Slashdot Mirror
Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment
squiggleslash writes Brianna Wu, a game studio owner in Boston, found herself the target of numerous anonymous death threats last month, apparently the escalation of a campaign that started when she spoke up for women in gaming, and that intensified during the GamerGate train wreck. Rather than hide, she's offering an $11,000+ cash reward for anyone who helps put her attacker in jail, and she's reporting — albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes — that it's already having an effect. Wu is also setting up a legal fund to go after those promoting more extreme libels against her and others, with screenshots of a forged tweet purporting to be written by her still circulating around the Internet.
Another hit-piece that quotes a drama-queen tranny with no critique whatsoever. Woo hoo.
1. Why do we seriously need threats prison time to get people to knock off threating to rape and murder people, or threats of lawsuits to have people not forge the kind of libelous "evidence" that drives such hatred in the first place?"
2. What happens to those without the resources? I'm guessing most of those who suffer this kind of extreme harassment aren't rich enough to own game studios.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You can get 2-3 separate hitmen or whole gang after your target for $11,000 total.
I'm sure you can even bribe some doctor for less to get them admitted to some mental asylum and fucked up with strong drugs for the rest of their lives.
I could use $11,000.
Too bad I have no clue who was sending those threats.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Dear Internet,
We, the women of the Internet, hereby demand to be treated with respect and dignity. We refuse to be talked down to, insulted, or otherwise degraded while on-line. Furthermore we demand that you finally acknowledge that we do in fact understand technology and the internet as well as any...
Why are you laughing?!?! STOP LAUGHING! That's it, I'm suing someone! Give me your name... got it... Seemore... Butts... Got it, We'll be seeing you in court... Mr.... hey!!! Get back here.
I guess that's a better solution than creating a new law enforcement agency to police trolls.
" albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes"
Who's saying that?
Oh that's right... people like Brianna Wu who claims she's winning because she's uh... gotta sue people who are no longer bothering her.
It's NOT in its death throes, the media has to prop up that story to claim victory after many corporations pulled funding from gaming mags and sites that attacked gamers for being misogynists.
This entire PR campaign has been nothing but pomp and circumstance to promote a meme and it FAILED.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/m...
The NYPD has a similar program of bounties that is reasonably well known. Given that various Crime Stoppers programs have been going on since 1975, I expect they're reasonably effective.
That happened, in this case. Someone doxxed her, then someone used the dox as part of a death threat against her.
She's also had multiple death threats through a variety of means.
Not just that, but it was only like 5 months ago that someone made threatening statements on YouTube, then shocker, tried to shoot up a sorority house. Then shot whoever was on the street when he couldn't get in. Or the rest of the history of gendered violence against women.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Even if caught, the prepubescent boys trolling her aren't going to end up in jail over this.
Now if she could somehow bait one of them into posting a random, nonspecific remark about potentially shooting up a school on Facebook.. that might work...
It's sad how easily "children" and "terrorism"^W^W^W "misogyny" and "harassment" became the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
It ultimately doesn't affect Literally Wu because it's a man, baby.
Damn my spotlight is fading out. Lets get the media machine going so I can get back in the limelight.
Really I don't know which bothers me more, that the press forms these phalanxes to shove alternate realities down our throats in a way that would have George Orwell blanching or that people line up and lap it up.
Do you seriously think if anyone didn't want the death threats and publicity that comes with them, they would go around DARING people on the internet to make threats against them ?
How does this relate to technology in any way whatsoever? Is Slashdot trying to become the next TMZ?
In what universe does "this particular set of death threats appear to be nothing but 4chan pranks" equate to "all death threats are pranks"?
This "doxxing" sounds pretty impressive until you realize that things like municipal tax rolls have always been public, as well as the cadastre. You can also trivially look up company names with your local government.
The other day I was walking down the street and my friend asked me what that weird, faceless building was. All it had was the address so I looked it up on the tax roll, found out it belongs to a florist, then I put the florist's name in the enterprise registrar and found out the names of the owners.
Big deal.
I'm a hacker, woohoo.
Did they ever find his wife's real killer?
Haha I see your point there. I'd also like to note that like Wu, Chris Chan is a transvestite these days. To put it in his words, he's a "lesbian-identified straight male"
It's about time that teenage shitheads, and those who should have grown out of being teenage shitheads by now, realise that older engineers didn't create the internet just so they could to get their kicks by being antisocial shitheads towards everyone around them.
Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.
A death-threat is not a "prank". People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead, and you never know if the person on the other end is crazy, so you have to treat all of them as real.
I'm not going to lose sleep over a few trolls doing some jail time or getting hit with hefty fines. Or parents paying hefty fines on behalf of their idiot teens.
I'm perfectly happy for sites like this to retain the IP address of anyone who posts as Anonymous, in case law enforcement shows up at their door with a warrant to investigate a death threat or similar lunacy.
What the hell is gendered violence?
A feminist police state.
And they have it.
Men have never fought against feminism physically.
They just accepted the banning of child marraige, then banning marital rape, then banning "stalking", then banning communication and speech.
Jails for men.
Then bullets for feminists please.
Please.
It's not even about that one guy. This is a (repeated) tactic to slander other people who legitimately disagree with her, and distract from the Gamergate scandal.
If Nathan Grayson, Patricia Hernandez, et al were Republicans, Gamergate would be handled exactly like the journalism scandal that it is. The corrupt writers would lose their jobs, their employers would acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and at least attempt to convince us that that it wouldn't happen again, and the rest of their ilk would be watched like a hawk for evidence of similar transgressions for a long, long time.
But no. Because the perpetrators were extreme leftists, they're afraid that the scandal might give folks like Fox News and Limbaugh political ammo*, so there was a complete media blackout, the likes of which I've never seen before (not a SINGLE article detailing the corruption, on ANY tech/gaming site, for a week). Another part of the blackout was blanket censorship in user forums/comments, up to and including reddit and--no bullshit--4chan. IMO this censorship of users merely discussing the scandal is still the most oppressive (and damning) anti-GG measure of all.
And then when the blackout didn't work, they colluded in a synchronized shotgun blast of articles to slander their core audience and intimidate any dissenters among them. The long-running smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Dead" articles continues to this day, and the popularity of Gamergate is the long-running response to it. Every criticism and call for integrity is met with completely irrelevant accusations of misogyny and right-wing motivations. Gamers are (rightly) astonished and appalled to see corruption defended so vigorously (and uniformly).
And now that the smear campaign isn't working either, anonymous threats are used as an excuse to again slander the movement (this time as terrorists) and completely ignore the corruption. So of course as the smear campaign ramped up, the popularity of Gamergate ramped up accordingly--it's averaged over 50K tweets per day for a while now. And the gaming press, having addressed almost none of its ethics issues (to say nothing of its contempt for the gaming community), regularly feigns disbelief that Gamergate hasn't "burned out" yet in one-sided opinion pieces that, if anything, more than prove the need for the movement.
The crazy thing is that Gamergate itself is largely leftist. I am right-wing on many issues, but I've been impressed by (and learned something from) the integrity of the vast majority of left-leaning individuals in Gamergate. They just want journalism they can trust. They want the bad eggs removed, even if the bad eggs share many of their political stances. They understand that circling the wagons to protect "the cause" and "do good work" is likely to result in far more harm to the cause in the long run.
The mainstream media has now taken notice, and is just as happy as the tech press to pretend the journalistic lapses and cover up never happened, and to slander Gamergate as right-wing misogynist terrorists, all to support the invented narrative. It's an all too familiar story to those of us who've seen the mainstream media portray DVD ripping as grand theft auto, net neutrality as communism, or Jack Thompson as a defender of morality. But in this case, unbelievably, even here on Slashdot there hasn't been a Gamergate article yet that doesn't go out of its way to frame the whole issue in terms of misogyny and harrassment (much less an article that's pro- or even neutral). Is Slashdot politically motivated to misrepresent this issue? The question is moot, because most of those articles got 500-1200 replies each, so the Gawker-style clickbaiting is motivation enough. As far as we know, Slashdot's editors are kicking themselves for not praising Jack Thompson years ago as a hero activist.
* not an invalid fear, but you have to cross that bridge when you come to it. If you try to pre-emptively murder the truth then you
The threats were not serious. Going "OMG they have my ADDRESS!!! I have to move out!!!" She reported it to the police (the right thing to do) but temporarily moving was HER decision, not a police recommendation.
People who make threats on the Internet do so because they're scared punks who hide behind anonymity. Would they actually go and DO something physical? Of course not - that would risk the very anonymity that allows them to act like punks in the first place.
I get it - you let a bunch of anonymous freaks get to you. But doesn't there come a time when you should stop feeding them by showing how seriously you take them? The perps are laughing themselves silly at this point, because that's what trolls do - get an emotional (as opposed to rational) reaction. Anyone connected with IT knows you DFTT - unless you're trolling them back :-)
Time was when everyone's name and address were public - we had this thing called a "phone book". For those of you too young to remember, go watch the original Terminator, where "Ahh-nold" gets the list of Sarah Connors from a phone book. Who cares is some coward has your address? Really?
And before some punk says "So why don't you post your address online for all the cyber-bullies?" - already did that in another user's journal discussion on gamergate.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
if there's weight behind them
Stop trying to practice law on Slashdot. Menacing laws have no precise "weight" requirement. Usually they criteria amounts to the victim "feeling" as risk or some such. This "weight" you mention is a fiction that exists exclusively inside your head.
Don't threaten people. Your little gamer world may end up at the mercy of the pigs. If you fuck with the wrong person you'll learn that the popularity, influence or connections a person has can get you convicted.
This "doxxing" sounds pretty impressive until you realize that things like municipal tax rolls have always been public, as well as the cadastre. You can also trivially look up company names with your local government.
The other day I was walking down the street and my friend asked me what that weird, faceless building was. All it had was the address so I looked it up on the tax roll, found out it belongs to a florist, then I put the florist's name in the enterprise registrar and found out the names of the owners.
Big deal.
I'm a hacker, woohoo.
Nobody (but themselves) are impressed by the "skillz" of doxing assholes. What makes it dangerous is using that information in an inflammatory way to incite targeting someone.
> Gotcha... death threats are just pranks.
Gotcha... You would rather live in a Soviet or Iranian style police state where even the smallest bit of mindless nonsense is treated like a threat against the state.
The path you are advocating is fully of unintended consequences that you won't be immune from despite your obvious arrogance.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Hope the money was worth it.
Liberal. In the Liberal universe.
Those are the types of pranks 4chan does. They don't actually kill people.
FBI and DHS are investigating and have CONFIRMED that two of the women claiming to have RECEIVED death threats... SENT THEM TO THEMSELVES.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/859/945/263.jpg
Past example: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-rights-activist-charged-with-rape-threat-hoax-on-face
Nice slippery slope there.
I think creating stricter enforcement of death threats is fine. Guess what? it's already a crime in meat space.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
here's how to prove it's a publicity stunt:
make her put the money in an escrow account that can't be removed for 1 year. unless she does that, we know that it's a publicity stunt. Her $11,000 reward is nothing more than a lie.
Sure. That's a fine use of our collective resources, destroying the lives of kids saying stupid things online.
Of course you aren't going to "lose sleep" over the imposition of a police state. You erroneously think it won't be used against you. That's the fallacy of every one of history's most notorious regimes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Does she still pay when it's revealed she made the death threats herself?
They seriously do it for positive attention and sympathy. It's a scam.
Those are the types of pranks 4chan does. They don't actually kill people.
Except for the guy who posted on 4chan a couple days ago about killing his girlfriend. The girlfriend's kid came home from school and found her body.
#DeleteChrome
This is feeding the trolls.
You receive death threats, you tell the police and let them do their thing.
XDInd
This is probably a great way to actually harass someone. Imagine setting a bounty on to get an arbitrary public official put in jail.
In europe it is illegal to criticize women's rights.
No it is not.
It's also illegal to say you are in favor of men marrying young girls.
No it is not
These "liberals" (feminists) need to be killed.
Men have never fought feminism. It's coming time to do so. They put men in prison for opposing them, for ruling over women, for trying to have young girls as brides (all fine in the old religions). They need to be killed.
Destroy this woman's world. (If it can't be a man's world let it be nothing)
So, in what part of people ruling the society are women in majority? Law makers are predominately men, judges are, law enforcement are, politicians are, business leaders are, rich people are. Your theory is that men are oppressing themselves?
Gotcha... You would rather live in a Soviet or Iranian style police state where even the smallest bit of mindless nonsense is treated like a threat against the state.
Now hoooooold on thar, pardner! I'm more or less with you in this debate, but your hyperbole is old and tired. There's a very big difference between death threats against a private citizen, and seditious speech. And let's face it, a death threat is kiddie grade terrorism. There's nothing defensible about it in these circumstances whatsoever. It is a form of assault, and it should be investigated and prosecuted. We could argue about what constitutes a threat (I'm not going to, but we could) but if you think it's okay to tell people that you're going to kill them, then you really are part of the problem. Words do have consequences, you are responsible for what comes out of your face, act accordingly. Obviously, the same goes for any other kind of expression. You're only responsible for other people's mental state as a result of your words if, in short, you are trolling. If your goal is simply to hurt them, that's not actually legal. It's a form of assault, and the law recognizes that in certain clear-cut cases.
Death threats are the children's version of terrorism. Only abject cowards engage in such pathetic behavior in an attempt to change others' actions, however they might feel about them. They might be justified if used to prevent violence. Not in this case.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I dunno. The authorities in Utah seemed pretty unimpressed by the threats that were directed at their University when one of these SJWs decided to make a speech there. The SJW in question ran like a coward with her tail between her legs with the local authorities chose not to take the threats against her seriously.
I think "convince a cop" is a nice legal standard.
It at least passes a basic "sniff test" and doesn't require depending on the word of a hysterical narcissist who may be unhinged enough to be diagnosed by mental health professionals.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's a crime on the Internet too. So I guess all is good?
Making a credible threat against someone's life ought not to be treated like a prank. I've frequented the deeper sewers of Usenet, before the web came to universities, and that simply was not done. Nor was posting anyone's personal information. It was crossing a line. Granted people were much more guarded about their personal information as it was considered folly to post it. But the online world has changed and so has access to information.
Secondly, holding individuals accountable for making credible death threats against other individuals and posting others' personal information online has little in common with political opposition to a totalitarian government.
People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead
And many many many more have gotten killed without death threats. And many many many more have not had anything bad happen to them after getting death threats.
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
This is the only way to shut this down. Once someone is put in the slammer everyone will realize you cant use Twitter to make death threats. I am glad the FBI is treating this seirously. Had Banksters been threatened in this manner it would have been shut down instantly. It is time to take violence against women seriously.
"She"? Suuuuuuuuure. It's a trap!
You think you are smart but you're really an idiot. The slippery slope is a valid argument because that's THAT THE WAY THAT US LAW WORKS. The whole thing is a slippery slope that goes back 1000 years. "The law" isn't just the statutes. It's also every court case that's ever been applied to them.
And prosecutors just love to stretch the law.
There was an article about that right here on Slashdot TODAY. So it's not even like you can claim ignorance because this isn't some legal blog.
Not everything online is directly equivalent to it's physical counterpart.
You are trying to ignore this very real distinction.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And what if these death threats are being made by people posting through Tor or public wi-fi? They might be posting to 4Chan and you could shut that down, but then some other site would spring up: there has always been demand for those kind of sites on the internet. The only way to end the treats for good would be to end anonymous communication on the internet. That is what I was talking about in my post above.
Chris-Chan's love quest ends today!
Guess what? it's already a crime in meat space.
They are only illegal if a reasonable person would find them credible. If a mother says "Turn down the TV volume or I'm gonna kill you", that is not a crime because no reasonable person would think she was serious. By posting pictures of her house, and threatening specific acts of violence, some of these jerks may have crossed the credibility line.
Sadly most trolls don't.
A few drones would solve this problem.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The one thing that both sides can agree on is that the perpetrators should go to jail, they just both think that it is the other side doing the harassment.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Wu is trying to draw a link between Gamergate and the tragedy in Port Orchard - https://twitter.com/Spacekatga...
Irregardless of the fact that: Gamergate discussion is actively prohibited on 4chan, the murderer has no connection to Gamergate, and no death threats were involved.
Please stop giving this woman a platform. She's obviously in it for the advertising and attention. Screenshots of her game have been plastered all over news articles for weeks now. She's self-reporting that she no longer receives threats so that can't be the excuse anymore.
This "doxxing" sounds pretty impressive until you realize that things like municipal tax rolls have always been public, as well as the cadastre. You can also trivially look up company names with your local government.
It used to require getting off one's behind, going somewhere, talking to people and requesting the information. Nowadays, this kind of information has been put on the web by data aggregators and is available anonymously at one's fingertips to creeps everywhere. I'd like to see data aggregators and others who reveal personal information on the internet take some responsibility for their actions.
Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is far less terrifying than receiving a death threat. But people do not yell "Fire" in theaters because it is considered socially unacceptable even as a prank. Why are we not raising the same level of social pressure when people send death or rape threats?
Death or rape threats are never a joke just like yelling "Fire" in a theater is never a joke. This is especially true for a woman or girl when they receive one. It is really bad to teach women that they should "Laugh it off" or "Get a thinker skin" in response to a direct threat to their personal safety. Is this how you want your daughters or sisters or mothers to be treated?
Well, if you'e right and it's in the real universe instead of conservative alternate-reality, we should definitely be concerned.
I believe the entire GamerGate is a hoax. From the cheated on boyfriend to fake death threats. Unpopular, unsuccessful people suddenly became famous as victims. A rich whinger "leaves" the gaming industry again. State and Federal laws are not enforced because nothing happened in the first place. Susceptible morons post ad nauseum about victimhood. No laws or threats have been found. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, a gay man with nothing to gain from kissing feminist rear, "grow up you insanely spoilt brats. You are not meant to always get your own way."
PS: A drug addict/dealer really did once buy a gun to shoot me. Now try to lecture me about threats
> Making a credible threat against someone's life ought not to be treated like a prank.
Wake me when that actually happens.
So far, I only see hysterical idiots willing to go on a rampage to create a new class of criminal based on dubious conflations of the ethereal to the real. Trash talk from basement dwelling trolls is getting far too much attention when really it just needs to go straight into the bit bucket.
The only reason it's not is because the targets are shameless attention whores.
Increasing the size of the criminal population should be done with more consideration than any of the "pro crackdown" contingent seem to be interested in.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
When someone yells "fire" in a movie theatre, everyone can see the guy. When someone on the internet makes a death threat, he might be doing it through Tor or public wi-fi and there is no straightforward way to determine his identity. Should we then end anonymous communication on the internet entirely?
> you never know if the person on the other end is crazy
If anyone is sending death threats, even as a supposed "prank," I'm confident that they are indeed crazy.
Not in this liberal's universe. Show up at my door with a gun /= prank. Saying "I'm going to shoot Anon#12" == prank.
Uttering threats is ILLEGAL in Canada. It's not just a matter of carrying through, the very act is illegal precisely because it's impossible to tell a fake one from a real one, but it would be negligent to not act on a threat.
It wouldn't surprise me if one day it was made illegal in the USA because of this whole debacle. It's NOT worth chasing down frivolous threats, so it's better to make sure those don't get made.
I don't see why asshole kids should be protected while the victims of the threats have to take them seriously and move out of their homes--in terms of assessing risk, it's nuts to ignore potential threats to your person. You just never know when one of the hundreds of people is actually serious and walks to your place with a gun.
Yeah ... that shit is pretty fucked up.
Wrong. A threat online is the same as a threat in any other format. People seem to forget that. Threaten me in a credible way and I will respond.
It's a felony in some states including mine sadly battery is only a misdemeanor. You would think that punching someone's lights out would have a harsher penalty than saying you will.
And who gives a shit?
Awww, another poor, persecuted, misogynist theist. Let me get the world's smallest violin out for you worthless heap of filth. You & your ilk can't die fast enough.
Thanks for revealing what you are with your derp about "SJW's" It's clear that you're part of the problem.
Wow, you sound terrified. I also bet you've got laid in never. Sucks to be you.
On Usenet, there was a strong culture of using one's real name, and often one's institutional affiliation was readily visible from the network one posted from. These kind of prank death threats tend to be organized on fora where people are encouraged to use a pseudonym, and where many people post through anonymizing services like Tor, public wifi, etc. How can one eradicate these death threats short of outlawing anonymous communication on the internet? And doing so would certainly have a chilling effect on political speech in general.
too bad you couldn't be bothered to include a link to the game studio.
If it matters that she owns a game studio, don't you think it matters what game studio she owns?
http://revolution60.com/page4/index.html
#timothygate
What kinds of deformed characters harass someone like this. And apparently misogynists to boot. Pathetic idiots. It is heartening that most of the posters here are appalled.
You're apparently a misogynist, but at least you're not as stupid as the losers who post your kind of derp under their own UserID.
All death threats are to be taken seriously.
This is an example of a death threat "I will kill THISPERSON [TOMORROW|NEXT WEEK]" (IP address will resolve to either some place nearby or to an anonymizing service,) and so is this "Time to get some COPS to shoot up [ADDRESS]" , in both cases there is an intent and a reasonable belief. In both cases those can lead to SWATTING.
This is not a threat:
"Oh please die already"
"AC's need to fall in a ditch"
Non-threats lack motive and a means. Most of the threats thrown by GG's at Women have a motive (shutting them up) and some have a means because of DOXX.
Doxxing automatically turns any "joke" into a serious matter. Nobody would DOXX anyone if they knew the consequences for both the victim and the person releasing the information. Go read https://twitter.com/a_man_in_black to see how often GG's have been doing it. There is one guy who says he's a lawyer who repeatedly threatens to use LexisNexis to DOXX anyone who talks trash about GG.
How much of a loser do you have to be to make death threats over anything remotely linked to video games?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No, wait, Literally Who? Sorry, couldn't help it.
Well, that's the thing. The people who make these pranks are using anonymizing services, so there doesn't seem to be an easy way to stop them without affecting anonymous communication on the internet in general, and they are a subculture with obsessive interests and a general disregard for proprietary, so there doesn't seem to be any way of shaming them into stopping either. I think we are stuck with them.
"general disregard for propriety", rather.
The path you are advocating is fully of unintended consequences that you won't be immune from despite your obvious arrogance.
Yeah, it's sure to have a chilling effect on all those perfectly legal threats.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
If this really is a law enforcement matter, I don't see the point of the bounties and the "legal defense fund". The same tools available to the doxxing crowd should be available to the police or anyone sympathetic with the victim. Investigating this should not be a big deal even for the cops.
The bounties seem to be more about grand standing than anything else.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, I see Slashdot has finally succumbed to posting a clickbait article about #gamergate. Let the shitposts commence!
don't seem to know what escalation is.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Nice attempt at a side-step. Obviously children would be treated differently under the law. It's the adults that do this that should be arrested and prosecuted / fined. And we need to very clearly teach children that this type of behavior is wrong.
Did you even read the comment? Or are you so busy white-knighting that all you can muster is an ad-hom?
> On Usenet, there was a strong culture of using one's real name
When exactly? I was on Usenet 25 years ago and there was plenty of vile nonsense going on.
If anything slowed down Usenet, it wasn't pretentious "real name" policies that were mocked by a significant portion of the online community. It was likely due to the asychronous nature of the medium. Posting a threat on Usenet is much like MAILING it. It's not an instant gratification medium.
Twitter is much more of a real time thing and thus probably more prone to rampaging mob psychology.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
By posting pictures of her house, and threatening specific acts of violence, some of these jerks may have crossed the credibility line.
Quick - lock up anyone who can use Google Street View.
The more this goes on, the less credibility the complainants have. It's understandable that a young soccer mom whose only knowledge of the Internet is facebook and twitter might get upset over anonymous threats via twitter, but not a 50-something who works in the industry. If Wu was that upset about anonymous threats by internet trolls who "OMG HAD A PICTURE OF THEIR HOME HAZ 2 MOVE", the $11,000 would probably better be spent on talking with a therapist. At a certain point, it's just not healthy to keep dwelling on what turned out to be threats totally lacking in credibility.
The passage of a bit of time should have allowed Wu to gain a more balanced perspective on things, rather than taking action that will just feed the trolls. "Oh look, we're offering rewards, with different amounts for every level achieved." Note to Wu - life is not a game. Stop treating it as such if you ever want to be taken seriously again.
The more I hear and see of this mess, and the deeper I dig, the less sympathy I have for ANY of the parties involved.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So depending on your definition of "children" (18?), that would probably do little to solve the actual problem at hand.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Wouldn't it be funny if the pro-GG side found the person sending the threats and collected on the $11k? A few months ago when GG was still housed on /v/ the reaction to people posting hateful/abrasive stuff on twatter was always called out and the poster berated for being an idiot. The pro-GG side doesn't stand for harassment on either side; the ones harassing people are on the extremes or are trolls looking to make trouble.
Food for thought: The major camps in GG can be summed up like this:
1. Trolls who make the death threats or are trying to inflame the issue (both sides).
2. People genuinely concerned with ethics in games Journalism (TotalBiscuit).
3. "Games Journalism" Media/central anti figures (Quinn, Wu, etc, anti), attempting to either silence group 2's dissent or gain fame by playing up their victimization. The "'"I'm being forced out of my home by death threats' on her way to the airport to fly to a conference filled with thousands of people she doesn't know" type and the "gamers are dead" type.
4. Those reacting to group 3's name-calling/bully-tactics (Boogie). The "average Joe/Jane" gamer who doesn't like being called a misogynist or a hateful person for just playing games.
5. Those supporting group 3 because of the harassment from group 1 (pro), who seem to be seeing a social issue (innocent woman being attacked by evil men) and want to fight against that. Views group 2/4 as slut-shaming victim-blaming patriarchy and has no intention of changing that view.
I also found it rather ironic when Sarkeesian went on Colbert and talked about how too many women portrayed in video games were damsels in distress and asked why more women couldn't solve their own problems.
Curious how often it really happens with someone you don't really know though.
The troll is only given power by those that respond. Don't like the trolls? Then don't feed them. It really is that simple. What we really have here is professional trolls going on a rampage and the inevitable and foreseeable backlash occuring.
This includes the original SJWs, as well as the initial media outlets that "rushed to their defense", and all the rest that have just exploited the circus afterwards.
A lot of "gamer gate" is just paying customers pissed off that the industry mouthpieces decided to insult them all.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
destroying the lives of kids saying stupid things online.
Me? I'd call it a valuable life lesson.
The moment you target someone else, personally and by name, and threaten to kill them... that's a very clear and very obvious line. There's nothing slippery about it. Protection against threats like that is not a police state. It's called civilization. I don't care if the cesspools of the internet have been getting away with it up until now just because it didn't catch the public's eye. Enough's enough. This shit has got to stop, and frankly, it appears that the only way to make it stop is if people have a reasonable fear that there might be real-world consequences - that's something few people like to admit. Their rights stop right at the line where they start trying to ruin other people's lives.
It's pretty damn easy to pontificate about slippery slopes or a police state when you're not the one getting personally addressed death threats. Or aren't a women, who, coincidentally, happen to be a bit physically smaller and weaker on average than men and therefore are more vulnerable to physical assaults.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Be careful, Jeff. You don't wanna go #FullMcIntosh.
Too late! You've gone #FullMcIntosh.
On Usenet, there was a strong culture of using one's real name, and often one's institutional affiliation was readily visible from the network one posted from.
Maybe in the rec. or comp. hierarchy for the more staid groups, but in the alt. hierarchy, especially in the controversial areas, definitely not. It simply wasn't done. Also, I was able to pick an anonymous login when I got my school account. Maybe later, people were assigned firstinitial_lastname@school.edu (probably mid to late 90s when computer accounts became more common), but then one would have to be much more judicious about which groups one posted to.
If the same threat said face to face would result in your arrest, it should result in your arrest if you do it on the internet.
And a lot of the threats being reported would, indeed, result in prosecution if made face to face (assuming the person who made the threat lived that long).
Welcome to adulthood, kiddo. Actions have consequences, and you don't get to decide what they are.
So, if like a liberal leaning newspaper decided to release the addresses of a group of conservative people because of a conservative issue, that would be a serious legal matter instead of freedom of the press?
Cops have a long history of ignoring threats against women until they turn up as corpses.
It's really sad how every major publication leaves out half the story and instead tries to paint the gaming community as the source of the problem.
It's really sad how some cowardly gamers won't acknowledge that the death threats are the problem, and that their only source is some other cowardly gamers — the people who made the death threats. See, nothing here justifies those death threats.
Also, I really doubt the gaming community as a whole would condone any threats of violence against these women.
That's what you are doing right now when you assert that the "source of the problem" isn't the source of the problem, that is, the problem. The people making the death threats are the problem. No amount of dishonesty in games journalism (wank wank, stroke stroke, flonk.flonk.flonk) justifies death threats. Let me repeat that, no amount. It doesn't matter if someone tells you that Halo has the most imaginative level design ever or that GTAV never crashes or that some boring little indie game that barely rates a yawn is really ground-breaking and imaginative, you don't make death threats unless you are basically six years old, have no idea what you're on about, and very poorly parented besides.
When you make excuses for people harassing people and making death threats, you are part of the problem. No amount of hand-waving can possibly change that. You're helping to enable bad behavior. Why would you want to associate yourself with that?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There's plenty of women on here. You just don't if anyone is unless they choose to reveal that.
Even those of us who aren't women often have partners, wives, daughters or mothers who are. I quite like my partner. I don't want her to have to endure harrassment and the threat of violence simply because of her sex.
I also want to bring up my sons to treat everyone with the same respect that they would wish for themselves. I would feel that I had failed in my duty as a parent if they turned into basement dwelling trolls by the time they were 13. Every time a woman speaks out about the harrassment she has endured, my sons have another data point to help them make the link between Internet comment and real-life person.
So, fuck off AC who thinks that acting civily to other members of the human race is somehow optional for white male tech workers. You are part of the problem.
Violence against a gender. It happens. Female genital mutilation, women killings (such as seen in Northern Mexico). It's serious shit.
You cannot ignore death threats. You cannot ignore the real life results of having your private information thrown to an agressive public.
That shit is harassment. And harassment is criminal activity.
I thought he was only into Sonic
XDInd
Threaten me in a credible way and I will respond
If your definition of "credible" extends to some douchebag on an internet forum, you've got bigger problems then people saying nasty things to you on teh webz.
In this case they were credible. They included her home address.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
On occasion, some people that use 4chan do indeed pull pranks and troll others, but they are a small fraction of it's userbase.
This would be like saying that people that drive cars pull pranks, even though most of the people driving cars don't pull any kind of pranks.
XDInd
In a previous job, I recieved death threats on a weekly basis.
If the contract was for under $100,000 it was somebody making a noise.
If the contract was for more than $250,000 then it might, but probably wasn't worth taking to the law enforcement.
Someone did the same thing, except on Facebook, not too long ago. Does that mean that people who use facebook are killers?
XDInd
Here is why the State needs to be involved in doing something about these sort of death threats -- this time Wu is offering a cash reward to whoever helps get her attacker put in jail -- OK, then her attacker will get some modicum of legal due process. If people feel threatened and don't feel the State can protect them then the next time this happens a "victim" will offer a cash reward to whoever helps to assault or kill their perceived attacker -- there will be no due process involved under those rules. Is that the way you want it to be? Historically that is a major reason why judicial systems came into place, to keep everyone from having to take justice and protection into their own hands.
Nobody is disputing that death threats are wrong, but the SOURCE is the issue. Anyone can create and use anonymous Twitter accounts. What's stopping someone from creating a social stir for publicity by using Twitter? I would really love to see a full police investigation into these supposed death threat / home invading Twitter users.
Yeah, because if the prevalence of gore threads, child porn, and other "shock" topics on 4chan have taught me anything, it's that nobody on 4chan is a seriously disturbed individual who just likes to play at being edgy.
Nobody on 4chan would post images of the nude body of the girlfriend he just murdered in Port Orchard, Washington, and nobody on 4chan would post, repost, and repost again those same photos, even after it was confirmed that they were practically jerking off to an image of a real, honest-to-god murder victim and congratulating his killer for producing great "OC."
Right, things that originate at 4chan should never be taken seriously. There's not a good-sized cohort of psychologically impaired man-children there who egg each other on and talk about how great it is to murder people, and occasionally deliver on it... at ALL.
Fucking idiot.
Don't work for me. Most of the dev shops I've managed have been so ridiculously gender unbalanced that there are men who think it is actually acceptable to put up girlie mag art in their cubicles. Seriously, if that is the crap you want to defend, you have no place on my team. If you are unwilling to proactively work for a more balanced work environment, even if it is just telling said bone-head to take down the girlie mags, you don't need to be one of my employees.
Don't join my guild. I don't want to listen to you belittle women on vent. I don't want to hear about how "girls can only heal". I don't want to hear how you "raped" that boss. You know who got raped? Do you know more than 5 women? Odds are at least one of them have been raped. So when you're pwning that boss, and you're about to squeal with delight over "raping" it, just think, it could be your mother, your sister, your wife, your highschool sweet heart, that lady from accounting...
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Hi, my name is drinkypoo, and I will kill anyone who disagrees with my opinions!
Actually I'm not drinkpoo and I (nor drinkypoo I hope) will kill anyone or is threatening to kill anyone who disagrees with their opinions. Me claiming to be drinkypoo and saying it doesn't mean that drinkypoo does it.
If I pretended to be drinkypoo and threatened people, does that discredit everything drinkypoo has said?
Why doesn't this apply to gamergate? Is it because you dislike their message, or the message that people who have told you they're spreading?
She attacked millions of gamers and threatened to take away some of the features of their games. The threats she made are credible, since there are plenty of game companies that listen to people like her and might actually implement or partly implement her ideas. She is, of course, legally entitled to shame individuals and companies for doing things she considers unethical -- nevertheless, doing so is an attack on many people's social standing and a threat to something they value; such attacks always make people angry and incite a counterattack. In the case of Brianna Wu, some those attacks went beyond acceptable and protected speech and into libel and death threats (somewhat credible ones, with her name and address).
While few of us will miss a couple of angry idiots on the internet should she manage to catch some, if she was surprised by what happened she may get herself in trouble again. When someone's social standing is attacked, they treat it as a physical attack, including activation of the fight-or-flight response. This is because throughout our evolutionary past, an attack on someone's social standing is frequently followed by immediate or delayed physical violence against them. This remains true even today, for example how America verbally attacked Iraq before bombing them, or how Hitler verbally attacked the Jews before executing them. However, most people only know that "she made me angry". And people do stupid things when they're angry. And evolution has killed off anyone who ignores attacks on their social status (this is true in other social animals as well as humans). Long story short, calling a large group of people immoral is and will continue to be a dangerous thing to do.
As to whether her efforts will help women: I don't know. Games could desensitize people, or they could act as a harmless release that would otherwise be applied on real people. Some research shows that immoral behavior in a video game can lead to nicer real-world behavior, although that may only work when the game forces you to act in a way you feel guilty (most games let you choose), and who knows if the long-term effects are similar to the short-term effects. But mostly, I think that games contain sexism because the real world contains sexism.
On that note, why focus on video games? Is there any indication that improving the conditions in video games will lead to better real-world conditions with less effort than directly working to improve real-world conditions? My opinion: go after the fashion and cosmetics industries. These industries thrive on making women sex objects, damage their health (see high heels) and self-esteem, and most importantly almost all their customers are women, so you should have "no trouble" organizing a boycott. Even better, the backlash you will receive from them will greatly improve your opinion of male gamers.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Yes.
Doxxing automatically turns any "joke" into a serious matter. Nobody would DOXX anyone if they knew the consequences for both the victim and the person releasing the information. Go read https://twitter.com/a_man_in_b... to see how often GG's have been doing it. There is one guy who says he's a lawyer who repeatedly threatens to use LexisNexis to DOXX anyone who talks trash about GG.
Doxxing: "the Internet-based practice of researching and publishing personally identifiable information about an individual"
Oh, I'm SO SCARED. Someone might publish my name (hint - it's my handle). Or my address (hint - I've provided a link to it elsewhere in the thread). Or that I'm a transsexual (hint - read my sig, which I'll repeat here for those who aren't logged in:
this post brought to you by the letter ' t ' in LGBTt (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender, transsexual)
The real hint - all this stuff is already public knowledge, so why worry?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Why, what's she designed?
Shut your cocksucking mouth you pozzed faggot go play in traffic 11000 dollars to the man who pushes you off a cliff straight to the lake of fire (Lev. 20:13)
I'll bite:
Yes, we should.
Anonymity encourages people to be assholes.
"Crazy" is probably the wrong word. If I"m mad as hell at someone, you bet your ass I'm not going to threaten them, I"m just going to shun them. Now, if I'm so mad that I want to kill someone, or do something to them that's illegal, then there's no way in hell I'd announce it in any form. I'd just set up some scenario where they ended up getting what I want them to get.
If I was mad at someone enough to kill them, and was a huge pussy, then I'd take to the www and do as much damage as I could, because, well, I'm a huge pussy. If someone threatened me over the www, or even over the phone, I'd (depending on what the deal was) probably alert the cops that it happened, just to cover my ass, but ultimately I'd just get a kick out of it, sort of an ego-trip I guess.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Anyone know how OJ's quest to find "the real killers" is going? Because that's what this reminds me of, especially because the "death threats" she received turn out to be identical to those sent to other people earlier.
So best of luck to OJ Wu in getting the police to find "the real killers". I'm sure it'll be any day now, she'll locate them...
because we aren't raging pussies who can't handle baseless threats. We rather not enable the bad behavior of the press that has much more influence.
Okay, affect/effect, not a huge deal other than making Slashdot look amateurish, but there's a plural "s" missing after "attacker" which makes it sound like there's just one person they're after.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
No.
On the other hand, if I then said, "So-and-so supports a position that I am opposed to, so I think I'll shoot So-and-so," then yes.
Me? I'd call it a valuable life lesson.
No, the valuable life lessons are learned in jail, shortly after the child realizes he's fucked for life. First lesson is usually that society will always see him as a criminal, and when you're constantly called a criminal and treated like a criminal, acting like a criminal becomes more attractive (as opposed to killing yourself trying to legitimately make ends meet.)
Their rights stop right at the line where they start trying to ruin other people's lives.
The ironing.
It's pretty damn easy to pontificate about slippery slopes or a police state when you're not the one getting personally addressed death threats.
Even easier to advocate destroying lives before they really start when you're not a potential target.
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
All kinds of people responding to this very story right here apparently have a problem with investigating credible death threats, which this very story is about. Some of those people are arbitrarily and without evidence claiming that death threats (which for some reason they designate as "random") over the Internet are not credible.
I'm not sure why anyone would consider a death threat against a controversial and apparently rather abrasive public figure "random" rather than, say, "motivated". If someone threatened me or you it would be "random", because we're just not very special or interesting (well, I'm not, anyway). But a public figure near the centre of the amazingly childish fit of anger known as "gamergate"? That's not random. It's motivated.
It's easy to dismiss credible, motivated threats when they are not against you. Stupid people lack the imagination to understand how unsettling it can be to get direct, specific threats against themselves that include details of where they live.
To declare an entire class of threats non-credible because of the medium used to deliver them is not reasonable. It's like the cops say, "Well, this note is written in crayon, so even though it says they're going to kill you it's not credible! Who ever took a note written in crayon seriously!" Ridiculous.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
You're only responsible for other people's mental state as a result of your words if, in short, you are trolling.
You, sir, are full of shit. Stop trying to equate trolling with doxxing+death threats. The right to offend is more important than the right to be not offended. We already have laws to cover assault--and in many jurisdictions, verbal assault is NOT recognized.
TL;DR: You are part of the problem, not the solution. Take your newspeak and shove it.
Gamergate IS the problem.
No amount of hand-waving can possibly change that. You're helping to enable bad behavior. Why would you want to associate yourself with that?
Because guilt by association is a fallacy.
GamerGate is an unmoderated publish hashtag. It is literally impossible to stop people from engaging in harassment under that banner. If a new hashtag is created, it will be used for harassment too. You can't stop the harassment from happening. You can't stop it by denouncing it or running away from it. It happens, no matter what. So while you say that the death threats are a problem, there is in fact no solution to them. No matter what happens, the problem cannot be stopped.
No matter what happens, no matter how many legitimate examples of journalistic corruption are uncovered, there will always, always, always be someone committing harassment under the same banner. It is a problem with no solution.
That's why guilt by association is a fallacy. To dismiss every single genuine, positive thing that GamerGate has achieved, by saying "But there's been harassment!", is an argument with no counter. It's a way of killing any discussion and development. Yes, there's been harassment. Nothing can be done to stop it. You may as well argue "People who commit murders breathe air, so the only way I'll take you seriously is if you agree to stop breathing".
a death threat is [...] terrorism. It is [...] assault
No, and no. In Massachusetts, a death threat is NEITHER. Stop trying to conflate terms with specific legal meanings. Additionally, verbal assault is not recognized in MA.
If you want fun, read the long Talk page on that wiki article. It's popcorn worthy the antics of the actors. Even Whales chimes in and gets told to back off by the vested interests in presenting a NNPOV while claiming it's a NPOV, while trying to get the other sides banned as wither single-purpose-accounts, zombies, sockpuppets or simply behaving poorly. If were ever an article to display the ugly politics behind the supposedly 'noble' wikipedia, this would be it.
What do you mean there is no way? Identify them and fine them $100,000 for each death threat or go to jail. Simple.
re: The girlfriend's kid came home from school and found her body.
well, the joke's on him, then!
tone
But isn't all violence against humans against a gendered person? What makes female genital mutilation different from male genital mutilation (other than the fact that much of the world is ok with widespread male genital mutilation), or women killings different from men killings? I still don't get what this term means. Duke's website says it is violence against anyone who isn't a straight man, which I guess means straight men don't have a gender?
When you make excuses for people harassing people and making death threats, you are part of the problem. No amount of hand-waving can possibly change that. You're helping to enable bad behavior. Why would you want to associate yourself with that?
I don't like it when people do what you're doing right now and throw all gamers into one category and put a label on us. Gamers did not send this woman death threats, a handful of immature, probably mentally ill Internet trolls did. It would be great if those who are responsible were found and charged in accordance with the law.
With that being said, those threats do not invalidate the original purpose of GamerGate, and they damn sure don't give anyone the right to make blanket statements about gamers being psychotic and misogynistic.
Most gamers are over 18 so there's no reason to suspect that this is just the work of kids. But even for the kids there are plenty of things that can be done and you're presenting a false choice in thinking that if we can't "solve" the problem than we shouldn't try. We'll never solve it but through education and public discourse we can reduce the problem for sure.
I would rather live in a society where the assholes would stand behind their words so she could give them the swift kick to the junk that they need. They have not received the negative feed back to their actions that they need to become members of society.
Oh really?
I mean, it may well work for Brianna Wu. However as others have pointed out, most people don't have that kind of money to defend themselves. We really need the police (?) or bylaw or forum administrators to handle this stuff systematically. Yes, I know all about unmoderated forums, don't bother.
When most citizens offer a bounty the purpose is to save a loved one. Brianna is using a bounty to get someone jailed. This is veering towards vigilantism. Not saying that it is vigilantism, just that instead of doing good for someone good, Wu's proposal is designed to do something bad to someone bad. Morally this is problematic, especially since Wu is the aggrieved party. An independent operation like CrimeStoppers is a more defensible way to handle something like this.
Finally, I question both the proposition that threats on the Internet mean "immediate danger" or "nothing at all". One of the lessons of recent years is that lots of people say lots of stuff. Most will never act on their nasty words. The problem is that every once in a while, we have a troubled person, mentally unstable perhaps, criminal or just plain evil. That one in 10,000 might act.
It's really sad how some cowardly gamers won't acknowledge that the death threats are the problem, and that their only source is some other cowardly gamers — the people who made the death threats. See, nothing here justifies those death threats.
Nothing justifies using guilt-by-association to condemn thousands of innocent people for the actions of 1 guilty person.
You place too much importance on biological gender. It is by far not that important.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Hey, i would just like to give you my heartfelt appreciation for your correct grammar and spelling. I am most especially impressed with your correct use of the word 'you're'. It was very refreshing to see, and you have very slightly increased my faith in Humanity.
Again, I thank you.
Or the rest of the history of gendered violence against women.
You mean, the gendered violence against women that causes them to be 23.2% of murder victims: less than a third of the victim rate for men? (Pdf source, stats for the U.S. in 1980-2008; see table 1.)
Note that, even when violence against women is so much less common, we still make a bigger deal about it than violence against men.
> I went one better and googled it: http://www.statista.com/statis... [statista.com]
If your link is to be believed, nobody under the age of 15 uses the internet.
Maybe you should find a more credible source than 10 seconds of googling? :)
> On Usenet, there was a strong culture of using one's real name
When exactly? I was on Usenet 25 years ago and there was plenty of vile nonsense going on.
Indeed. Back when I was reading and posting to usenet, alt.peeves was all about the "vile nonsense". Makes me almost nostalgic.
Death threats are a wonderful tool. Just suggesting that they've been issued against you allows you to shut down conversation on any issue, with "But death threats are a bigger deal than that!". If you knew that you could shut down criticism that easily ... why *wouldn't* you claim that death threats had been made against you?
Personally, I'm not too concerned with gaming journalism - I don't follow it, anyway. I *am* concerned by the wholesale censorship that was applied on this issue, which I think is more of a threat to a free society than a much smaller number of death threats - and the censorship definitely happened.
Including her home address does not make it credible.
In a targeted manner yes.
By that I mean, when you have identified an anonymous actor that uses a recurring name lets call them "Anonymouse"
If they are regularly making anonymous threats against someone, which is credible (using their home address) especially when motivated (targeting someone that is considered a focal point of criticism re a public topic, like gamergate) then the police should use the powers at their disposal, like search warrants, to end the anonymous communiation of this person on the internet.
No one has ever said we should end anonymous communication, but if people have a reasonable expectation that when they make public, credible and/or motivated threats on the internet, that their anonymity will be forfeited. No one ever wants to forfeit anonymity for the entire internet.
Thinking about it, what you have just made is a straw man argument.
There is no consequence over the intertubes. It's all a game. Threat are made from a pseudo-anonymous persona to a other pseudo-anonymous persona. They don't really target a real person. They are not credible threats. Also, you can block and ignore whom ever displease you. There is no reason to make a big deal out of this. Only whores with inflated ego bitch and report 'angry mail' they received over the interwebs.
4 chan is anti-GG though...
Yea. You hit the nail on the head. What's good in life is having a sweet little pet to yourself. The ancients knew this.
"You can't marry a child and fuck her? You are not allowed to rape your wife?" Yes that is a problem.
Feminists need to be murdered or executed. They took away what was good.
The Old Testament, along with eastern religions, all recognize Marrying a child and then fucking her as what's good.
May you burn in hell. ..sss
IE: May you die first and soon.
"Not everything online is directly equivalent to it's physical counterpart."
You mean like how US law doesn't cover 90% of the world's use of the internet?
> That's what you are doing right now when you assert that the "source of the problem" isn't the source of the problem, that is, the problem.
You just lumped a ton of people who haven't threatened anyone in with a few people who have and asserted that they're a problem because they insist they have nothing to do with the idiots doing this.
Way more than 95% of label analysis is BS.
That doesn't make it credible at all. posting easily obtained information is just more trolling to ensure a response. It is simply unrealistic to investigate every anonymous death threat, especially when said person receiving them is definitely getting a lot purely to antagonize her and elicit responses which she is stupidly providing thus feeding them.
they can be stopped or at least reduced, they feed on responses, you stop them by not responding to them, especially publically. basically you do everything the opposite way this silly cow has responded to them.
It's pretty amazing how this "movement" can be so many things, have no clear goals, no leadership, no objective, and is somehow magically immune from responsibility for everything people do in it's name.
Sorry, but no. GamerGate is total bullshit, founded on already disproven lies and mysognistic assholes. If you're in for that, you are what's wrong with society.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Including her home address does not make it credible.
Ok, post your address so I can come kick your ass if you think it's not credible to do so, dickhead!
"their only source is some other cowardly gamers"
What part of "anybody can make anonymous threats online" don't you understand?
Felicia Day would disagree, Im sure
I've been threatened with death while being held up by my shirt collar after being slammed up against the wall. Cops didn't give a shit. You really think you're going to get their attention for meaningless threats from some random internet troll?
Wu, like Sarkeesian and Quinn, plays up the threats as a shield against any criticism of what they are saying and doing. "Oh, poor me, I've been driven out of my home, and anyone who criticizes anything I say is part of that".
Hey asshole, in case you didn't notice, Elliot Rodgers only killed men.
I guess it's like the old Hillary quote, the primary victims of war are women because their fathers, husbands, and sons get killed.
If this doxxing/hoax is like past feminist ones, it's a hoax to gain pity.
I have a better idea. How about we take both the theists and 'progressive' trash like yourself and put you all on an island with sticks and stones so that you can beat the shit out of each other until it is learned that names don't really hurt after all.
We can put it on hbo.
If you're older than six, and still think it's totally hilarious to send someone a death threat or SWAT them then I don't know what to tell you.
Also, destroying lives is a side effect of our punitive justice system. I'd rather it not come to that but they not only committed a crime, but a pretty heinous one at that. I really wish that punishment wasnt what it is now. But.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I don't like it when people do what you're doing right now and throw all gamers into one category and put a label on us.
I don't like it when people do what you're doing right now and fail to read my comment and then respond to it anyway. I don't know if you failed because you just fail at simple things or because you have a vested interest in this particular failure, but either way, you failed.
Gamers did not send this woman death threats
Odds are that the people who sent the death threats are gamers, not just because the odds are good that any given American plays video games but also because why else would they care?
a handful of immature, probably mentally ill Internet trolls did.
No argument here. But what reason is there to believe that they are not gamers? Indeed, there is every reason to believe the opposite. That doesn't prove that they are gamers; we only know that they made death threats for the most specious of reasons.
With that being said, those threats do not invalidate the original purpose of GamerGate
The original purpose of GamerGate was to make people give a shit by giving it a -gate name. Failing that, a subset of the population of gamers (of which I am one; right now am booted into an operating system produced by a company which I despise solely so that I can play games, I have three of them pinned to the task bar and one of them is running) decided to play junior grade terrorists in order to satisfy their respective needs for attention.
What you kids who think that it even fucking matters if someone does give some niche game a good review because they're fucking the author are missing is that it doesn't fucking matter. In the grand scheme of things, getting your knickers all twisted up to "-gate" status over such a non-event is just god damned pathetic. The only thing that's more ridiculous than having nothing to show for your time by playing video games in the first place is getting all upset about an article about a game that statistically none of the people claiming to be all upset about "integrity in games journalism" would never even play.
and they damn sure don't give anyone the right to make blanket statements about gamers being psychotic and misogynistic.
Good thing I didn't do any such thing. I abhor it when people accuse me of whining when I'm complaining, but damn it, when you bring up shit that had nothing to even do with me, I'm going to hand you a plunger and tell you to deal with it yourself. But people willingly associating themselves with this whole affair at this point are douchebags at best, because there is a substantial contingent of the gamergate "community" which is repeatedly claiming that the harassment and threats are not that important, or that anyway she brought them on herself. And listen to me very fucking carefully when I say that if something is never appropriate, and death threats over integrity video game journalism are never appropriate, that you can never bring that thing on yourself. Never. It's the psychotic, misogynistic individuals' fault. What the community is responsible for is its response. And enough members of the community are responding in extremely sexist, misogynistic ways to be deeply embarrassing.
TL;DR: My mommy taught me that violence is never an appropriate response to feeling insulted, and I can't help but see death threats as a kind of violence — which expressing an opinion never justifies. And I won't associate myself with a group with a large number of members who feel differently. Perhaps you will. Indeed, you have.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
She chose to use her real name online and associate it with contentious bullshit. I did not.
> The people making the death threats are the problem.
What they're doing is wrong, sure. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about more than one issue here. I've personally been harassed--enough that the guy at fault got fired for it--but your post demonstrates the issue here. It's not harassment, it's people who want to use this as an excuse to go after all gamers... even those who had nothing to do with this!
Normal people don't hold press conferences on harassment. I sure as heck didn't. I took it to the proper authorities (sans media blitz) and it was swiftly dealt with. But that wouldn't allow people to go after the people they hate, so they blame all gamers everywhere for a few idiots who attacked another idiot.
It's really sad how some cowardly gamers won't acknowledge that the death threats are the problem, and that their only source is some other cowardly gamers — the people who made the death threats. See, nothing here justifies those death threats.
Most actual gamergate people I've come across speak out against death threats, posting personal information, etc. None of them have said that death threats are not a problem, and have been quite verbal against them and are upset that people are pinning the threats on them.
That's what you are doing right now when you assert that the "source of the problem" isn't the source of the problem, that is, the problem. The people making the death threats are the problem. No amount of dishonesty in games journalism (wank wank, stroke stroke, flonk.flonk.flonk) justifies death threats. Let me repeat that, no amount. It doesn't matter if someone tells you that Halo has the most imaginative level design ever or that GTAV never crashes or that some boring little indie game that barely rates a yawn is really ground-breaking and imaginative, you don't make death threats unless you are basically six years old, have no idea what you're on about, and very poorly parented besides.
When you make excuses for people harassing people and making death threats, you are part of the problem. No amount of hand-waving can possibly change that. You're helping to enable bad behavior. Why would you want to associate yourself with that?
The source of the problem isn't gamers, it's trolls finding a platform to stir shit up. And it's clearly working well for them. You're relating two things that may share some commonality (shocker, trolls like games, just like women like games, and Russians like games, and just about any group you can think of), but are not interest in the same goals. Real gamergate people appear to want some transparency in gaming journalism, but that fact gets ignored because the other side refuses to acknowledge it, and instead is engaging the trolls. Trying to change the narrative of what gamergate because of some trolls, arguably to avoid dealing with what gamergate really stands for.
That's not what it is like at all. You and her act like this is something that only happens to her. This kind of thing happens literally constantly. That doesn't make it alright, that doesn't mean I agree with it and that doesn't mean it doesn't suck. But it does mean there is precedent for it being "non credible".
OK, buck up folks. Grow a pair. Stop living like cowards. These days if Jackie Gleason balled up his fist and sain "To the moon Alice" it would be taken as a criminal offense and endless nonsense would have followed. Yes life is filled with danger. Italways has been. And we have less danger now than at any time in history. We no longer live if terror waiting for the next Viking raid or Apache war party. Getting a tooth pulled is so easy i can't believe it. Imagine getting a tooth pulled in 1850. We have it easy in so many ways that most folks have no clue as to how easy things are for us. But we still have cowards and people of low faith who think every casual remark is a deadly threat. Guns are not seen as a useful tool but viewed like a deadly viper that is likely to strike at any moment dispite the fact that very few people have ever sen a gun incident much less get involved in one. And get real folks. Your doctor knows long lists of diseases that can torture you beyond all understanding. By comparison a bullet or death by a knife or bomb is trivial and rather fast. If my forefathers coul survive crossing vast oceans in wooden boats and crossing a new continent I think I can do just fine and not be nervous about childish threats.
Here's the deal: not everyone is good. The people you are referencing, are truly evil. Doing what you described above is what they love to do--spread chaos, horror, and then gloat in the fact that they have once again broken a rule of socialization, and have remained true to their own selves in a safe and anonymous fashion. But then, they go to bed, and then they get up, get dressed, put on the facade of a caring, normal human being. They make breakfast (sometimes for their family, who may or may not have an inkling of who their loved one really is), they go to work, and they participate in civilization. These folks do feel, they have emotions, but what motivates them is far, far different than most everyone around them. They watch Hellraiser and think "Clive had it right--that is heaven for me", but they never say it aloud. They live every day hiding their true selves because if we had any idea of who these people are in reality, we would hunt them down and kill them, laws or not. 4Chan, and /b/ are their havens, where they can slip away from the world, take off their very heavy mask, and liberate themselves from the cloying, saccharine-sweet goodie-ness they've been wallowing in all day long, every day, their entire lives. In their metaphorical caves, they can unleash and revel in horrors that would get them isolated and possibly attacked within seconds, because that is who they truly are, and what they truly enjoy. They love being trolls, they love anonymity... and they preserve it because its necessary. They would lose everything they have otherwise. The guys who make threats against Brianna Wu will never follow through, because it would be incredibly stupid of them to do so. Civilization and laws benefit them as much, if not more, than the rest of us, because that is all they have to hide behind. Brianna is in more danger from any vindictive ex-boyfriends or obsessive family members than she is from these guys. And, as much as I hate to say it, we need to let them be. The internet is their ideal home, its where we can let them vent and voice all their inner ugly. We take that away and identify these guys, and we are asking for a world of hurt, because then they'll go deep underground and fester, until really bad stuff erupts. I'm anti-GG, but I will defend the trolls' rights to anonymity and say that the women need to learn that anonymous death threats are not comparable to the death threats made by deranged men they already know, though there certainly is similarity. One is intended to scare, the other is a statement of fact. And the law, and society, need to recognize that.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Yes. Killers all. Killers of anonymity. Killers of common sense. Lethal to any society larger than 100 people.
And, if you were a real scholar of the Holy Word, you would know how to spell "tenets" correctly. Faith is not an excuse for ignorance.
So, your argument is, just because nobody cares about you, therefore, nobody else should be concerned?
I am not trying to make this into a pissing contest, but there are lots of people who have a lot to lose by having their personal information exposed and anonymity removed. Like, anyone who has had an unpopular opinion and is realistic about how their corporate HR department would react to bad PR.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
but isn't that the person who slept with reviewers to get good ratings? When that was found out she pulled all kind of crap to silence the critics. Now the spin is she spoke up for women?
Well, you could tell them you know jack all about neurobiology. Given brain formation children are all effectively psychopaths until partway through puberty.
I would support that.
Better to die potentially killing your enemies than not.
Because either way you're never getting what you want.
Atleast in the first you kill your enemy who has prevented you.
Read something besides Elevatorgate, dipshit.
Because (to find out someone's home address) it takes days and days of intense leg work that would only be accomplished by a serious and dedicated psycho.
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Just be glad that you're so unimportant, and have done so little of worth, that no one cares enough to harass you.
Semi-rational people appreciate that it isn't them knowing your address that is the issue, but using it. I'm sure if you, your boss, your parents etc were getting abusive phonecalls in the middle of the night. People were putting all sorts of crap in your letter box. Sending doctored pictures of you, false stories about being a child abuser etc to your neighbours. SWATing you. Your internet tough girl persona doesn't impress anyone.
The mainstream press, and thus the wider public, have redefined trolling to be harassing people online. Dislike it all you want, but from now on if you mention trolling it will be taken by most people to mean things like rape threats etc. Making up a strawman about the 'right to offend' because you haven't got anything to say about the original posters point isn't going to persuade anyone.
Bollocks. People have offered rewards for information leading to arrests pretty much since state justice came into existence. Her attacker will get the same legal due process as they would otherwise. You have created an imaginary issue, with an imagined slippery slope.
Absolutely this. If even 20% of the people who harassed people online with death threats got a $2,000 dollar fine (no record etc) then the phenomena would virtually vanish overnight. People are more likely to be cunts online because it's faceless and they think they won't get caught. By all means throw the book at the 0.001% who when they are investigated turn out to actually planning to kill the person, but for the rest even a small penalty is more than enough to discourage others.
What good is a local police search warrant going to do when it could be some guy in Germany connecting to public wi-fi with a randomized MAC, or some one in Madagascar using Tor? Sometimes the FBI with possible NSA help goes after big fish like the Silk Road owner (but note they didn't spend resources on going after many individual Silk Road buyers and sellers), but I don't think this is going to considered worth it for the legions of small-time 4Chan pranksters, especially when they are located outside the US.
A strawman? That's at the CORE of this issue. A term has been redefined to subvert an argument (the very DEFINITION of a strawman) and now you're using that to call the real thing a strawman.
The newspeak, the stupid, it burns!
Quick - lock up anyone who can use Google Street View.
Talk about missing the point. They went to the effort of finding her home address. She didn't post it for them on Twitter, they used some kind of social engineering or hack to get it. Someone spend significant time and energy, at considerable risk of being caught, to find that information and use it to threaten her.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Making up a strawman about the 'right to offend' because you haven't got anything to say about the original posters point isn't going to persuade anyone.
Yes, I know, that's why I was not persuaded. Those were the tactics utilized in the post to which I replied.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Gendered violence is violence that is precipitated primarily by gender. As a guy, if I get mugged, it probably had little to do with my being male. If I go to a hypothetical "feminazi utopia" (as certain MRA types seem to believe we're living in), get the shit kicked out of me, and have "fuck all men" cut into my chest with a knife, that's probably gendered violence.
A good litmus test is: did their gender make the violence worse than it would have been had they been the opposite gender? If yes, the violence was probably gendered. If not, then it probably wasn't. Compare a school shooter that shoots everyone, versus a school shooter that targets only women.
Cynical Idealist
I am not trying to make this into a pissing contest, but there are lots of people who have a lot to lose by having their personal information exposed and anonymity removed. Like, anyone who has had an unpopular opinion and is realistic about how their corporate HR department would react to bad PR.
Then they've traded their freedom, life, and right to their own opinion for a set of lies and a paycheck. It's gotten so bad that people self-censor themselves, same as the media did in the run-up to Gulf War 1, and this is seen as normal because too many people are sheeple, so anyone who stands out looks like a nail, and HR is the hammer.
This (technology giving others more tools to delve into our lives) is an evolving situation and if we're not careful it's going to get worse. Whatever happened to "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?" Has it well and truly become "HR *might* disagree with you, so screw your principles and shut your pie-hole or you're on your own?"
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Including her home address demonstrates that they have investigated her and somehow got her address, presumably by social engineering. It shows that they have the means to carry out their threat. The photos show that they have researched the location via Street View. Any court would take those things as evidence of intent and seriousness.
If you disagree, can you state exactly what would make threats credible?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not a question of "impressing anyone." It's "what the heck is wrong with *everyone* being so timid nowadays? If our ancestors had been like that we'd still live in caves or trees in one tiny corner of the planet."
Or to Godwin it, if our ancestors had been so timid 100 years ago, we'd all be saluting the Fuhrer, Jews (along with Romanians, the LGBTt, etc) would have been wiped out, and blacks would be considered an "inferior race."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Timestamps showed the post occured minutes before the 911 call.
Please read the rest of the thread. As one poster pointed out using a real-life example, if you own a business, own a property, pay municipal taxes, etc., it's quite easy to find out where you live - its already public info. You used to have to walk down to city hall to look it up in the rolls, but now you can do it right from your mobile phone. No "hacking" or "social engineering" required. No "risk of getting caught."
Same with registering a copyright, patent, or trade mark. Arrest records, trials, convictions and acquittals. Name changes (as is the case with Ms. Wu). I'm sure that a few moments thought will produce other easily-searchable public records that don't require a FOI request or any sort of social engineering.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Hate to reply to myself, but also dog licenses, birth registrations, marriages and divorces - all public records.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I remember being six. And 12. And 18.
At no point did I ever think doxxing and swatting were acceptable ways to deal with others.
This is the "boys will be boys" argument to just sweep this behavior under the rug.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
"You are not very bright are you?
Indie games are accepted into Steam by voting. Those with big media exposition (like her "game") get lots of votes and are approved easily."
Show me all this big media coverage. You can't, because it doesn't exist, you fucking idiot. It shows up once, on a list by Grayson, after it had already been greenlit. Prior to that it was mostly positive word of mouth on /v/ before Quinnspiracy took off.
The most amazing thing about this is that you retards can't even keep straight what you're upset about.
Dead or Alive?
No. Just report it to the police. It's their job to hunt criminals. Giving the job to normal people for a bounty is self justice. No good move, Mrs. Wu. You are no better than people harassing you verbally, you even start a headhunt on people.
Who cares? As long as I get $11,000 for tracking down and turning each one of them in, they can keep it coming.
Don't forget to take your meds
Most gamers are over 18 so there's no reason to suspect that this is just the work of kids.
conflicts directly with
Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.
inasmuch as even if "most" of them are over 18, it's definitely not going to put an end to the issue unless they're all over 18. Your initial Venn diagram was overly aggressive and now you're backpedaling.
But even for the kids there are plenty of things that can be done and you're presenting a false choice in thinking that if we can't "solve" the problem than we shouldn't try. We'll never solve it but through education and public discourse we can reduce the problem for sure.
Agreed. I'm not saying that we shouldn't address the problem, just that your out-of-whack definitions are confusing the issue. And it's a cheap game to criticize people for tripping over your own confusing statements.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You're right, in Massachusetts it's called "Criminal Harassment."
https://malegislature.gov/Laws...
First offense gets you up to 2.5 years, and / or a $1000 fine.
Subsequent offenses get you 2.5 to 10 years.
Smoke on that, cock jockey.
This comment is the most inane thing I have ever read, and I've read all of Barbara Hudson's posts in this thread.
Necessary for who? They're drawing attention to themselves because they feel like they can do so without repercussions. If they were just sitting there staring at gore pics and jerking off, but otherwise not harming anybody else, I'd say "great, let the freaks be freaks." But they don't limit their activities to just hanging out with like-minded people. They harass. And stalk. And intimidate. All under the guise of "anonymity" which lets them feel they can do things like this with impunity.
I don't acknowledge someone else's "right" to threaten OR to murder other people. I reject it categorically - if denying you the ability to threaten means you're going to end up murdering, then you're simply underscoring the point: people who make threats like this online need to be locked up BEFORE they murder someone, because one will eventually lead to the other.
The best way to enrage a biggot is to show him that he's a biggot. Gamergate has enraged a lot of biggots. Problem is, some of these biggots have nothing better to do than harrass and threaten the people they don't like, i.e. people who aren't like them. You don't have to be like the person/people they've chosen to harrass and threaten this time around to be their next focus of attack, you just have to be different to them. Everyone's vulnerable. Now someone has to deal with them before they pick their next target. What's the best way to deal with trolls again?
He's basically into anything available on PS3
violent reactions to herself, then uses that to get all the attention her mental illness compels her to seek out.
"Media" promotes her mentally ill agenda because it gets clicks.
Nothing new here at all.
... and no one threatens me. Bounties would be nice... but I think I'd start out with the simple solution: you threaten me, you're a coward. Come on, show up at at and try to kill me... or are you that much of a coward that you can't deal with what I said, and if you actually do something, you'll want to shoot me in the back, just like any *coward*.
mark
PS trolls - yeah, your cock *is* too small, and if you've ever gotten laid, you've never been able to satisfy a woman - you're just a selfish little kid, not a man.
The hashtag might be dying. But the movement and the idea behind it is still going strong.
It's really sad how some cowardly gamers won't acknowledge that the death threats are the problem, and that their only source is some other cowardly gamers — the people who made the death threats. See, nothing here justifies those death threats.
So collusion between journalists and publishers, under-the-table deals, and corruption in the gaming industry have absolutely no relevance to the discussion. Check. There is never any reason for any rational person to be upset with a person (who happens to be a woman) who has had serious allegations of professional misconduct brought forward. Got it. This is just a case of women who were harassed via electronic communications because they are women trying to work in the male-dominated gaming industry, and people are threatening to have them killed for daring to try to do that. Sounds reasonable to me.
I don't think you're getting the point the OP was making. I have yet to see any of the major ideology blocs in any "GamerGate" discussion claim that threats of violence against women are not *a* problem. However, a lot of people are getting justifiably upset that the original problem (widespread corruption and misconduct in gaming journalism) is getting completely swept under the rug by people like you who insist that threats of violence against women is *the only* issue anyone should be talking about, and that GamerGate is about *that* issue and that issue only.
I (and I would guess the OP as well) do not disagree with the reprehensibility and indefensibility of death threats against women who have publicly said something someone may disagree with. Hell, the OP even said she/he agreed that those actions are reprehensible in his/her last sentence. So I'm really not sure who you're arguing against. I'd just really appreciate it if you and others would please stop derailing the discussion whenever someone brings up the *original* scandal!
No mysogyny here though, amirite?
And you, apparently, aren't strong enough to post as anything other than another anonymous coward.
Nope. I like women, which Wu is not. If you are referring to the insult cunt, I quite like it, and I use it for everyone, like the insult dick or asshole. Get over it.
This looks pretty credible to me.
Or aren't a women, who, coincidentally, happen to be a bit physically smaller and weaker on average than men and therefore are more vulnerable to physical assaults.
Stop. The only times that physical strength is the difference in who wins are in arm wrestling and weight lifting, neither of which are frequently used in attacks or to settle interpersonal conflicts.
Incidentally, men are the victims of violent crime significantly more often than women, so being female makes one less likely to be a target of violence. (Page 6, Table 5. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...)
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
That was
1) Not a stranger.
2) Posted after the fact, not a threat before the fact.
3) Not premeditated.
4) Not an online conflict that spilled over into "real life."
5) Related to GG in exactly the same way, and to the same degree, as it was related to Syria. (Which is to say, not at all.)
But other than those things, you're spot on.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Um, that first quote is mine but the second one isn't so you can't really accuse me of backpedaling. I was chiming in with my own opinion, not agreeing 100% with the above AC.
My point was that just because we can't solve the whole thing we shouldn't give up on trying to make improvements.
Oops. Sorry about that; my mistake.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You'd have a good point, except that there are precedents for internet-delivered threats being credible too.
If you can't take the time to actually know the context of an event, you're unlikely to have any comment worth posting.
I only found this earlier today, but it pretty much tears it for me. For a transsexual, Ms. Wu makes some rather odd observations. From her Livejournal account
I watched LOGO, our nationwide channel for gay issues, for the first time this morning. I walked away from the experience feeling it was incredibly pandering and solipsistic. It got me thinking about voices in the media and minority rights.
Let me preface this blog by saying that I think gay rights are the preeminent moral issue of our time, the modern equivalent of slavery. It's one of the top three issues I vote on, and I fully intend to go to demonstrate in Denver's gay pride parade in two weeks. It bothers me deeply that 1/10th of America's population are treated like 2nd class citizens.
That said, I think it's an error to see women's issues and gay issues as synonymous.
I don't especially feel that gays are allies when it comes to women. I think that we usually get along well, but I have occasionally felt that gays see us primarily as competition for the penis. When I watch drag queens, I can't help but feel insulted - as if that offensive cartoon is what they think feminine truth is.
There are so many issues women have that gay men never have to think about. Our increased health care costs, equal pay issues, access to reproductive health care and the threat of rape and violence. Concordantly, there are many gay issues that don't affect me - I've never had to worry that society didn't approve of my sexuality or marriage rights.
It does help that our enemies are the same, the fundamentalist conservatives that would deny us the right to make our own choices. The lunatic fringe would deny me the right to make choices about my body, and they'd just as quickly send the gays off to sexual reeducation camp. We are united against the patriarchal oppressors that think they know what's best for us.
There are some transsexuals who go to the extreme of trying to conform to what they see as "real woman's behavior" (which means adhering to stereotypes), by criticizing others in the LGBTt community, so as to deflect suspicion away from them. Same as there are gay politicians and preachers who get up on the pulpit and denounce same-sex marriage and homosexuality as sins.
This is not over-compensation. This is a dysfunctional behavior - putting down others so as to fit in with the crowd is the least part of it.
And for someone claiming to be trying to stand up for women, have you seen the hypersexualized women characters on her own web site? Skinny waists that would beat a Barbie Doll, overly-broad hips, at a time when we're trying to encourage girls (and women) to have more realistic expectations by not photoshopping 50 pounds off here, 20 pounds on there ... and she's offended by the way drag queens portray women???
Enough is enough.. We've been trolled.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
See, nothing here justifies those death threats.
But apparently those death threats justify bullying, nice hand waving drinkydouche.
Get back in the kitchen, bitch!
Here is the real question: why the hell are gamers getting lumped together with the miniscule group of whackjobs who make death threats? The two are vastly different in size and technically we don't even know the true affiliation of the death threat senders since they haven't been caught yet. I know that the anti-GG crusaders have gotten into a habit of attacking all gamers with a broad brush but linking everyone GamerGate to death threats is like saying everyone in Occupy Wall Street was a rapist because there were rapes in Occupy Wall Street camps.
So, if like a liberal leaning newspaper decided to release the addresses of a group of conservative people because of a conservative issue, that would be a serious legal matter instead of freedom of the press?
You mean like printing the addresses of abortion doctors or printing pictures of gun control advocates on targets? I guess that's freedom of the press because I haven't seen anyone jailed for it.
You think you are smart but you're really an idiot. The slippery slope is a valid argument because that's THAT THE WAY THAT US LAW WORKS. The whole thing is a slippery slope that goes back 1000 years.
Ummm... might want to really proofread before posting with an insult like that. Makes YOU look like the idiot here.
The US is only 238 years old, so the slippery slope can *only* be 238 years long, less than a quarter of the exaggerated length you stated.
No comment on the rest of your post; I agree with some of it but not all... and some of it I am indifferent to.
Just sayin'.
US law derives from English common law, so 1000 years is about right.
Fixed that for you. Feminists think anything that talks bad about a female is sexism when it when all about her bad behavior. Which was reprehensible. But hey maybe she can sleep with 5 district attorneys for protection and then feminist shills can "speak up for women in DA Offices".
The kind of people who are likely to oppose women's rights are highly unlikely to consider "Brianna Wu," formerly John Walker Flynt, a woman.