall of women in IT.
Selectively picking arbitrary points to compare is lazy insufficient answer. ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think you're minimizing things just a bit, aren't you? While trolls may not focus specifically on women (my opinion, is that they do), women certainly face much more intense and prolonged harassment in the form of campaigns. How many men have had death/rape threats against them AND their families AND have been forced to move AND taken a 7-year hiatus?
Trolling 101: go after a vulnerable victim. For whatever reason, women react more strongly to rape threats. For whatever reason, women react more strongly to death threats. A man in her situation would have been told to "Suck it up, you big pussy" especially if he had quit his job or moved as a reaction. And most people leave clues to the extent of their reaction when they respond to a troll (another reason not to feed the trolls).
And while I'm not a fan of the "traditional male traits" of being a stupid violent dick, it does lead to a different type of trolling. I have seen trolls gleefully extracting "I will hunt you down..." responses from their (presumably male) victims. (No, I am not suggesting that this is what happened with Kathy -- actually hunting someone down is the sort of thing mostly trolls have time for.) Really, trolls don't care about the specifics of the reaction they provoke, only that the stronger the reaction, the happier the troll.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Social Justice" is bad because if it was Justice, it wouldn't need to have another adjective attached to it. It actually is a dandy name for a lynching mob, because "liberals" are always looking for euphemisms to justify their reprehensible conduct. They enjoy to make empty gestures that supposedly solves a problem, just so calm their conscience. For example, claim to be 'tolerant' because they are in favour of 'gay marriage', while being supremely intolerant to everything else (smokers, religious people, conservatives, true liberals, critics inside their own group, proponents of other types of gay marriage, etc). Another example is how they say they believe at the same time in equality and in 'positive discrimination', or that 'forced parity' will somehow make them not sexists, when it is the purest definition of sexism.
It depends what you define as "social justice". For me it means not discriminating against someone because they're a different race, sex or have a disability. For the SJW crowd it's about the need to discriminate against me because I'm too white and too male.
You perceive women as having a privilege of being given the "benefit of the doubt" and getting public sympathy by default (that you claim men do not receive).
Suppose we accept your premise: Why not solve the imbalance by encouraging people to extend those same social privileges to us men?
Those privileges, that you claim are exclusive to women, make the world a more compassionate and understanding place. I think we need more of that for everyone.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
We all condemned that too,
Really?
You had the sense to condemn this one.
Here's some prime victim-blaming.
A bit more.
And this one fits nicely.
To be fair, many of the other +3 or higher ones condemning him also included the text 'but collecting money for an assassination is over the line.'
As to what you do in your home, my father and mother didn't say such things to me either. If you think you can control this you're deluded.
Your children will be subjected to this by their peers whether you like it or not. And if they cry, call for their mother, or otherwise show signs of weakness then they'll be seen as weak. This is instinctual. It is in the blood. You can pretend all you like otherwise... but pretend is pretend.
As to how your raise your family... that is your own business. But you are raising human beings. Homo Sapiens. You can pass on your values but just as your child can't help it if he's a homosexual... there are other instincts that we also can't help having.
We can suppress them. But the suppression of instincts requires conscious will. The kids in the school yard are going to be the kids in the school yard. They're consistent and predictable. You should know that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What does the bubble have to do with it if it's purely genetic?
What do genes care about cultural artifacts like bubbles?
You're the one alleging a mechanism to explain a phenomenon. I've supplied counter-evidence, you really ought to be able to back up your pet hypothesis better than "nuh uh"
"Do you think the reactions 'round here would be different if it had been a woman harassing a guy?"
Considering about half of this site is firmly SJW material - yes.
Are you that blind?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What a wonderful person you are. Welcome to the rule of the jungle, or what ?
Here is a little dirty secret: if the people of Viet Nam, Chile, Iran and so on had the same grudges against you Americans, they would call for all of you treated just as you described Mr weev should be treated.
Granted, he might be an asshole, but sure as hell he is a very tiny asshole as compared to A$$holes like Bush, Blair and Fuld. Or Erdogan. A guy who arsonizes the next house and then calls the firebrigade (German SAM forces) to protect his house from contracting fire, too.
I'm calling you names because you're being a disingenuous little shit.
I JUST SAID
Nobody said women are "always victims"
Can you approach this debate honestly even once?
"Women want better pay? Work the same number of years that men work. " - all women want is "equal pay for doing the same job". A lot of things have changed since the 1970s so the "debunk" needs to be done again to see if its still true
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I come from a family with strong women. Many of these opinions are opinions held by female members in my house. What is more, I know many women that are more then able to stick up for themselves. They don't have a problem with any of it.
If anything, they tend to tell negative stories about women in their work. I won't get into it because I can tell some of the sexism trolls are already looking at me to see if they can claim sexism on my part. So I'm going to deny them that ammunition.
But the point is that if women are an equal sex then they don't need to be coddled.
My family is full of strong women that don't need to be coddled. They don't cry for help. They don't whine. They don't tell everyone how hard it is... they solve their own problems just like the men.
People go after them... and its game on. Women only need protection if they are inferior.
If women are equals they need no special treatment.
The logic of that should be inescapable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, I was in that threat condemning not just the threateners but the condoners too. See?
I agree with you. This is not trolling. Trolling is a art.
I used to troll slashdot under another account. It was great fun. I'd see a good target story and write a well-structure comment. The first paragraph would be something on topic and sensible. The second would introduce minor logical flaws, which in the third paragraph would explode into completely ridiculous conclusions that would incense slashdotters, like that the only way to ensure privacy is for the government to monitor all communications at all times or something. Then you sit back and watch moderators only read the first paragraph and mod you +5 insightful, and then people come along and actually read the post and get enraged and write 12 paragraphs about how wrong I am. Then it gets moderated down to +1 troll, then people realize it's funny and it winds up at +5 funny. It was good fun.
But sociopaths threatening and harassing people not just on the internet but spilling over into real life (phone calls, calling their boss, their customers, etc) is not trolling. It's...criminal. Online trolling can be ignored, but I think the only way to stop that kind of behavior is legal action.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Since you brought up politics, this harmless "words on a screen" sounds a lot like what resulted in the shooting of Senator Gabrielle Giffords. There are way too many crazy people in the world to be putting people's personal information out there. This is also much like what happened to Valerie Plame during the Bush administration.
your ideas about "default respect vagina" in the work place very misogynistic and very troll-friendly
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
> Where did that come from, and what does it have to do with women being attacked just for being women on gaming forums?
Because the person burning the book is (probably) trolling -- as in, trying to get an emotional response out of someone or a group of people.
Trolling can manifest in many forms. Obviously that one is not as severe as mentioned in the article, but still trolling / griefing none the less.
It's not genetic. People grow up with different desires and motivations in different time periods. Maybe in 20 years from now it will be popular for men to be nurses. That doesn't mean their genetics have changed, just what they want to do.
It was very common millennia ago for men to carry purses (for their coins), men don't today. It doesn't mean our genetics have changed since then, just our ideals of what we want and don't want to do.
Women just don't want to be in IT right now, it doesn't mean the world is ending. If women wanted to be in IT but were being oppressed, that's a problem. But they don't. End of story.
The most extreme nutcase posts from both factions, indeed in all factions on every issue fought about on the internet, is composed of trolls who fake being a member of a particular community. For example: The most extreme racist posts on conservative blog comment sections are made by trolls whose real community is DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground. When your philosophy is "anything goes" relativism, any kind of slimy tactics are okay.
It isn't hard. I'll use small words so that you can understand. You assume people are good and have good intentions unless they demonstrate (sorry word too big, "show") that are not. The lady in this case did nothing to show she is a bad person. She just made a comment about comment moderation (long word, I know). The other guy made threats and thinks whites are better than every other color. He has a history of doing things that show he is a bad person.
Easy enough to understand? Slashdot really should have cut off registration once they reached the six digit IDs
We're done.
I made my argument and you apparently are one of those people that doesn't like logic or facts. So... there isn't anything I can do for you.
They work fewer years. That not being their fault is not my point or relevant to my point.
My point is that for WHATEVER reason that they work fewer years they STILL work fewer years. And because of that they get paid less.
End-o-fucking-story.
Good day.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Argument by analogy:
If blacks don't want to vote because of KKK threats, that's fine. That's their choice. It's not something I need to concern myself with. Maybe it'll change in the future.
I believe GP was saying that the particular study cited had a questionable definition of "rape", not that the victims were lying. The survey didn't ask if they were raped. The survey asked questions about if this happened or that happened, then the researchers call it rape, even if the "victim" was perfectly happy with what happened.
One question was if they engaged in sex while drunk or high to the point that they couldn't really give informed consent, or if their partner initiated sex while they were asleep. The researchers then called that rape, which is many cases it probably was. In other cases not - I recently spoke with a woman who didn't remember having sex with her husband one night when they were drunk. It just so happened that he videotaped about two minutes of it, and after he starts, then backs off she says "what are you doing, I thought we were going to have sex?" Upon viewing the tape, she wasn't bothered about it. Since she didn't remember it and was too drunk to really give consent, this study would call that rape. The woman doesn't think it's rape, but the researchers say it is.
I've actually talked to my wife about some of these situations ahead of time. I've told her I'd very much enjoy being awoken by her in a special way, and she said it's fine if I massaging her and such while she's asleep, waking her with sexual contact. The RESEARCHERS call that rape, we call it a great way to wake up.
The researchers also called it sexual violence if the partner did any of these things (quoting from the survey):
doing things like telling you lies, MAKING PROMISES ABOUT THE FUTURE WHICH THEY KNEW WERE UNTRUE, threatening to end your relationship,
or threatening to spread rumors about you?
wearing you down by repeatedly asking for
sex, or SHOWING THEY WERE UNHAPPY?
So letting my wife know I'm disappointed that our last two date nights were cancelled and I'd like to have a romantic evening is sexual violence, as defined by these researchers.
Sexual violence is an important issue. These researchers trivialize it and create more problems when they define "showing they were unhappy" as sexual violence.
I didn't mean to imply control - just that we set a more open example so they know they have a choice. And of course the outside world has its own ideas and will try to influence them. But as it turns out, the two schools my boys go to are pretty neutral. My older son's school is filled with kids (male and female) that are more like us than not. And I'm glad for it.
Something else we give our kids: My wife and I are loving and affectionate to each other in public and private, have been these 20 years. They may know people whose parents are less emotional, or are hostile towards each other. Again, it's all about showing them alternatives so they know there are options.
And I'm not really sure where you were going with the homosexual comment - are you suggesting if I had a gay kid that would be a problem?
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
The answer is not some PSA talking about feelings and awareness. That is useless clueless bullshit. If you want to have a positive influence on this situation, then you need to get people that are reacting badly to trolls to react in a more effective manner.
I completely agree. We don't need our fucking awareness raised. 99.999% of us know it's wrong to threaten to rape somebody and call the police or their boss or whatever. When the vast majority of us who didn't do a damn thing wrong now get lumped in with the actual perpetrator and then lectured to, it has the opposite effect. I am now less likely to be concerned with the plight of [insert victim group] because they're accusing me of having all sorts of attitudes I don't have.
And I bet the trolls love it. Look at gamergame (I hate typing that). One deranged lunatic makes some not particularly credible threats against a woman who completely overreacts to what was purely online harassment at that point, goes full social justice warrior and starts attacking the entirety of "men who play video games" for the actions of one asshole. Those people get offended at being generalized as some kind of subhumans chafe and attack back, and the troll sits there gleefully watching thousands of people scream at each other for some tiny little words he wrote on twitter. At no point is the actual perpetrator punished. He is rewarded with a great show. And now people are more likely to dismiss harassment of women, because their experience has been this Sarkessian woman overacting to something and making ridiculous accusations against a bunch of people who didn't do anything.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Please see my reply to Karmashock above, as I don't feel like duplicating the post. But essentially my kids leave the house, we know the outside will influence them, it's all about showing them there are alternative behaviours.
Also, if being able to express one's feelings and having compassion for others and a desire for fairness makes them feminine in your eyes, well, I guess that can't be helped.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
That is the key, the goal. And this goes for all issues of speech. Regardless of "libel" and slander", or anything else. Words do, and always will mean nothing. The response is the only relevant piece in the matter.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Investigating is fine. Asserting that the claims are false until the investigation occurs -- and then continuing to do so after the investigation proves the claims are true -- is bullshit propaganda, and undermines your professed cause.
They aren't. Some women see people attacking them and assume "They're attacking me because I'm a woman". And the media loves to play this narrative. The real reason people get harassed isn't because of their gender, it's because they're idiots.
You're both right and wrong. Everyone should have the benefit of equal justice. The problem is that, at this time, there's a gender-specific problem, and if the targets themselves aren't willing to push back, why should they expect anyone else to?
I've been harassed bot online and in the real world. After almost a decade, one cyber-dummy lost their job when the police got involved. Works for me. Another, a real-world case, had to take out ads in the news section of the two largest newspapers a couple of months ago to apologize for trying to publicly humiliate me.
Everyone says "somebody ought to do something" but if nobody does, the problems will persist. When you're the one being attacked, you've just been nominated as that "somebody", even if you don't want to be.
There's no need for an "anti-troll squad", or an organized fight against these idiots. That will just give credence to those who cry "femi-nazi".
All that's needed is for good people to stand up for what's right when they're attacked.
The three rules:
1: What is the right and just thing to do?
2: Then why the heck aren't you doing it?
3: You should never get this far. Goto 1.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The stats are not accessible to the public anymore. The only way to get access to them is to get permission from the government and they only give it if they know what you're trying to prove.
There have been some people doing gender studies that have tried to get access to current data and it isn't available in a raw form.
Regardless, the gender pay gap was non existent in the 1970s after accounting for years worked, education, etc so I find it unlikely that it has widened in 2014.
Statistics... you either understand them or you shouldn't base ANYTHING you know upon them because without an understand of statistics you do not understand what you are being told.
I really think statistics have done tremendous damage to our society not because they are inherently bad but because too many people read them that don't have the education or temperament to process them. So many misunderstandings are based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of a statistic.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You haven't proven women in IT are being threatened by the IT version of the KKK. And until your post, nobody even suggested that women were being threatened by IT KKK types.
But if you mention Somalia, you'll gain street cred in the Strawman crowd, but only if you do so in the next 30 minutes.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Youre aparently one of the people who is incapable of reading or applying the barest semblence of logic to a situation.
End-o-fucking-story.
No it's not the end of the story. You know this which is why you're ducking out of the argument, but refuse to acknowledge it. The fewer years worked is for a reason: the system is set up in a way that makes it much harder to work the same number of years.
But hey if it pleases you to feel superior, then blame it on genetics or whatever.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
My question is, why does this anger you so much? Since you're such an intellectual powerhouse, perhaps you can figure that one out, and then realize the problem is within yourself...
From the methods section
The specific types of sexual violence assessed included rape (completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration) and sexual violence other than rape, including being made to penetrate a perpetrator, sexual coercion (nonphysically pressured unwanted penetration), unwanted sexual contact (e.g., kissing or fondling), and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., being flashed or forced to view sexually explicit media).
Those are the categories they questioned about. If you really think that forced penetration or alchohol/drug facilitated penetration isn't rape, I've got news for you, son.
If you want to keep dreaming I won't try to wake you up.
Sleep tight.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Here is the correct way to handle it:
1. buy a gun
2. stop the sexist bullshit about how it's all because you're a woman
3. ignore them
Do get a grip of yourself.
Wait so your logic is that some other group of assholes exists so you may as well ride along with a different bunch of assholes? What ever happened to being the better person and not associating with assholes in the first place?
Regardless of what anyone else does, the gaters are assholes. Just because other people do assholey things does not make the gaters any better.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
weev and others don't think the rules apply to them.
Well, there's rules against murder (it's totally possible to do it, so no actual impossibility there other than the illegal nature of it).
So when weev thinks the rules don't apply to him, LET US NOT APPLY THE RULES TO HIM.
Of course, I'd beat the shit out of the little twat and post a Youtube clip of the event for full publich punishment effect.
And continue to do so until the dicksack ran away to hide under a new name and manner.
However, I don't think that weev will accept that THOSE rules don't apply. Because.
does that number include 'i was not really feeling it but had sex anyway', 'it was a drunken sex therefore the consent was invalid', 'construction workers catcalled me the other day' and 'the guy confused about my feelings toward him attempted to kiss me'?
From the women I've talked to (with the gory details), the 25% number is quite low. Or as Whoopie Goldberg would have classified it, "rape-rape".
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Help! help! You're beig repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Out of interest when was the last time you were discriminated against for being too white and too male?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Funny how the bullies always pick on people that won't fight back. A few thousand to the right people and you couldn't hide anywhere without disappearing from the net.
The following is all subjective, so be warned. :)
From what I've seen (admittedly second and third-hand) the people attacking women are generally doing so at least in part *because* they are women. On the other hand, attacks against men are rarely gender-based, but rather based on other factors like religion/ideology/actions.
If this is true, then even if the numbers of attacks are the same, it would not be unreasonable for the attacked women to feel it differently because they are being attacked for something they *are* rather than something they *think*. (And actually I suspect this same feeling may hold true for race-based attacks against people as well.)
That was also back when if the sysadmin thought you had gone too far, your account would just be closed and a warning message about you sent to other admins in the area. Back then it was easy to blacklist someone from every ISP within the local calling area. Remember when we had to pay by the minute for long distance?
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Wow. This is the first time I've seen "meta victim blaming" where you are blaming the people who call out statements like "Don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to get raped." as "victim blaming."
Is it at all possible in your world to blame the predators?
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
I've noticed people tend to get busted for the wrong crime fairly often, or busted on the wrong day. An old friend of mine started selling drugs, buying and selling abusable prescription drugs. He got busted for selling pot, which he apparently doesn't do, and he wasn't selling anything at the moment.
I can't think of anyone I know who isn't a criminal, yet ended up in jail. It's kind of odd, but in some ways it makes sense.
I am the original AC.
"What a wonderful person you are. Welcome to the rule of the jungle, or what ?"
What makes my statement incorrect? I would not kill him nor did my statement say that I would. However, I would not shed a tear if I read his obituary. In fact, I would be happy about it. I'd be happier if he publicly stated that what he stood for is wrong and apologize. But I am not a big enough idiot to believe that will happen.
So while you can feel better about yourself and your higher moral authority, some of us are realists. Some people are actively hurting the world as a whole, and this jerkwad is one of them. If he dies, the rest of us benefit.
Did you listen to those totally sexist women discussing the issue? No you didn't. Come back when you've educated yourself. You don't have to apologise for getting it wrong but some acknowledgement that perhaps you've misunderstood what it's all about would be the gentlemanly thing to do. Or if you're a woman, the womanly thing to do.
In case you have hearing difficulties there are written articles that are just as good available for you to read. I don't think I can possibly do any more to help your understanding of the issues than I have.
He involved her kids.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Again, she's not being mocked for being a woman, any loudmouth idiot politician who tries so hard to make himself look like an even bigger dimwit than they actually are would have gotten the mockery.
I think there's a lot of examples to go around. FROM BOTH parties!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When there were only a few "geeky girls" around, they were a novelty, and there weren't enough of them to affect change in the workplace. I remember those days. We had lots of highly sexist/racist terms people would just throw around without thinking. Look up "BCH, RCH, and GCH" and the mnemonic for remembering resistor color that begins "Black boys" for example (I won't repeat them). Cheesecake calendars and centerfolds were also displayed prominently at desks. And the women there had to tolerate it. They had no choice if they wanted to stay.
But starting in the early 90's, women starting getting enough power to force companies to enact sexual harassment policies. The calendars disappeared and some topics of conversation became forbidden at work. And many men resented this.
So the trolls learned from this, and thus any woman who starts to be listened to in other male-dominated areas must be destroyed as soon as possible. This is what Kathy Sierra said in her posting. Because, by default, they are not deserving of the attention.
It's the same dynamic that has kept Rush Limbaugh on the radio for 30 years.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
He doesn't hide the fact that his normal pattern and practice is to act like a complete asshole, especially online. Therefore, if someone says he was being a complete asshole online, that matches with what one would expect from him.
To me, it's similar to if someone were to tell me that my friend Christina delivered a pizza to their house. Christina was a pizza-delivery person for several years, so the statement is likely true, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Why does it seem that the first response to these kinds of problems is always legal? To sue someone? Is it just because that's what is expedient to existing victims? Because it won't help future potential victims. Even changing the law or boosting enforcement won't get at the root cause.
The fact is that sadly, sociopathic behavior like this is socially acceptable. Every time a woman speaks up, half of the crowd chimes in to defend the sociopath. "It was her own fault", you say. "Women are such whiners; this happens to everyone", you say. And let's be clear: it's easy for a woman to think women are unfairly targeted when she's come to know so many others who have been targeted, and the harassment is often sexual. There's a point to be made that women are perhaps too often thin-skinned. But often this point is made regardless to the severity of the harassment (total destruction of career, made to feel unsafe and insecure even in her own home or the home of her family, made to fear for the safety of that family). And most of the people making this point, especially in a place like Slashdot that allows people to post anonymously, make their point with misogynistic slurs. It's only understandable that this position is almost always attacked as "blaming the victim" when there are only a couple of rational voices in the mob.
How can the law help us? Will it stop people from being sociopaths? Not any more than drunk driving laws made people stop driving drunk. Drunk driving used to be just as socially acceptable as wife beating and criminal harassment. What changed? MADD and systematic messaging from law enforcement and driver's education told entire generations of new drivers that it is not acceptable. Now drunk driving is the sort of thing only completely irresponsible people do, right? While that doesn't mean nobody does it, it does mean nobody defends the behavior. We need a single message to spread to every single child regarding harassment: this is not OK.
Sociopaths are bad for society, which means that even when they aren't attacking you personally, their assaults still hurt you. Every time a Kathy Sierra is harassed out of her comfort zone, we lose another intelligent perspective. We lose the voice behind javaranch.com. And to all you lonely nerds out there: we lose one more woman that understands and appreciates what you do. One more woman that might have shared your dreams and obsessions.
What can we do about sociopaths? First, we can learn to defend ourselves. My first rule of the internet is to use a pseudonym, and keep your pseudonym separate from your family and local friends. Never attach any pictures or personal information that could connect your pseudonym to you. Never, and I mean never take a nude picture of yourself.
Remember though that none of this is a guarantee. All it takes is more effort to uncover who you are and where you live. So the second step is to support the victims. Now, I understand some of you are a bit obsessed with fraud, and think these victims are just seeking attention. You attack the victim's credibility. Stop. You don't have to personally believe the victim, but it does no good to cast doubt. Victims don't even want attention, and they definitely don't want to be assaulted even more. So many victims don't report crimes against them because they don't want to relive the experience, or because they are afraid of people like you. What victims (should) want is for their life to go on as if nothing happened, while also making sure the same thing can never happen to anybody else. What you can do is direct your attention toward the problem instead of the victim. Attack the crime, even if you don't believe it happened. You might say, "Harassment is wrong, and I am appalled to think this kind of thing even happens." You might say, "I actually have trouble believing the story because it's so unthinkable that someone could be this much of a sociopath." You might say, "I though this sort of thing never happened, and it certainly never sh
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
First, let's skip over the whole idiotic concept of twitter as a serious medium of communication (quick, here's 140 chars, tell me everything you know), and go to places that you can actually write coherent sentences - that'd be anywhere from email, to usenet, to websites that allow long comments (or your own website).
Back in the day, we used to get trolls on a usenet group I was a regular in. Some where drive-by shooting, never seen again; frequently, we made sarcastic comments about their post. Then there were the longer posts, from someone who might even come back.
Y'know, I understand that about 1,000 years ago and more, if a bard, or someone, made a satire of you, you might as well kill yourself, because no one would ever forget it (admitedly, they didn't travel a lot back then, and the supply of humor was a lot smaller).
Our answer was to MST3k that person. Doing so, of course, requires intellegence, a good familiarity with language, and frequently, some basic logic. I don't think *anyone* everr came back after being misted....
It's a much more elegant solution, and more enjoyable to everyone else, than to simply JUMP DOWN THE ASSHOLE'S THROUGHT WITH COMBAT BOOTS ON.
mark "come on, meet me at x, and show me that you meant that crap"*
* Now, my sword, my walking stick, or just 911?
In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win. This has been true since democracy started - "politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"
Would be awesome if it were true: The modern word 'political' derives from the Greek politikos, 'of, or pertaining to, the polis'. (The Greek term polis will be translated here as 'city-state'. It is also translated as 'city' or 'polis', or simply anglicized as 'polis'. City-states like Athens and Sparta were relatively small and cohesive units, in which political, religious, and cultural concerns were intertwined. The extent of their similarity to modern nation-states is controversial.)
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Proof?
You missed the part where I said we were done.
So I'm saying it again in hopes that you might be able to read even one of my posts with even a semblance of basic reading comprehension.
We're done. This is over.
Good day, sir. Shoo.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wrong. 2-5% of rape accusations are PROVEN false.
The percentage of rape investigations that are dropped because the accusation was simply impossiblebut nothing was done beyond stopping the investigation or dropping charges, is much higher.
Try Rumney's "False allegations of rape." from The Cambridge Law Journal (2006).
Or maybe "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene J. Kanin from the Archives of Sexual Behavior (1994).
Hell, just read the damned Wikipedia page. It shows that every time the researcher steps beyond the narrowest definition, the number jumps to the 20%+ range.
That's a huge problem for a crime that is almost impossible to defend against.
Ever been Swatted? A friend of mine was swatted twice.
Personally, I think this is so dangerous that it should be treated as attempted murder, and the police should treat it accordingly. Unless an accident happens and someone dies, in which case it is obviously murder.
I wonder if that actually happens? There should be recordings of the call, which could be published on TV, with a good chance of being recognised.
If your purpose was to demonstrate how this cancer infects even Slashdot, then congratulations. +4 Insightful my ass.
Also, you're wrong. When weev dies, another will simply take his place. A hierarchy is basically institutionalized bullying, and we are still indoctrinated into hierarchies. Weev is operating from the axioms thought to him by the Pointy-Haired Boss from Dilbert, only the Internet has stripped away the facade of civility and revealed the dynamic as it really is: "Put up with my bullshit or get the choice between starving to death or going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison."
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
How about doxxing him in return?
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Other than the whole interview with weev in the NY Fucking Times in which he admits doing what she said he did.
Sounds like the gun control debate. It isn't the words on the screen that's the problem, it's the mentally ill person that's the problem, and our society's unwillingness to address the issue of mental illness.
...and your belief that there is anything but mostly that in IT is at best very uniformed/naive, but more likely a direct feminazi troll
Another poster commented that trolls were a problem back in usenet days. Trolls were just a lot more limited in what they could do.
Precisely. Women tend to call for help or say comments hurt their feelings or otherwise give the EXACT reaction the trolls want.
They do the same thing to most men and... no reaction.
This is what is causing the focus on women. Not that the trolls are against women though I'm sure some are... but that the women often do not know how to deal with bullies.
Men are taught how to deal with bullies from a very young age. You toughen up or you're a weakling. The boys will literally call you "a girl" if you complain.
To not be "a girl" boys must hide their feelings and laugh off abuse. And then at some later date... taking some revenge is generally considered par for the course.
Women need to understand that they can't rely on men or society to come to their aid on the internet. They're going to have to take care of themselves and toughen up a bit. Crying foul just causes a troll feeding frenzy.
That's because women get their feelings hurt far easier than men do. Then they write a stinking blog about how they overcame this attack (feelings hurt) and social media blows it out of proportion. Social media needs to die a horrible death and none of these trolls would exist.
Yes. People wouldn't be complaining about "playing the sex card."
They would be feminizing the guy, calling him a wimp or worse.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
I'm telling you, MEN get swatted all the time. So don't tell me that some women getting some disturbing phone calls means women are targeted more then men.
If that is what you think, then you have no idea what other people go through with this sort of thing. And when it happens, do those men start a national pity party? No. They file a police report and watch their back.
Read this:
http://www.thedenverchannel.co...
This is a guy that got swatted telling his story to the press.
Does he sound like a victim? Does he sound like he wants you to feel sorry for him?
When the police officers came into the room... he was laughing. Process that. That is how you deal with the trolls. They mess with you and you can't show weakness. By all means, get on the ground when a man with a gun screams at you. But don't let the trolls know they got to you.
They don't target women. Women just respond badly to trolling. Some men deal with it badly as well. But they're the ones that didn't learn in the school yard. Most of us figured it out. This isn't a macho thing by the way... its an intelligence thing. Everyone paying attention figures this out.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
>> and a couple wishes to start a family, then the woman taking time off is the only option.
Having kids is a life choice, not something that other people should have to enable or even pay for you doing.
Just like every other choice in life, the decision th have kids negative and positive aspects. If you want kids then you need to accept the fact that it will also impact your career/earning potential. People need to get over it.
cast it all the way back to the start of the industry
Here you go. Most computers were women.
In 1943, the United States Army authorized a secret project at the University of Pennsylvania's Moore School of Electrical Engineering to develop an electronic computer to compute artillery firing tables for the Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory. The project, which came to be known as ENIAC, or Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, was completed in 1946.
Previous to the development of the ENIAC, the U.S. Army had employed women trained in mathematics to calculate artillery trajectories, at first using mechanical desk calculators and later the differential analyzer developed by Vannevar Bush, at the Moore School. In 1945, one of these "computers", Kathleen McNulty (1921–2006), was selected to be one of the original programmers of the ENIAC, together with Frances Spence (1922– ), Betty Holberton (1917–2001), Marlyn Wescoff, Ruth Lichterman (1924–1986), and Betty Jean Jennings (1924–2011). McNulty, Holberton, and Jennings would later work on the UNIVAC, the first commercial computer developed by the Remington Rand Corporation in the early 1950s.
Men originally saw computing as a "woman's job."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If you put your name to something unpopular in public, people may hate you for it. That's never been any different. That's why we have had anonymous pamphleteering and pseudonyms for as long as we have had free speech, and we protect them. This is not a women's issue or a feminist issue. And it's not a "civil rights" issue either. People like Sierra and Citron are not fighting for civil rights, they are a privileged and entitled elite who think that if they speak, the masses should listen in awed silence, no matter how offensive their speech may be. They want the same status that Catholic priests used to have: unquestioned respect and authority.
Fortunately, it's not going to happen. Use your head before you speak in public. And if your entire life is based on publicity and notoriety, realize that that the benefits you received from that can quickly turn into a liability when you fall from favor.
He likely lives a lifestyle where he doesn't give a damn. Considering his unapologetic response, that almost certainly seems to be the situation. Doing that sort of bullshit won't work. Neither will putting him into Club Fed.
A Mexican or Turkish prison, on the other hand, might just be the ticket.
They problem may very well be sociopaths, but the victims tend to be women who step outside of their traditional roles.
The there are the stalking murders of Rebecca Schaeffer and Mia Zapata plus what happened with Sarah MacLachlan, so to pretend that it's simply "sociopaths" is a gross over-simplification.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Like Joe Biden? He actually thinks he has a shot at becoming President in the next term.
I guess that is more or less confirming your hypothesis though.
True fact: paid shills are filling this thread with nonsense in the hopes that they themselves won't be discussed. And they're not even good it it! This happens every time paid trolls are discussed. It would be ironic if it weren't deliberate.
another point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even the police understand how to deal with trolls. You can see here, when the police respond to a swatting call... they encourage people to keep it secret. It happens more then you'd think.
But it is kept under wraps because that just feeds the trolls. They get what they want. They get what they did on the news. They get you admitting that they got you.
You don't give them that. The trolls are the enemy. And when an enemy wants something... you deny it. Women often don't have this mentality. They are trained throughout most of their lives to call for help. The rape whistles they're handed in some college campuses simply continue this training. They don't hand men rape whistles even though men suffer more victimization in society then women do. Most murders are against men. Most burglaries are against men. Most assaults are against men. And yet no one hands men a whistles for any of that.
Why is that? Why do we hand women rape whistles when fewer of them are raped then men that are assaulted? Think about that.
It is genetic. Men are expendable and women are not. Women are to be protected and men must protect themselves.
That is fine in the physical world. On the internet though? Be adults, ladies. You have every ability to be tough as any guy on the internet. End of story.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It is the leaders of the contrarian community who are repeatedly publishing contact info of targeted climate scientists and encouraging the crazies to get in touch directly.
I, like you (somewhat), am peeved by the overuse of the word "hack". Asking AT&T for email addresses and getting them is not a hack any more than stealing someone's password from their wallet and using it to deface their website. Which also isn't "hacking", for those too dense to realize that stealing the keys isn't "hacking" just because it involves a computer.
I do think that the "unlocked door" idea is valid, though. If it were a personal home, then it ought to be unlawful to go up to that home (or personal computer) looking for unlocked doors. But that doesn't mean AT&T should be able to claim that defense, because it wasn't a personal home. It was their public storefront. If they posted a list of customer credit card numbers on a bulletin board visible through a window, it would be criminal negligence on their part. Reading those numbers isn't a crime, although using them for a crime would be...a crime. Even if it was behind a metaphorical door, an unlocked door in a storefront leads to a public space by default, where the same rules should apply.
Metaphors can be useful as long as they are a bit more accurate. Let's not conflate the difference between a private and a presumed public space.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
The Social Security Number is way overused and unfortunately treated as a password rather than as a somewhat (but not always) unique number meant to distinguish one citizen from another for tax purposes. The misuse of that number by banks, credit agencies, and for that matter government bureaucrats is what makes its disclosure so horrible. Otherwise it would be no different than simply disclosing your name or treating it like your phone number.
You missed the part where I said we were done.
Apparently so did you.
You seem to believe I haven't read your posts. That's a nice fiction and it's also false. I have read your posts and I disagree. Perhaps my disagreement was unclear.
You are claiming that the reason for fewer days worked is immaterial. I am claiming it is not. I have provided a reason that I believe it matters. You have done nothing but continued to assert your belief that it doesn't matter without attempting to refute my point. It's as if you believe shouting louder and using more caps will make me forget that I actually had a point.
I do now believe you are as you claim done. It's simple really: you cannot refute my argument so you ragequit. Makse sense, really.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Cute, but not true. The original word is polis (I was going to be fancy and do it Greek letters, but then I realized I'd never get them intact into Slashdot's broken system) meaning city.
Did you listen to those totally sexist women discussing the issue?
What's that go to do with the price of fish?
It could be a bunch of sexist women, Barak Obama, the pope, or the Chief Zorblaxian in that video. It would still not change the underlying truths about gaters.
The truth is that regardless of any actual corruption in the video game journalism scene, the gaters are still a bunch of raging sexist assholes.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Stop that. You're falling into the Just World fallacy. There is no karma, there is no divine retribution, there's no just desserts. There's only us. What goes around doesn't come around, unless people make it happen.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Ah, there we go. You're a bigot. Rather than change your mind when you encounter new evidence, you dismiss the evidence. Can't take you seriously any more. Sorry.
Hmm? I haven't watched the video because I'm not fond of them: I was commenting on your "sexist women" remark. The other link you sent me because it doesn't render without lots of javascript, or I need to sign up or something.
I've read about the gamergate subject a bit. As far as I can tell, the Cracked article has it about right.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why would you bother to defeat Sin and bring forth the calm, if Sin will just return some time in the future?
Because the calm is worth fighting for, even if it only lasts a short while.
Respond to my point about the koran. Go back, read it again, and do not dismiss it. Understand the point I was making. If you just refuse to read things because I said something you didn't expect then you're denying me the ability to form my own argument. You're saying what I can and cannot say in the argument. My point was relevant to this discussion.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If your purpose was to demonstrate how this cancer infects even Slashdot, then congratulations. +4 Insightful my ass.
Also, you're wrong. When weev dies, another will simply take his place. A hierarchy is basically institutionalized bullying, and we are still indoctrinated into hierarchies.
So it's unshaven, unkempt, probably unwashed, Turtles all the way Down ... ?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Keep up the strawman arguments. Nobody ever opposed verifying the accusations. But when you turn those verifications into a full-blown investigation into the accusor, you know darned well you've gone too far and in the wrong direction, troll.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Right, like social engineering up a password isn't "hacking" or any tech wizardry. There will be "unauthorized access" charges, though. You'll be accessing data that's designated as restricted by virtue of the password's barrier. Getting inside a designated-private wallet is also a no-no.
Even if AT&T put a pathetic sticky note of a label at the top of the page saying "This is private data and only Bob, Sally, and Jim are supposed to access it.", I would consider that a means of designating it a private document, even in located in a public space with absolutely zero security, and I would be much more comfortable with a charge of "unauthorized access".
In such a case you could still bust AT&T for negligence, if you like. Handling the goods/data of others means an obligation of security; the above paragraph only meets the much easier obligation of non-disclosure. As in, don't go telling everyone your customer's data. But their giveaway in 2013 didn't even meet that basic obligation.
My dad was part of the Civilian Engineers working state side during WWII (Radiological research aka RADAR at MIT) There simply wasn't that many men stateside, especially during the latter parts of the war. I would suggest to you, that women in IT back then was done partly out of necessity, rather than gender based roles.
He told stories of walking down the streets of Boston and having people look at him funny, as he wasn't in uniform, as if to ask "Why aren't you fighting son?" I can only imagine what it was like seeing very few young men on the streets of America because every one else was off to war.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, you haven't disagreed. You've ignored my argument. Ignoring what someone says and then carrying on with your rant doesn't constitute a disagreement.
If you want to disagree, you must first deal with my point.
Just because I make a point you don't like doesn't mean you can bypass it. I made it clear that accounting for differences in what men and women ACTUALLY do in the work place... they are paid the same.
Your argument is that that is unfair because women have different stresses and responsibilities in their lives that require them to work fewer years or fewer hours or spend more time at home.
That is fine. However, that is a world of difference from saying women are paid less then men for the same work. If you worked fewer years and fewer hours you did not do the same work.
You don't like it that some companies don't offer paternity leave? Fine. Not my argument.
You're not arguing against my point and never have. And because of that, I'm going to have to take your whole point as forfeit.
That I responded to you even this much was a courtesy. I suspect it won't be respected... so be it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Trolls love to bully anyone who isn't them. If there's an easy target then it doesn't matter if it's a woman, a homosexual, a jew, etc.
OK, so internet bullies make up stories based on a fictitious sexual history of their female targets. What common analogue is there for Jews targeted by trolls due to their race/religion?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Do you not know what "facilitated" means? No.
Getting someone drunk to get them to have sex with you isn't okay.
Actual fucking question for disingenuous jerks:
When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever
had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}.
{if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?
made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?1
put their mouth on your anus?1
made you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?1
made you put your mouth on their penis?1
put their fingers or an object in your [if female: vagina or} anus?1
Clearly fucking rape. The question includes the phrase "unable to consent". You have zero legs to stand on. Making shit up about the methodology to invent a narrative where it's "not rape" is basically utterly shitty.
You may have posted anonymously but I'm going to back you up on that. I think I had like five domains blacklisted on Google when they used to support that feature. The ones I remember were w3schools.com, experts-exchange.com, and javaranch.com.
Never, ever anything useful on any of those sites.
(Not that this really has anything to do with the article or that I doubt her skills with the Java language. I just found javaranch to be utterly useless.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
there are women that have streams... can't really hide your gender once you start talking.
That said, why does that make you inferior? Why is a woman on the internet weaker then a man?
I don't think she is weaker. Men deal with these problems. Women need to be adults about this and deal with it as well.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's stupid.
People are vile and self-centered. They will take advantage of you given the chance. Even if they don't have any ill will, chances are that they will be careless and cause you trouble just out of ignorance and stupidity.
Then you've got entire industries filled with professional trolls.
You also have the possibility of people that are just annoying. That may be intentional or not. This was a well known problem back in the days when you had to troll someone personally. People (including the law) understood that a backlash could be triggered under various conditions.
Although once things get out of hand it really doesn't matter who the victim is. Anyone that's looking at this issue and fixating only on the female victims is probably an annoying trollish git.
If harassment and stalking are real problems then they should be treated as such and gender should not even be part of the discussion.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The only way to do this is to comply with the troll's demands - that you stop doing what you are doing and disappear.
I've done that as well. When I said ignore them, I didn't mean don't respond at all. I meant rather that you don't show when they effect you. Rather, you send the impression that YOU are playing with them. That they came to troll you and instead you will troll them instead.
They don't like that. And they tend to go away.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It is so wonderful that not all adult females are the weak pathetic girls that you are portraying women to be. Forget the "misogyny" of others. YOURS is far more dire than that of any "woman hating man".
Many of us despise victims, idiots, and helpless people. This is not just limited to "women" but "women" are a class of people for which these kinds of characteristics are considered tolerable or even desirable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Do you not know what "facilitated" means? No.
I'm not sure that you, so if you think that's in question here you might want to look it up, along with vaginismus and stress/tension.
That one question covers things that are rape, assuming there's neither PRIOR consent nor implied consent. I clearly and carefully explained to you two actual instances of PRIOR and implied consent, in which the "victim" didn't see themselves as a victim. One one case I told you about, the prior consent was explicit, expressed. Don't you think it's a little odd for the researchers to claim someone was raped when the person themselves feels that they had a romantic evening with their spouse? Do you think you can convince my friend she was raped, because she thinks she had a good partying with her husband.
Aside from that one question, which isn't bad, did you notice the questions I copied and pasted for you?
This study calls it sexual violence if you choose to cheer your mate up because they were "showing they were unhappy".
I come home stressed out, irritated that the damn database admin keeps screwing things up. My wife knows what will cheer me up, and she decides to do so. That's categorized as sexual violence in this survey.
You seriously trivialize rape when you pretend that consensual activity between adults in a loving relationship is the same as an assault. It's not. It's actually okay for your wife to cheer you up with a BJ. It's okay for you to reciprocate.
Just like it's okay for you to not use bittorrent - wtf what was wrong with that AC is the other thread? :)
So you deny what the troll wants by giving the troll what they want?
Uhmmm no. No patience for this nonsense... just no.
Next.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Or take out their knee caps. Don't go lethal when you can shame-maim. Maybe that's just the Italian in me.
About the only thing that Facebook doesn't have is the SSN. The rest of it is right there either explicitly out in the open or made trivially easy to figure out by what you've already exposed on Facebook.
Even without Facebook, those other details are readily available to anyone with the slightest bit of motivation. It's been this way since before the Internet was a consumer thing.
Your attitude is a good example of "ignorance being bliss".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, children, the trolls were not here first. Some of us remember that human beings inhabited the Internet before the Eternal September.
Thank you. Usenet, for example was a welcome, tolerant, even useful place. You could reasonably trust someone on misc.forsale to send you what you expected after receiving your check. I suppose in those days, if anyone ever posted something bad, their sysadmin would receive an e-mail and the would-be troller would have his account suspended... and that would be that. Internet was a privilege, and short of getting a job in computers or defense, graduation meant leaving it forever.
Fuck. The Eternal September was 21 years ago. Kids have grown up big enough to legally drink since then, never knowing a net that was free of Nigerian Prince scams or murder by Craig's List. Whose on my lawn? Get off my lawn!
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Ah, classic Adequecy-style trolling. Great stuff... and Poe's law means it's almost impossible to tell from the real thing.
Doxxing? That's not a troll thing. Fake doxxing, where one sockpuppet doxxes another -- that's a troll thing since before the term "doxxing". Not real doxxing.
They asked the people themselves, if they were unable to consent. That's not ambiguous.
No one cares what other questions are on the survey, because we're talking about one stupid point contested by an AC. I see no reason to discuss the rest of the results, except as some kind of deflection about how you're totally and completely wrong about the rape part.
It's only more intense because the feminists try to make it seem like a problem exclusively plaguing women. By explicitly saying "women this" or "women that", you are alienating men who also face the same problems and this leads to resentment. I believe this potential is where most of the aggression comes from.
Auernheimer is a blight on the human species and a criminal.
Women are more vulnerable (on average!) than men to harassment and similar behaviours.
Both statements can be true.
It's harassment, and it's harassment that would have been targeted toward anyone espousing the same views, and it's wrong. But it's not a threat.
People need to learn that trolling is a natural response on the internet because of the size of the audience and the relative safety of being able to say what you want without consequence. These "victims", female or otherwise, are causing these reactions (often intentionally in order to get further attention) by publicly espousing a view that many recognize as fucking bullshit. In meat space, this often gets no outward reaction. People may think you're a fucking idiot and may hate you, but they won't outwardly say it in a place where you can see it. On the internet, with an expanded audience and relative safety, the odds of one person calling you out on your bullshit increases greatly. Once that ice is broken, others feel validated, and will join in to express their own views.
This is all fine. If you can't handle disagreement, often angry disagreement, don't have a forum / comments section on the same site you post the shit people will disagree with.
The trigger that escalates it from angry dissent to trolling is the reaction. The instant you try to argue with or censor the angry posters you unleash the trolls. Whether you're right, wrong, or winning or losing the argument doesn't matter. When you start an argument online with an angry poster you're just inciting them to continue as well as providing entertainment for those watching. This entertainment feeds the "for the lulz" mentality of any potential trolls watching it, and shit escalates.
When a troll targets someone, they will always attack what they perceive as vulnerable. Race, religion, gender, sexuality, physical appearance etc. are all bright red targets in the eyes of a troll because the troll knows they can get an emotional response by targeting those things. Emotional responses extend the flame war, providing more lulz.
Splitting because Slashdot's "lameness" filter triggers primarily on length.
They only attack these things because of the reaction it will get.
The proper way to deal with trolls is to:
Ignore the trolls.
Prevent the trolling by not censoring/arguing with angry dissenters.
Prevent the angry dissent by not making yourself a target for angry dissent by posting bullshit people will call you out on.
Now, it's perfectly within your right to post bullshit. However, you should expect angry dissent as a reaction. It's also very possible to post non-bullshit and still get angry dissent through no fault of your own.
In both cases, the key is your reaction. Never try to censor the dissenters, and never get in a flame war with them. If you really must respond, do so carefully, without being a bigot (people have different opinions and dismissing someone else's without fair consideration because you've already form your own is the definition of "bigotry"). Remember that if your response is seen as emotional in anyway, or if you seem personally upset about the thing you're responding to, it will be entertaining to potential trolls.
If you've gone ahead and made yourself a target and you're actively being trolled, just stop posting. Ignore any and all threats of violence online - they're about as real as the kids in IRC who threaten to pwn ur box because you beat them in Quake.
Splitting because Slashdot's "lameness" filter triggers primarily on length.
If you receive any meat-space harassment or threats, or if your doxxed beyond name, address, phone number, and place of work (all of these are essentially public information that anyone can get), contact the police. Not the media. Not Twitter. Not Facebook. The police.
TL;DR: Welcome to the internet. Don't feed the trolls.
Oh, and as a preemptive response to the inevitable "victim blaming" accusations, I'll point out the difference between blame and responsibility. If I get hit by a car when using a crosswalk, the blame will likely fall on the driver, though the ultimate responsibility falls on me to be safe when crossing - look both ways, wait for the walk signal, wear bright or reflective clothing at night, not linger in the street to pick up a penny, etc.
We accept risk management as a part of everyday life. It's your own responsibility to reasonably minimize the risk to your own life and property. None of this affects where the blame falls in any given situation, be it online or offline.
Actually, the report that article links to lists the figure as 2-8%, not 2-5%. And the problem with that figure, as with all such figures for false accusations, is that that is the percentage of people who get caught making false accusations. It doesn't include the people who successfully get away with it. The actual percentage of false accusations is necessarily going to be higher, since the successful ones are never counted as false accusations.
Similarly, there are "all sorts of clues" when someone does it badly. Those naturally wouldn't be there if someone was doing it well.
hee hee I *knew* you couldn't leave it alone.
If you want to disagree, you must first deal with my point.
Your point is that women work less, so being paid less is not a sexist system. Right?
My point is that the system causes them to work less so you can't just consider hours worked. Ignoring that is ignoring the whole problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You want someone who was mocked like Sarah Palin, you need to go back to Dan Quayle. But George W. Bush himself got close, actually. (And all three for good reason)
ONE QUESTION asked if they were unable to consent. I said that question is pretty good. We agree on that. So I'm not sure why you keep bringing that question up. The question isn't perfect, and I showed you two real-life examples where it incorrectly labels something as rape, but that question is good enough. "Showing they were unhappy" is a horrible question. So we have a survey interpretation with some pretty good questions and some pretty bad ones. The results, therefore, are somewhere in the middle.
> Clearly fucking rape. The question includes the phrase "unable to consent".
Let me put it this way and maybe you'll understand my point.
When my wife woke me up via a blow job, I was "unable to consent" - I was out cold when she started.
I woke up very, very happy. I say I was not raped. Are you going to try to convince me that I was raped?
* You'll notice I already gave you this actual real-life event, and another like it, several posts ago.
I think you're misunderstanding the situation. The people posting the bullshit -- they're the trolls. They post bullshit, and when someone calls them on it they say "look at the nasty misogynist basement dweller denying the obvious truth". Then they rub their hands with glee and post more bullshit. Repeat until some psycho actually makes a threat (or, if necessary, fake one), then they jump up and down about how all their opponents are violent psychopaths and so disagreeing with them is to be a violent psychopath. Then they win (I guess?)
There's instances of this from other blogs doing the same thing. One example that stands out in my mind is from LGF. Where a user bombed comments on hot air(during a low moderation period) to claim that "hot air supported racism." Then was lauded for what they did on their home site.
Om, nomnomnom...
You didn't point that out. You used a poor analogy. Because most people would consider burning a Koran on TV to be trolling itself, rather than a normal, everyday thing that people do until they are themselves trolled.
Umm, yes, you did. The trolls are looking to cause a behavior change, so yes, they have "won" if they cause it. You didn't refute that. Instead, you gave a very poor, extreme "Because you are so concerned about getting beheaded by some crazy person that you wouldn't dare burn a silly book." when nobody who is not themselves trolling wants to publicly burn such a book.
It's not bullshit if your original behavior wasn't something that a normal human being would not consider incendiary. It probably is bullshit if your normal behavior is to burn books on TV for the lulz.
Yeah, I get it. You've had your say. And so have I.
Bots? What are we even talking about? Another bullshit statistical study?
Bro, unless you know the methodology on those they're utterly untrustworthy. Not just on this issue but on ANY issue. You can't just take those things as gospel. A fair number of them are just made up.
I'll go a step further... lets your stats, which I don't regard as credible, were reversed. Lets say men in your study received 25 times the harassment. Would you suggest men need to be protected from harassment then?
Obviously not. This whole thing is female infantilization. You're trying to protect the poor helpless adult women on the internet.
They don't need our protection.
I've been on a lot of forums in a lot of communities on the internet. Women are rarely harassed. In fact, they tend to be protected more then not. The only thing they tend to suffer from is lots of people asking for their picture. That is a constant question. But aside from that... they're treated with more respect in most cases then men.
Anyone that has been on a forum has seen this and is familiar with it.
Now do some women get harassed? Sure... But they tend to come into a thread, say "I'm a girl"... write in a giggly fashion and then not actually contribute anything to the thread. Which gets the tried and true ToGTFO response. I've seen girls give that response to other girls that do that.
Everything is contextual. But the internet in general is not a hostile place for women... no more so then for men in any case.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Now, see, THAT'S trolling. Classic. Bravo, AC.
No mod points but AC needs to be visible:
Here's your statistics.
The study found that female bots received on average 100 malicious private messages a day while the male bots received an average of 3.7.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Wrong, the trolls want SPECIFIC behavior changes. Not any behavior change. If you decide to eat tacos instead of roast beef, it doesn't mean they win just because their behavior caused you to change something you were doing.
They want to control you. And control means making you do what they want you to do.
Things trolls want:
1. You leave and never come back.
2. You go inactive for long periods of time.
3. You lose your temper and start raging at them.
4. You call for help.
These are the sorts of things trolls want. If you do none of these things then the trolls won't feel the troll was successful.
Things trolls do not want to happen
1. Making the troll look like a fool.
2. Laughing at the troll.
3. Being funnier then the troll.
4. Finding their troll to be boring/uninteresting/unremarkable.
Savvy? That is how you deal with trolls. Now you know.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Over-rated yeah. Horrible & Boring? It has been a while since I've seen it so could be. Surprised CinemaSins hasn't "reviewed" that one yet.
I'm an audiophile so I use it to test my sub placement & volume. The ship battle is a treat. :)
i.e.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/...
I don't even know anything about the case you're talking about and I don't care to read about it, but I will say that I address all unsupported accusations, whether from a man, woman, child, monkey, dolphin or all-knowing sky fairy... with a grain of salt and a query to show me the evidence.
A large chunk of crimes reported are false reports. It's not a majority, but it's enough to be scary and justify investigating all accusations carefully.
If you can identify a KKK-like group that is systematically threatening women, by all means, lets go stop them.
If not, i'm confused what the analogy is.
The police themselves should be treated as accessories to the crime, for busting down a door and brandishing weapons based on an anonymous call.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's mostly due some girls that aren't actually into games and just use it to get "nerdycred", but don't actually play anything considered worthy or are actually interested in getting good.
And the same happens to male "gamers".
Both are generally called several things like "casual gamers", "call of duty audience", "TBBT public" etc..
Of course, several girls that are actually interested in games get caught in the crossfire.
Once again I have the "obsessed with false accusations of rape" reality denier. Because you are a person who believes in an a world where women are serial liars, and you're inured to observational evidence about it by some mental block I don't get.
A man is physically much stronger than a woman of a similar fitness level. If such a man uses his superior strength to force a woman to do something she doesn't really want to do, that man commits a crime and we prosecute him.
A woman is mentally and emotionally much stronger than a man of similar intelligence in the context of manipulation or who has power in a relationship. If such a woman uses her superior manipulation and mind-game capabilities to force a man to do something he doesn't really want to do, that woman gets no consequence whatsoever and the man is told to stop being a pussy.
That's a reality and it is frequently and almost universally denied because it's not politically correct. It could be that the particular women who press charges and are willing to testify in court aren't liars - the whole ugly legal process tends to rule out the psychotic daddy-issue ones who just want attention. It could also be that they consider lying under oath risky and women are generally risk-averse so that 2-5% figure comes from the small minority of women willing to take that risk.
But it's a fact that right or wrong people will take their common everyday experiences and tend to extrapolate that into other situations they aren't personally involved in. There really are a lot of lying manipulative women out there. A woman who doesn't treat a man that way is hard to find (I am fortunate I found one. These are the same women who complain that "all men are pigs" when their own lack of integrity is what pushes away the good men who aren't. It's not hard to understand how this can color (or if you like cloud) the perception of greater issues like false accusations in court. Women have themselves to blame for that one and the first step toward treating them like equals is holding them responsible for their decisions the same way men are.
Of course that kind of real equality doesn't "sell" as well as the "equal means extra privileges" kind of "equality" so many promote so they can pretend to feel like noble white-knight champions of the downtrodden victims.
Just like every other choice in life, the decision th have kids negative and positive aspects. If you want kids then you need to accept the fact that it will also impact your career/earning potential. People need to get over it.
I don't get your point. Currently the system is biased so that if a couple wants to make that life choice it's the woman who usually has to take time off. If there was opportunity for men to take time off, more would. My guess is it probably wouldn't reach 50%, but it would better than the current ratios.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The point why trolls can easily target women, are the reactions. Troll a "gamer gurl" and she will produce video blogs against harressment of girls on the internet. Troll a guy, and he will state, that you're an asshole. And that's it.
Of course, this is a generalization, too. There are many women, who can deal appropriately with this trolls. But there are a few very loud ones, which cry "sexism" for personal (not general) attacks.
I remember growing up I was taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
Have you ever considered that, just possibly, something you were taught at school wasn't 100% accurate? That perhaps bullying, intimidation, threats may in fact have a serious adverse psychological effect? Do you really believe that sort of behaviour is OK? (hint: it's not OK!)
people making fun of someone for being a complete fucking cunt.
Can you give more details on exactly what you mean by "being a complete fucking cunt", and why it deserves such an unpleasant response? Or is it just a case of "I don't like them, so anything goes"?
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
You're forgetting one thing: She's a woman crying victim on the internet. In the words of "SocJus" we need to "Listen And Believe".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You want to know what happens when a woman harasses a man? We already have a living example, Here's a transgender feminist explaining how that works out even when that woman is a domestic abuser who has the GNAA doing dirty work for her.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
No, we just react differently even though we have evidence men are harassed more. When a man is harassed on the internet, even by his domestic abuser nobody gives a shit or they go after HIM. When a woman is harassed on the other hand it's the end of the world and a civil rights issue.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Ignore the trolls.
TFA addresses this: if you ignore the trolls, they escalate.
Prevent the angry dissent by not making yourself a target for angry dissent by posting bullshit people will call you out on.
Which "bullshit" are you talking about here, specifically? You basically seem to be saying that you should never post anything online that anyone may disagree with. Do you really think it's right that a small, but angry, minority should be able to silence others through threats of violence and intimidation?
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
Considering I've seen the abuse Jack Thompson got yes I can. What I can't see is anyone giving a shit, unlike when a woman gets any sort of trolling whatsoever then it's suddenly the end of the world. The difference isn't in the trolling or even the amount, it's in the fact people actually *care*.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Really? Then why is this transgender feminist basically the ONLY feminist publicly calling out the fact feminists have closed ranks to defend an outright domestic abuser? Where's that "by and large" you were just talking about? As Wythe writes the sanitization and apologia for abuse and bigotry in social justice is a staggering problem, women brave enough to build girls schools in pakistan are afraid of targetted revenge attacks for being a "gender traitor".
If anything you said were true there'd basically be people in the streets right now over the racism, sexism, and transphobia rampant in Social Justice circles and the deliberate targetted attacks against women and minorities speaking out against primarily affluent white social justice warriors.
The truth is you're the one packing straw to fabricate a moral panic. Jack Thompson got trolled like many prominent people do and nobody gave a fuck, hell most people mocked him. When it happens to a woman suddenly people like you consider this the end of the world.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I'm a guy and I have been harassed by a relentless troll in the past after I presented a position that the troll strongly disagreed with. He did a google search of everything he could find out about me and pasted the results all over the place repeatedly. Lesson #1: Don't Use Real Name.
Table-ized A.I.
Because it's not biased at all to deliberately exclude men raped by women from the categorization of "rape" and instead hide them as "other" then go on to sell people on the idea that it's men behind all of this using the word "rape".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Out of 20 major studies a majority found a rate at minimum double that, and nearly half had a rate of 18% or higher. And that was counting flat out false accusations, not just railroadings and witchhunts which overwhelmingly target black men.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Yes, actually, considering that men who don't conform to that gender role are attacked using slurs like "neckbeard" and "dudebro". In fact feminists went so far as to commit felonies to shut down a suicide prevention conference because hey fuck men.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I wish I still had mod points, because this is the beginning and end of the issue. Unfortunately, most people are not able to see these issues objectively, but instead react to the emotional shouts from the extreme with which they are more closely aligned (which is usually pretty far from their beliefs, but just a tad closer than the opposing extremist views).
And the largest group of zealous, uncriticizable, "well intentioned" people being manipulated right now is... http://theflounce.com/harassme...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
And "feminists" like you go around crying about anti-feminists pre-emptively every single chance you get to drum up that moral panic and outrage.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You keep insisting you care about equality and then you do things like cite David Futrelle, a toxic rape apologist and pathological liar. Do you know why people said there was no police report? BECAUSE THE POLICE TOLD THEM THERE WAS NO POLICE REPORT. It wasn't until LATER that the police changed their story and mentioned that they had sent her to the feds.
Reporting what the police explicitly tell you after direct investigation is the exact OPPOSITE of "without even a hint of investigating it".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Did anyone say genetic? No, you brought up genetics as an attempt to straw man Archangel Michael. Just another completely dishonest tactic to make it utterly impossible to ever stray from your dogma. Do you get that it's stuff like this that actually hurts women?
Do you know what actual women in the industry say? They say the fearmongering from people like you is what drives women away. Hell one of the most respected women in linux called you on this too.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You spent a non-trivial amount of time and effort fighting with trolls. Unless you're Thor Odinson and these are literal trolls, you lost just by engaging.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
The worst slurs against men right now all attack them for either being male or being an unattractive male. If you want your family to understand gender equality you're going in the wrong direction.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits
There is also another common counter to gamergate, which is thinking that wrongdoing by elements of the whole discredits the whole. This reasoning raises the question: Did you immediately dismiss Occupy Wall Street because of the smashed windows?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Jack Thompson got the same threats and many men have been doxxed. Moving and running away for 7 years are purely things SHE CHOSE to do, not something she was forced to do. Men aren't given the luxury of doing things like that and having it considered reasonable behavior.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Women aren't attacked for being women, their attacks just aren't IGNORED like mens' are. When a man is trolled he's told to deal with it. When a woman is trolled they damsel and people like you raise the hue and cry of misogyny and discrimination.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Women aren't the first target of choice, they're just the first target everyone ELSE will give a shit about. Troll a hundred men and nobody will give a fuck, they'll be expected to just ignore you or deal with it. Troll one woman and people will scream "misogyny" as she damsels.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Yes, actually, considering that men who don't conform to that gender role are attacked using slurs like "neckbeard" and "dudebro".
I don't think "guys who communicate their feelings" are the ones being called neckbeard or dudebro.
In fact feminists went so far as to commit felonies to shut down a suicide prevention conference because hey fuck men.
Well, I'm sure you have a valid citation for that, and not, say, a link to a video of protesters at a speech on "men's issues and the double standards of feminism" (rather than a "suicide prevention conference") cheering when someone random pulls a fire alarm.
The solution is to get feminists to stop opposing equal custody and start supporting paternity leave as well as maternity leave. In countries that have that there's no meaningful "penalty" for pregnancy or childrearing.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Your problem is that you refuse to see that someone can be a misogynist and also be shouting about real problems.
That's why the real problems should be addressed, rather than the character of the messenger. If the KKK came out against NSA wiretapping on the grounds that civil liberties are being violated, would you say "wiretapping isn't an issue, this is the KKK we're talking about", or would you say "despite my abhorrence of the KKK, their argument has merit on this issue"?
Gaming is a 90 billion dollar industry. 90 BILLION DOLLARS. It's no insignificant issue. And if you are glad to keep the corrupt locked away from important duties, why not have them locked away in McDonalds cook lines rather than in these position of influence?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Nobody is trying to scare women away. Men get the Same Shit, the only difference is men are taught to ignore it or deal with it. Women are taught to damsel themselves and be helpless victims. Nobody cares when men get trolled or doxxed or swatted, when women get so much as trolled it's the end of the world.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Your theory falls flat when it turns out men get the same shit women do and the difference is in how everyone ELSE reacts. Men are expected to deal with it or ignore it, women get a crusade against the troll because "ZOMG MISOGYNY!"
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
It's simple. How do you bully nerds and geeks and gamers if you're still busy pretending "geek is in"? You find an excuse everyone will approve of and nobody will dare question. http://theflounce.com/harassme...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Over a million tweets averaging between 30-50 thousand a day is hardly a "few", nor are people who raise $70,000 for feminists to fund female game developers "obnoxious assholes".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
People are vile and self-centered.
Don't generalise from what you see in the mirror. There are plenty of decent folks out there. It's just that the minority assholes get more attention.
You should read this article by a transgender feminist if you believe that. And seriously? Citing cracked?
This is the sort of thing you're defending here:
https://twitter.com/GGfeminist...
https://twitter.com/milky_cand...
http://i.imgur.com/892hZ1A.png
https://twitter.com/FabioFacch...
https://twitter.com/CodeusaSof...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://imgur.com/BNlLKcn
https://twitter.com/JakALope04...
https://twitter.com/tastenotou...
https://twitter.com/JaredBrick...
https://twitter.com/lizzyf620/...
https://twitter.com/tratowzolo...
https://forum.encyclopediadram...
http://i.imgur.com/u8835lH.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
First off he's not a raging asshole who got dumped, he is a domestic abuse victim that dumped his abuser. And that's according to the transgender feminist so Social Justicey they wanted to put trigger warnings in the Great Gatsby. Second if you want to talk about armies of sauron you should look at the racist, sexist, transphobic criminals you're siding with. The people so violent and sociopathic that women brave enough to build girls schools in pakistan are afraid of revenge attacks for being a "gender traitor".
Maybe you should try listening to intersectional feminists instead of cracked.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You are forgetting that you are trying to defend an asshole by demonizing the victim.
I know many women in IT. And in other tech fields. Some of whom I've worked with. I've witnessed plenty of anti-female behavior. The most common I've seen is the assumption that anything a male suggests is intrinsically better than anything a female suggests. Next most common I've seen is paternalism. Rarely (but not never) do I see more overt forms (being in software development, calling a woman a "code c***" is an insult I've heard more than a few times). I know this is tame compared to what many people talk about.
And I know some people would consider this not sexism.
These subtle forms of sexism are probably just as bad. They may whisper, but the message they whisper is all the more effective for having been whispered - it's often easier to dismiss the obviously sexist comment than it is the clam, gentle voice "offering assistance".*
Sexism in IT and other tech fields is very real and all too common.
*I am NOT saying offering help is a bad thing. It is how it's done. However subtle, there is a difference between offering help to someone who is considered an equal and to someone who is considered an inferior.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
Howard Dean.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't know whether he was or wasn't a pedophile, but he sure molested a lot of little kids...
but around here we're a representational democracy. Now, when our voter turnout gets above 50% you might have a point, but for now the gov't protects those what put 'em in office, and with our low as crap voter turnout that's gonna be whoever pays for the tv ads and voter reg drives.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Excellent post. Much better than the one about burning books on TV.
Trolls love to "bully" women because they're the easiest group to get a rise out of.
While the benefits of anonymous speech are often promoted, I have come to believe the dangers of it, more specifically the dangers of trusting anonymous information, are too often overlooked by our society. It seems people are too willing to give credence to rumors and anonymous tips. It isn't that I would eliminate anonymous speech, rather I wish there were forums for open speech where people actually stand behind their words and people could then decide for themselves which story seems to have a more credible backing. There are plenty of examples of both men and women being very unfairly and wrongly harassed and accused online (how on earth did the discussion go down that rabbit hole anyway). I just wish people would put a little more effort into checking out a story before believing it.
I am a crackpot
At least you know what you are.
Women talk about it as a women's issue because women get the vast majority of the death and rape threats many of which have personal details and need to be taken seriously..
People are vile and self-centered. They will take advantage of you given the chance. Even if they don't have any ill will, chances are that they will be careless and cause you trouble just out of ignorance and stupidity.
You really need to get out of the basement and start to meet some real people. Doing something like missionary work (even for the Pastafarians.... it really doesn't matter) or selling calendars door to door. Something that can give you a chance to actually meet ordinary people who do ordinary things.
Most people are compassionate and care about others. A small minority think of those others as marks or suckers, but that is the problem of that small minority. Trolls like you are talking about are definitely a small minority of the small minority who have some personal issues with society due to genetics or disposition and personality.
As for the misogynist attitude among several posts, I agree this is equal gender opportunity here. Women do things a little different than men, but the brutal asshats among women are just as cruel as any men. They can also screw over men if they want to get their claws into you. Luckily, even among women those are a minority.
Nothing about the GP post you were replying to was stupid and IMHO was spot on for the situation described.
I have played female characters on MMORPGs before. This is usually just for variety (it is always a secondary account) and to explore the game in a slightly different dimension.
I never try to hit on guys or even act feminine, but I neither confirm nor deny my gender in that situation as well (it is usually assumed I'm female when I'm not). Most of the time it is just some shy kids who try to hit on me (where I say something like "in your dreams... dude" or something else just as pithy) and try to shrug it off. Most of the time it really doesn't even matter, but there are a couple of creeps who go overboard.
It is definitely a different kind of experience in that situation in terms of the social interaction.
This isn't a gender specific issue though. It is a cyber-bullying issue where both law enforcement and ISPs need to be serious about stamping out this behavior and setting forth explicit policies about harassment and engaging in not just banning those individuals but reaching out with handcuffs and letting them know there are consequences to on-line behavior. Where needed, laws may even need to be enacted because this stuff is getting out of hand.
One group I will acknowledge is at least trying to do the right thing is the Wikimedia Foundation, where explicit policies are in place along with active involvement of the WMF legal counsel to turn over evidence to law enforcement of the country where somebody does this kind of serious death threat. It has happened on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects over the years, and while I have not faced such a threat I would take seriously, I have seen it done on behalf of others.
Facebook on the other hand is a steaming pile of manure and doesn't care what happens to its users. I could name other groups but it is an issue that can and should be addressed in a larger forum.
Am I the only one here eating all this delectable irony up? I mean the ARCHANGEL MICHAEL is sitting here bitching about the government telling him what to do when his religion pervades every aspect of this very same government? Or that his religion has such a sordid history of tyranny and murder? I mean you're worried you might be killed in a "death panel" but you're obviously cool with some Inquisitions right?
You guys better hurry the hell up before I eat up all this delicious irony. Hey Mike, could you sprinkle some more of that on my popcorn here? I can't get enough!
Then the US lost WW2 because the Imperial Japanese forced the US to defend itself.
The irrationality in this thread is frankly pretty funny.
The orwellian logic of "To defend yourself is to be defeated" is just goofy.
For one thing, I tend to have fun with the trolls. They're so despirate to get a reaction that you can bait them and get them to do stupid things. Which makes it easier to laugh at them. They can be quite entertaining at times.
Regardless, holding my line is no more a waste of my time then arguing with you.
Do I lose simply arguing something? Is the best policy to just avoid all conflict and go through life lacking the ability to even defend my position if I wanted to because I've never had to do it before?
Fighting the trolls made me wiser and made me stronger... on the internet. And I found it to be interesting at times. I treated it like science... what will this do.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Check your privilege
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Precisely.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The point of the Koran comment again was to counter something the previous poster said.
They said that if you take efforts to avoid a troll that troll wins.
I pointed out that we avoid real life versions of trolls all the time. If you make a cartoon they don't like, islamic extremists will try to kill you. That is just a fact. If I made an unflattering cartoon about Jesus, I would not be risking my life. I could also burn a bible on international television and why many people might think it was in poor taste... I probably wouldn't have my throat slit. The same can't be said if I did that to a koran.
We modify our behavior even though we disagree with them because we don't want to draw the attention of crazy people.
To that end, when you're on the internet you try to avoid people that are crazy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
being a woman isn't a weakness unless women are inferior to men.
True point.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I don't think that anyone doubts that there are real instances. Claiming that it's all of the most extreme proponents on all issues is quite a big claim, and I think it does need some proof.
Hell, I can't think of many more extreme nutcases than the Westboro Baptist Church, and they're apparently genuine.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There are many things I can think of which really should be done to Weev. None of them are fatal.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
To be fair, she was also mocked for being a woman, just not by the liberal press.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
This isn't a gender specific issue though.
It's only a gender-specific issue because people like weev act in gender-specific ways. If people like him went after both genders equally, or all ethnicities equally, or all sexual orientations equally, then the conversation would be different (even if the most appropriate solution is completely identical).
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Probably true. Weaker sex[*], easier to scare.
[* If women weren't weaker than men, there would be no "women's" category in sports.]
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Winning a discussion doesn't mean you actually effect change.
Then I'd hardly call it a win at all.
To the winners go the spoils.
That's how you evaluate who the winner is. As it looks so far, systemd is winning the day by taking over many linux distros, Dice is still driving content here, and they just love posts by Bennet and will take as many as he can provide.
Given that, who do you think is winning?
Along with everybody that also too part in criminal activities with him.
It's really just that simple.
That's two seperate events, and the one you're talking about was where domestic violence victims were trying to speak about being turned away from shelters or threatened with arrest. You just shot yourself in the foot bringing that up.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The trolls causing problems may claim to be part of the group, that uses a social forum, but that does not mean it is true.
Criminals lie. If you don't believe one thing they say, then you should not trust anything they say.
These days computers are easy enough to use, there is no reason to believe they are even "geeks".
Imagine criminals in a prison, allowed to use the prison library computers for "education", signing on to random sites just to harass people... 8-P
The sorts of analyses that can be conducted using game-theoretic formulations can be used to see what happens when a population is unable to defend itself because it swears off retribution in kind. The numbers are pretty dismal, without strong cooperation by the good people there is a sort of inevitability that the nice go extinct. Until the mid 1800's outlier antisocial behavior ran a high risk of being met by termination, which might not be a deterrent, but it sure reduces recividism. Once we became too civil to retaliate in kind (or stronger) we run the risk of losing to the trolls.
The ability to be anonymous just makes it harder to stop trolls, and any strong efforts to prevent anonymity are met by claims that the internet needs to support anonymity if it is to deliver freedom in the lands of tyranny.
All of this is fodder for great movies (where the bad guys are pursued by the good) but only if the bad guys hit equally evil players will they find meaningful retribution. If the trolls were to accidentally cost the Russian mafie some serious coin, they might find a knock at their door that would be much worse than having the FBI come a-knocking. (This is the plot of one of my tech-fi stories).
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Social engineering a password (usually) involves no tech wizardry. It is a skill that anybody can pick up that doesn't look like a headless guy in a suit...hunched over a computer screen typing code. The social engineer is the guy you just assumed was a building janitor. Calling every computer-related crime "hacking" brings along a lot of baggage that isn't always appropriate to figuring out how to catch criminals and prevent the crimes.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
I will agree that weev is acting like an asshat and targeting women. I don't think you can make any further generalizations beyond that or try to group him with any specific group unless they are calling themselves the "he-man woman hater's club" (something that came from the Little Rascals movie serials in the 1930's... and even that group was tongue in cheek as they had a girl as a member).
Some guys target women, some women target men, or some jerks simply target "marks" or something else that is weak in their view.
I dunno about weev specifically, but that's not a bad alternative name for the MRA movement.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Real trolling requires witt and while infuriating the target should cause generally great laugther (eg. by seemingly playing along and letting the target run into a self-built wall). Threats are just a hate crime and should be procesuted.
That's two seperate events, and the one you're talking about was where domestic violence victims were trying to speak about being turned away from shelters or threatened with arrest. You just shot yourself in the foot bringing that up.
Me: Do you have a citation for your claim?
You: No! And you just shot yourself in the foot by bringing up another event!
Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. If you can't support your claim when called out, no amount of deflection is going to hide that fact.
I've read too many articles like this recently to keep track of who said what, but one of them pointed out that women especially get attacked by trolls when they're starting to become well-known and people are listening to their opinions. Kathy Sierra, for instance, started the Head First line of programming books, which I found useful, and got enough sexist trolling that she left the business. It's happened to other authors I know as well. And of course there are the trolls who hate having women in gaming.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you sincerely believe what you said then it's high time for YOU to be on the receiving end of a proper trolling, and not the silly childish trolling you'd get on a brief 4chan thread, but the kind we're talking about. Your tune will change right quick once you understand what we're talking about.
No, he probably won't, because a rape threat to a man is very different to a rape threat to a woman. Just like a racial slur levelled at a white person is very different to a racial slur levelled at a black person, and an mental capacity jibe against a neurotypical person is easier to ignore than one at an autistic, cerebral palsy, or downs syndrome person. In all three cases the first is easy to brush off and ignore, the second not so easy.
You: "Oh I know exactly the event you're talking about but I'm going to try poisoning the well and conflating two different times the same hate crime was committed"
Me: "So not only do you know exactly what I'm talking about, you also just brought up a second where domestic violence victims were silenced"
You: "You can't support your claims, you're deflecting you're deflecting!"
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You: "Oh I know exactly the event you're talking about...
... as evidenced by the fact that I asked about it, and confused it for something entirely different!"
Me: "So not only do you know exactly what I'm talking about..."
I see that you're having an argument with your own imagination, and losing. Sad.
death threats and false claims of prostitution is not what I call trolling... this is just criminal behavior.
trolling is harmless, like saying you like apple in a windows post.
saying you will rape OP's mom and kill his dad because he posts about windows, is not trolling.
That you equate those things is exactly the problem. Thanks for your cogent, if unwitting, demonstration of the problem that female victims of sexual assault face. Hint: women are not going around screaming "rape me".
[FUCK BETA]
In case you're not sure about this, women are already pretty aware that dark alleys are not a good place to be at 2am. It really doesn't help to suggest that they should modify their behaviour further.
[FUCK BETA]
I agree. It's more related to bullying than to trolling. In swedish there is the term "näthat" (meaning web hate) addressing the phenomenon.
Game reviewing is not a 90 billion dollar industry. Frankly, if it hit 1 billion worthless industry I would be surprised. I bet it is in the 10s of millions.
Because we are merely talking about the corrupt people that review games, not the people that build the games, it is INSIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
They don't matter. Everyone knows they are corrupt and the power they have over whether a game gets made is insignificant.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The owner's insurance company would ask both of those questions as part of their investigation prior to paying out a claim.
In my life I have observed that people with more expensive (at-risk for theft) cars devote more resources to protecting them than people with less expensive cars. I've also see the same thing with houses and other posessions.
Still not seeing why, if self-protection against crime is considered the responsibility of the potential victim in every other situation, rape should be treated as a special case.
Every individual is responsible for their own self protection. This responsibility in no way reduces the culpability of criminals. This isn't contraversial when you talk about 99.9% of crimes, so why is so much effort being directed into making it a "gender issue"?
Rape insurance is not a thing. And the police would not tell you that your car had, in fact, not been stolen. The point is that women ALREADY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for not getting raped. The complaint is that when a woman is discovered to have not followed one of these myriad bullshit rules is that the rapist is then somehow not culpable, or she is seen as being partly culpable. Women don't need lectured on personal safety. They do need people like you to not lecture them on how "rape isn't a special case".
[FUCK BETA]
No, children, the trolls were not here first. Some of us remember that human beings inhabited the Internet before the Eternal September.
WTF are you talking about? Trolling was a high art long before Eternal September. I recall seeing some pretty incredible trolling on Usenet long before the AOL masses were unleashed onto the Internet.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I disagree. Both men and women probably get their feelings hurt in equal measure. Men are simply TAUGHT to deal with it. Where as women are taught to complain.
So when a man gets abuse, he eats it or responds in kind.
When a women gets abuse, she screams.
This is a vestige of the old sexual status quo where men protected the vulnerable women. We provided for them. We guarded them. We spoke for them.
They were not quite adults. And not being quite adults when challenged by an adult, their responsible guardian was to step in and deal with it.
Women have rejected this relationship. That however has a price. If women are adults then they should act like adults.
Not like men... like adults. Deal with your own problems if you can. If you can't and a male peer could/did then that begs the question of why he is able to do something you are not?
If women are not inferior, then they can protect themselves as easily as men on the internet. The only advantage men have over women is their physical strength which is irrelevant on the internet.
There is no reason for men to be required to come to the defense of a women on the internet. It is all just words.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I read through my above post and have decided to shorten and revise it. It really is too long and despite my efforts at the time still went on a couple of unrelated tangents. I know this is still long, but at least it is better organized. So, for the tl;dr crowd:
Why does it seem that the first response to these kinds of problems is always legal? To sue someone? Is it just because that's what is expedient to existing victims? Because it won't help future potential victims. Even changing the law or boosting enforcement won't get at the root cause.
The fact is that sadly, sociopathic behavior like this is socially acceptable. Every time a woman speaks up, half of the crowd chimes in to defend the sociopath. "It was her own fault", you say. "Women are such whiners; this happens to everyone", you say. And let's be clear: there's a point to be made that women are perhaps too often thin-skinned. But often this point is made regardless to the sexist nature (rape threats) or severity of the harassment (total destruction of career, made to feel unsafe and insecure even in her own home or the home of her family, made to fear for the safety of that family). And most of the people making this point, especially in a place like Slashdot that allows people to post anonymously, make their point with misogynistic slurs. It's only understandable that this position is almost always attacked as "blaming the victim" when there are only a couple of rational voices in the mob.
When you strip away the fact that women are the most common victims, you are left with the uncontroversial problem: sociopaths. Even when they aren't attacking you personally, their assaults harm society and by extension harm you. Every time a Kathy Sierra is harassed out of her comfort zone, we lose another intelligent perspective. We lose the voice behind javaranch.com. And to all you lonely nerds out there: we lose one more woman that understands and appreciates what you do. One more woman that might have shared your dreams and obsessions.
How can the law help us? Will it stop people from being sociopaths? Not any more than drunk driving laws made people stop driving drunk. Drunk driving used to be just as socially acceptable as wife beating and criminal harassment. What changed? MADD and systematic messaging from law enforcement and driver's education told entire generations of new drivers that it is not acceptable. Now drunk driving is the sort of thing only completely irresponsible people do, right? While that doesn't mean nobody does it, it does mean nobody defends the behavior. We need a single message to spread to every single child regarding harassment: this is not OK.
Stopping sociopaths and the harassment they inflict means we have to focus on their actions, not the possible failings of their victims. The victim has already been through enough and doesn't need you to tell them to toughen up. You don't even have to personally believe the victim! Attack the crime, even if you don't believe it happened. You might say, "Harassment is wrong, and I am appalled to think this kind of thing even happens." You might say, "I actually have trouble believing the story because it's so unthinkable that someone could be this much of a sociopath." You might say, "I thought this sort of thing never happened, and it certainly never should." Casting doubt on the victim doesn't help anybody. It just makes you the kind of asshole that future victims are afraid will attack their credibility if they seek help. And if they're lying, let that come out at trial; our public discussion cannot come nearly as close to justice for the specific people involved. All we can do is try to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future by making clear that it is unacceptable.
Changing the law is a nice idea, but people tend to be pretty resentful of laws that don't match their personal beliefs. That's why the above is so important. You will never get people to report harassment and support victims just by passing laws. This is where we are
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
This isn't trolling at all, it's fabrication, fraud, harassment, libel damage, destruction of someone's life.
This is not fucking trolling. It's a smear campaign among other things, who the fuck though they could call this trolling? Some angry fucking minecraft kid who got mad that his house was turned into a penis so he wants to outlaw trolling?
Trolling is baiting someone into a fight, not the destruction of their life.
Get it out of your thick repressed fucking heads that this kind of sick behavior is not god damn fucking trolling, and stop trying to use the wrong fucking words to make something you don't like illegal and drastric and super fucking wrong.