Slashdot Mirror
How To End Online Harassment
Presto Vivace sends this excerpt from an article at the Kernel, titled 'With Gamergate, it's not enough to ignore the trolls.'
Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not), and subsequently a demographic that comprises half of the total human population has to worry about receiving rape threats, death threats, and the harassment of angry mobs simply for expressing their opinions. This needs to stop, and while it's impossible to prevent all forms of harassment from occurring online, we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency.
We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. Not only is such language inappropriate regardless of one's passion on a given subject, but any valid arguments that existed independently of such rhetoric should have been initially presented without it. Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility.
Similarly, it is never acceptable to dox, harass, post nude pictures, or in any other way violate someone's privacy due to disagreement with their opinions. While most people would probably agree with this in theory, far too many are willing to access and distribute this humiliating (and often illegal) content. Instead of simply viewing stories of doxing, slut-shaming, and other forms of online intimidation as an unfortunate by-product of the digital age, we should boycott all sites that publish these materials.
We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. Not only is such language inappropriate regardless of one's passion on a given subject, but any valid arguments that existed independently of such rhetoric should have been initially presented without it. Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility.
Similarly, it is never acceptable to dox, harass, post nude pictures, or in any other way violate someone's privacy due to disagreement with their opinions. While most people would probably agree with this in theory, far too many are willing to access and distribute this humiliating (and often illegal) content. Instead of simply viewing stories of doxing, slut-shaming, and other forms of online intimidation as an unfortunate by-product of the digital age, we should boycott all sites that publish these materials.
I wonder how this conversation is going to go? Hint: I hope my daughter does not read this.
Everyone stop making fun of her!
we should boycott all sites that publish these ma
If we do that, there will be very, very little left of the internet, or any other medium. That would is a prime example of throwing out the good with the bad.
Men-hating feminazis is not some random term. There are women troll on Twitter who think they are fighting the good fight by being anti-gg. Besides creating troll accounts on Twitter and Youtube (always check join date of your attacker), they have now resorted to abuse Twitter's report-abuse button. Pathetic females.
Religion is a choice. I see no reason to effectively exclude it from discussion. I agree that it is a sensitive topic, but it has no place in a list of properties that a person does not have a choice in.
is more important than the right not to be offended.
I'll let more eloquent persons explain this :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Surely harassment doesn't suddenly become acceptable if it's done to someone you agree with (but just don't like or respect)?
Enough of this crap already.
Still, I'm sure it will get 300+ posts including this one. Mission accomplished, you cynical bastards.
Remember the Communications Decency Act? Oh, I'm sorry, 1996 was before the author was born, wasn't it.
"Gamergate" happened because of a few frauds, and because of feminism need to rally around any woman whom they view as being "attacked."
> Gendered bigotry against women
This isnt a gender issue. Men are subjected to these attacks as well.
Also, hypocrisy:
> by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency.
> slut-shaming
See you at -5!
a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency
First you hate on the online harassment, then you want commenters to shame individuals. Make your mind up.
Hear me out... the paparazzi (eg News Corp, AKA FOX) set some pretty bad precedents (and ultimately paid the price for it) set the precedent that it's somehow "OK" to hack things to get their private info.
These gamergate nerd types however get no actual benefit from their intimidation tactics, it all just falls back into echo chambers of "hey guyz, we're gamers, let's ignore the feelings of the wimmins, and kick them out of the playground", somehow the right-wing conservative (eg breitbart) media picked up on this, and so did the MRA (Mens Right Activists, aka "Trilby wearing PUA (pickup artist)'s") and somehow all thought they were on the same side.
It's a sad state of affairs when Videogame violence is villainized, when the real problem is not the games but the people who are determined to keep their boys playground free of "SJW" types. And that's where gamergate got it's name, from complaining about SJW.
And I won't jump any deeper into this discussion because mentioning GamerGate is likely to get oneself doxxed, no matter how anonymous you are.
and now they run stories like this
What irks me about GG is that the shitty things a few gamers said is *evil* beyond imagining and must end, while the shitty things professional journalists said is defended across the board.
‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.
Why is it socially acceptable to demonize an entire demographic (gamers)? Because they're the "out group" for feminists. It's always acceptable to attack gamers in the media. Likewise you can always safely attack men, rich people, and white people. These so-called journalists and pundits seem to think gamers are male, middle class, ignorant, socially crippled, and white. That's a stereotype from the mid 90s. Games went mass market with the PS/2. Games went female with social media. Games went international and cross-cultural 15 years ago.
It shouldn't be safe to attack gamers, because they're no longer male, ignorant, socially crippled, and white. Even if they were, it shouldn't be acceptable to attack people because of their sex, social status, and race.
This isn't equality, this is oppression and it's far worse than a few anonymous death threats.
We have a problem with the propensity of people to want to view garbage (broadly defined). How we control this, along with harassment, is the big issue. This piece sadly offers no useful insights.
GamerGate is not about harassment or women. Here is a statistical analysis of #GamerGate tweets. Here is a case of GamerGate tracking down a harasser, and Sarkeesian refusing to report him. Here is a timeline of the many grievances #GamerGate supporters have against gaming journalists. Here is the transparent, open place we track our emails to advertisers on corrupt sites. Here is a blog about the corruption. Here is a discussion of one of the scum at Gawker. Here is my earlier Slashdot comment on media bias surrounding GamerGate.
Despite the many, many articles putting the word GamerGate next to the words "misogyny", "wu", harassment" and the like there is no evidence -- No Evidence -- actually associating GamerGate with any of those things, save a very tenuous link related to how the hashtag was coined and some third party trolls who it turns out harass GamerGate supporters more than GamerGate opposers.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Any particular reason religion is in that list of protected attributes? The others are innate characteristics while religion, regardless of how deeply held or deathly serious the consequences of deviating, is an opinion.
How to end slashdot beta and systemd? Much more important than this whining
Is there anything else you would like to complain/winge about in this imperfect world? Grow up and deal with it. Wars/drugs/ etc.
... that people are wiling to do any of this stuff at all?
I'm afraid you can't blame us evil old patriarchs for this culture of say anything you want do anything you want trash talking.
Of course you all supported sensible cultural restrictions on what you could say, and how you could act, for the last 50 years or so ...
If you have a negative opinion about a person, which OP finds offensive, your opinion should be allowed to be voiced. Riiight..
By all means, physical threats should not be tolerated, but everything else is freedom of expression, even if we dislike it or find it in bad taste.
By the way, it's a little sexist to suggest that only women need to be worried about death threats and harrassment. I've received more than a few myself in my time. What - because I'm a guy I should just ignore it? It's not a problem? I think you'll find this is something which can be an issue for 100% of the population, not just your favorite gender. GG bigotry.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
I am sorry if this puts me in the 'bad' column, but I believe in the right to say (type) whatever I please. While I do not condone the actions that have happened recently (gamergate) , I do still think that it takes at least two individuals who will not change their bad behavior to escalate conflicts.
Why can't we all take this for what it is - an imaginary playground where people can just be people?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnMC7xokQ8
half of the total human population has to worry about receiving rape threats, death threats, and the harassment of angry mobs simply for expressing their opinions.
Do we? Do we really?
I, for one, are quite happy not giving a fuck about threats I receive online. Maybe it's because I have the ability to distinguish between the Internet and the real world.
the bounds of decency.
Oh. You got into shady terrain there. The bounds of decency have proven to be a quite unstable base to hold any judgement that endures the passage of even a few years.
We can start by stating the obvious
Ok. Me first. The sun shines!
Wow, you were right. I feel everything is much clearer now.
we should boycott all sites that publish these materials.
We should boycott a lot of corporations. Are you implying your boycott is the most important at this point?
To avoid the lameness filter that was proccing for no apparent reason:
http://pastebin.com/ttH7qkSG
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Most people who play games or posts online will run into this. I'm a guy, and I've seen it all dozens of times. It's not because you're male or female. If you take notice enough to make a big deal of it, you're just feeding the trolls. My advice: Quit being a wussy.
So don't be a msygomist. And then there's women on women, the worst kind of all.
Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters
Is it? Is it really?
Are you sure it's not only considered as such by a tiny but vocal and offensive minority?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Harassing speech looks all the same, so it should be easy to model fairly accurately. Just automatically filter it and have a switch that turns the filter off so that people can check the filter and see if anything they like has been filtered out.
Once people are happy with the filter, they'll want to filter out more stuff, and instead of just having a switch, comment systems all over might get some sort of sliding scale where one doesn't have to look at comments below a certain level of quality.
Many of the journalists and supporters of the anti GG side have doxxed people... with their main accounts in the clear. Not sock puppet accounts that could be anyone. But they did it directly.
I don't know why people keep bringing up harassment like this helps the anti GG side because the anti GG side has harassed far more.
Who said "we should bring back bullying" was that GG or anti GG? Anti GG. Every single fucking time.
So they have no moral high ground there and I just thought that should be made very fucking clear. To the contrary, it is they that should be apologizing and explaining their own behavior which has been far worse.
People prominent in GG have received death threats, have had people call their work and tell their employers they're pedophiles, have had things mailed to their homes like knives or syringes...
There's no comparison.
If either side is a hate group, it is anti GG.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This is nothing more than the thought police grasping at straws trying to project an aura of legitimacy.
People say nasty things to each other. Nobody is more nasty to each other than young women. That is a fact. And, if I had a nickel for every time I overheard a nasty conversation between females at the water cooler about some man, I'd be pretty darn wealthy.
So, let us stop lying to ourselves by saying that gender hostility is a one-way street, shall we? People are people, and people will always say nasty things to each other. The thought police need to get over themselves and learn that the ability to deal with adversity and hostility internally is necessary for survival.
Sure thing, harassment is bad, but the author is a ** moron. Women are not particularly targeted by trolls, EVERYONE who ever participate in any online forum or community and express ANY kind of opinion get harassed one way or another, eventually receiving death and rape threats. Women happens to be the most sensitive demographics and take things too personal making a better target for trolling, probably because the way they are thought they are more special or more oppressed and that their feelings matter.
The bottom line is that your feelings only matter to you and if you are lucky your close friends and relatives. Nobody else needs to be forced thread lightly around them. And people that don't care are not necessarily harassing you, as with the outside world, most people simply don't care about you personally and why should they? Respect is not something that should be granted by default, respect needs to be EARNED. That doesn't mean that you should treat everyone as a piece of crap, after all by default EVERYONE should be given the benefit of the doubt and treated with civility until they prove they don't deserve that privilege.
That said, hypocrisy of the article has no limits. Is not the gamers that segregate based on demographics, ethnicity and sexual orientation, in gaming the ONLY thing that matters is SKILL. Sure, there are a lot of arseholes in every community, some game communities worst than others but by large they are not representative of the gaming demographics as a whole. And gamers did not declared themselves dead, the gaming press did, and called them culturally irrelevant fat bearded white basement dweller males in need to be destroyed and replaced for something else and their hobby policed by SJW. Of course they revolted, what else did you expect?
They are the ones being TARGETED by a concerted campaign carried by the people who make a living from them, lumped together in stupid generalizations that slurs and try to shames them for no real reason, so in all fairness the author of the linked article should lead with the example and throw herself in the pit for the exact same reason she wants to shame others, plus being a big hypocrite.
Also, the whole deal about shaming individuals... how are you suggesting to do it? Tracking them offline and shame them IRL? Isn't that what you accuse them to do? Are you planning to kill anonymity in internet? Set up a ministry of truth and thought police squads? Sorry, but I rather live with the trolls than in 1984 and because of that simple fact, I'm forced to back the trolls on this one.
What a whiny cry-ass. You know how to get away from online harassment? (a) don't read it or (b) confront the harasser in the real world. Something tells me a five-knuckle "tweet" to the nose, with the promise of a "re-post" if the harassment doesn't stop will usually do the trick.
Grow a fecking set folks.
It would be nice if 100% of the population could have the right not be receive death threads and be harassed.
Some of the funniest office 'banter' I've heard has been based on race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
Death Threats are unacceptable. I'm glad we're seeing journalists express their outrage exactly the same way they did when Jack Thompson received death threats and when Death Threats were made against the family of the Penny Arcade writers...
Oh wait, there was no outrage over these, if anything there was an atmosphere of "well, they deserved it". Of course, to condemn these would require news websites to accept some culpability for the drumming up the anger that lead to the abuse they received.
The hypocrisy and self serving nature of the journalists is probably best summed up by the "gamers are dead" articles. The basic argument presented by a disturbingly large number of them is basically "How dare you be sexist and comment on someone's sexual history you virgin man-children!" and the writers are completely unable to see the irony in doing that.
Lastly, a call for diversity is fine but you've need to accept that diversity is more than just LGBT and women. It's the rich and poor, old and young, the conservative and liberal, the religious and the atheist, The North American and the European (or any combination of continents). Gaming sites have readers from all these backgrounds. Maybe, just maybe there are lots of people don't like being lectured to by relatively well off 20-30 year old ultra liberal Americans? Maybe, when people disagree with political opinions presented on the website, the best response isn't name calling, shaming and banning. You belittle, censor, insult and claim superiority then wonder why there's a build up of hatred on the other side.
I am sick of hearing the same old fallacies over and over. Ditto with the passive aggressive shaming language, crocodile tears, and deliberate misrepresentation of troll 'threats' in order to keep the controversy going. Why is it that slashdot never really covered the opposing side to all of this? The only stories that get through are anti-gamergate/pro feminist, just like with the mainstream media (no surprise there).
Just because a few women (sarkeesian/quinn/dina/wu etc) got called out for fallaciously and hypocritically generalizing/stereotyping one of the largest internet communities doesn't mean that the majority of that community hates women. The community just has a problem with what a few specific women (and men) said. It also has a problem with the so-called 'journalists' (and their pals at DIGRA, silverstring, gawker) covering the community's activities. When journalists editorialize or propagandize, they are no longer journalists. They should have the integrity to leave the editorializing to the op-ed sections of their publications, or, ideally, abstain from it altogether.
Why do these 'justice' warriors hate objectivity and meritocracy so much? When gaming met the internet, it was the ultimate equalizer. All that mattered was the game and how well you played relative to other players, not your race, your sex, or any other irrelevant characteristic. Trashtalk was trashtalk, and only lamers took it seriously. I remember a time when this was looked at as a positive thing. Now it's all about wearing shit on our shoulders and baiting each other into passive aggressive offense. I guess SJW politics had to turn up the intensity in order to keep certain politicians and ideologies relevant. The bottom line is, if someone criticizes you, it does not mean he hates your race, sex, religion, or anything else. Instead of routing all negatives to /dev/oppressed, have the fortitude to listen to the criticism and see where it might apply. If there's truth to it, modify your perspective. If not, discard it. Quit playing the victim. It's a loser's game.
I lost count at 30 people doxxed by those that claim to stand for "feminism" and against gamergate, starting with the black developer who lost his job to racists harassing his boss and going downhill from there to people's bank accounts getting hacked, their utilities turned off, their income held up by fraud, a couple attempts at SWATting, and even syringes, knives, and dead animals in the mail.
At this point the "mere" verbal abuse from so called "feminists" screaming racial slurs and making threats at anyone in gamergate is practically background noise compared to the sheer number of people getting doxed and sent fucking knives and dead animals in the mail. And disturbingly all of this has not only been explicitly encouraged at times even participated in by major public figures, it's also been subject to a near complete media blackout. You would think people who care so much about women and minorities would be writing a whole lot about black men losing their jobs because of racists doxing them, or women having their income held up by fraudulent reports, or any of the other thirty plus attacks against primarily women and minorities by mostly rich white men. Unless of course they don't actually give a damn and it's just political opportunism.
>Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility.... we should boycott all sites that publish these materials....
At this point the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is so staggering I'm almost starting to believe this is all some kind of kafkaesque modern art performance.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJUOu63KLpA
sarkeesian/quinn/dina/wu: Minute 2:50
Their manginas: Minute 2.52
There is a huge difference between things like
rape threats,
'I wish your mother die of cancer',
'if you open you mouth again, I'll find your house and burn it'
things like
"Women have less IQ than men and you are best example of it"
"I could answer you question, but you are too dumb to understand it anyway"
and things like
"I think that all muslim people are terrorists"
"Whoever believes in God is stupid beyond saving"
"Immigrants have 7 less IQ on average and are gaming social benefit system"
There is a difference between personal threat, personal offense and generic not politically correct statement (even if it is wrong). But I have a feeling that all of them fit nicely under broad term of 'hate speech' and while first category is used as a driving point, it is all about shutting up third category - making it illegal to make any generic statement which can offend anybody imaginary world. Of course, people will argue that statement "All muslim people are terrorists" really mean "we should deport/waterboard/kill all muslim immigrants", which can easily fall into first category... but same way you could interpret facebook post "I don't like my math teacher" as "let's buy guns and go Columbine on him"
My personal opinion is that direct, person _threats_ should be punishable/forbidden. But I will defend my right to say to other person that he is stupid because of the things he said, things he believes in and I want to be able to make it generic ("All people believing in homeopathy are dumb").
As soon as I saw a few troll harass women, I knew it would become the number 1 issue by journalist outfit rather than the real reason of the anger. And make no mistake troll almost certainly did not care about gamer or game, but got a rise out of harassing the women, there are study of trolling and troll out there showing they do not care about their victim or the cause they "seemingly" endorse. the reality is that troll are mostly sadist personality which gets a thrill from the rise they get out of people.
But on the journalist side, it is the same as with dorritosgate. Rather than admit and try to change , or explain why some things are not corruption, they immediately JUMPED on the trolling and made it the SOLE issue. I am not into conspiracy normally, but this was a so widespread reaction, that it felts like a defense mechanism : try to move the issue to something else as to avoid discussing the main issue most people in gamersgate sees as an increasingly disturbing problem. I don't even recall know how it started this time (for me it already started with the "dorritosgate") but the fact is that there are far too many publication having a disturbing behavior incestuous with publisher or developper, and endorsement are not clearly marked often with the relationship.
I see the same behavior with the sarkeesian story : She made a statement on damsel in distress openning the discussion, then rather than ignore the troll and concentrate on the counter statement indicating where she made errors or is not going the correct way for a study, journalist and folk are concentrating SOLELY on the troll.
It is starting to be the hack of any discussion : move the thema to troll harassing women, and poof the whole discussion is dead.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They'll be too busy masturbating to harass you. And yes, this works for guys too.
In his book, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, Heinlein had his lead character say the following regarding uncivilized behavior:
Gwen, my love, if one tolerates bad manners, they grow worse. Our pleasant habitat could decay into the sort of slum Elli-Five is, with crowding and unmannerly behavior and unnecessary noise and impolite language. I must find the oaf who did this thing, explain to him his offense, give him a chance to apologize, and kill him.
Problem solved.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
There are both online and offline communities where bad tone is repressed in a variety of ways with moderate or up to absolute success. Then again, enforcement is expensive and in a lot of cases, not a necessity. When such rules are not enforced, you enter at your own risk. Some online communities are pretty much ghetto-like and most of them are clearly marked as such.
This is the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read at slashdot and as you can imagine it's up against some pretty stiff competition. (Am I allowed to use the word "stiff", or is that a gendered slur that reinforces the patriarchy?).
This, for example: "gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters". It is? No, it isn't.
The only gendered bigotry I come across on the internet these days, especially Twitter, involves pejorative uses of the phrase "straight white male".
Something I've never seen pointed out: Every person has two parents, one male and one female. If so many women are so frightened and harassed all the time, why haven't they molded their kids into better people? I'm sure not all the dads hate women, so in theory there should be more than 50% of parents trying to raise good kids... What's going wrong?
meanwhile...
wtf is the media saturation making all white guys complete losers?
Kind of like how sex is a behavior and not an attribute. I believe in not being hateful, but telling gays that they are wrong should not be a crime. Sorry gays, there is no "gay gene".
includes the freedom to speak what other will find "unecological" "homophobic" "not nice" "lies" "insulting the Zeus, true father of all Gods" and so on.
It also includes the freedom to not listen, but that's what for we have /ignore or going to a server with friends.
I'm quite sure there are crazed misogynists out there.....
Ok sorry, you just lost all your credibility for this post, because you don't seem to have done any prerequisite reading on this subject before pushing the submit button, The people that are triggering this debate are being incredibly abusive and awful to women, simply because they dared to express an opinion online that doesn't align with the troll's opinion. If that doesn't meet the criteria for being a misogynist, what does? Do you have to start stabbing women before you are worthy of the title?
This discussion isn't about calling someone an asshole because they have an opinion that differs from you. The sort of behavior that is being discussed is really extreme, and is being displayed by a small but highly vocal minority of people. These are really toxic people, and not run of the mill jerks you find all over the place.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
No, saying and doing are different things. A threat is only threatening if its plausible and will likely/possible to be actioned.
What's needed is a thicker skin on behalf of the reader, and you.
Also GP can tell the difference, you clearly cannot. You also don't seem to understand that you don't have any special right to make him sit in a corner, and he represents the online community far better than you. Most people have thicker skins, and are use to the ruff and tumble of social interactions, and we cannot make a cotton wool world for those who are so meek that mere words scare them.
If ever we did make such a world, it would be run by Theresa May figures, scared of their own shadows, unfit for public office, trying to micromanage the words we use and opinions we hold of others to outlaw negative views.
so, people like to say what this is all about. Some people like to say it is all about ethics in games journalism, others like to say it is about keeping girls out of the gaming clubhouse.
I don't give a rats arse about ethics in games journalism. I care about ethics in *real* journalism, covering finance, politics, news etc. That is important and there are ethical problems with many of the ways real stuff is reported. Ethics in games journalism sounds like a jolly good thing, thumbs up for it, but really I don't care that much. I certainly don't think that improving whatever problems might exist is worth the cost that this campaign is imposing on everyone else in the IT industry.
This is obviously to some part selective bias, but I only see the bad things done to Quinn and Sarkeesian, and the defense of those actions from GamersGate people. All those links are just further evidence of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Let me give you a hint. People who don't think race, ethnicity, gender, or anything else personal and distinctive are not the source of most humor don't get many dates in the real world, because with all the whinging, they wind up dull as spit. They get to stay on the "friend" side of the social ladder, and wonder why they never manage to cross over to the "date" side of the social ladder.
They're socially popular for about six months in college, and there are a sad, sad few who never outgrow the whinging. The rest of us go out and get a life.
...is that you can't really address stuff that is wrong with it if you aren't a journalist yourself, and speak from a position of relative power and reach. Is it a surprise that the same people who get rightly criticised by #gamergate lash out by not attacking the argument, but instead astroturfing harassment stories into existence (in addition to some more real concerns) in which their critics are the harassers and misogynists? This leads to their consumers being fed made up stories about the mad and very white and very male brute that is going around shitting all over womens achievements while laughing evilishly and tormenting small furry animals for fun. People from all kinds of origins and colours posted under the #notyourshield hashtag, only to be accused by the journos and their allies (who are, ironically, very often white bearded hipstersbros) as sockpuppets. It would be nice if we could see the other point of view to this on ./ once in a while.
You would say that.
The people behind this want to effectively wield power comparable to the DMCA, including the ability to take down content (and authors) at will, with a widespread chilling effect and no consequence for false positives. We've already seen how easily terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment became the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
1. Take your smartphone and DSL/Cable Modem
2. Apply hammer both items.
If you don't want negative attention, then don't post anything on the internet. Don't think you can somehow change human nature.
A crime, no, an indicator that you think entirely too much about what other consenting people do with their genitals (if you're that obsessed, maybe you're denying something), that's a BIG yes.
The way to deal with harassment is to remove the veil of anonymity and sue their asses. That's what I had to do, and it took care of it. Trolls are only brave enough to speak what they shouldn't be saying when they feel invulnerable behind their anonymity.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880 – 1956)
Really, that's it in a nutshell.
TFS says: "It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion"
I will actually agree with that: it is inappropriate, as in, uncivilized, trollish behavior. And it absolutely must be tolerated, because freedom of expression is such a critical, fundamental right. Calls for silencing such boorish behavior are entirely misplaced.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
'With Gamergate, it's not enough to ignore the trolls.'
It may not be sufficient, and if you have good ideas to add please do. But an effective solution to any problem must be both sufficient and necessary. And in this case, ignoring the trolls is necessary, even if you do not find it to be sufficient.
Trolls gain steam from attention. Any strategy for shutting down trolls must include ignoring them. There may be additional tactics that are worth employing, like advocating courtesy in Internet communications, but "don't feed the trolls" is a required part of the solution.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
>[...] we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency.
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh, I know, false accusations.
Come on, Slashdot editors. This submission is dumb, even by modern Slashdot's ever-decreasing standards.
Just because this story involves the Internet it does not make it relevant here. It's a petty squabble between hipsters, losers and those stuck in ideological ivory towers.
Slashdot editors, please promote useful stories to the front page. You know, ones about math, or science, or technology.
We don't need reddit-esque Millenial boohoo-you-hurt-my-hipster-feelings crap here. Let's keep their idiocy isolated to Twitter, reddit and other useless sites like those that just don't matter, okay?
> we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency.
What!?
We've spent the last half century trying to eliminate shaming individuals for being "different!"
Try again, bigot.
This is nothing less and other than Applied Marxism, the failure of which has been demonstrated to the degree that the world changed with the fall of the USSR. My method of shaming Marxists is to hold them morally guilty of the deaths of tens of millions of people during the twentieth century.
I say that those ill-affected by the failure of the Vietnam war who suffered under Communism should be able to sue Yoko Ono for her late husband's efforts to end the war via his music. He incited defeat in Vietnam and as a result these people were harmed. All Vietnamese who fled should sue under the Alien Tort Statute because they were aliens at the time the harm occurred.
Reincarnation is perhaps the most glaring example of false consciousness. It is most effective in subverting individuality and accountability. It allows certain people to say that those they dislike are the ancestors of their persecutors (i.e. "Recycled Raj Era Brits") and those they embrace as their own ancestors in current flesh.
Okay, in many ways, much of the framework of what you're talking about ALREADY EXISTS.
But trolls continue to exist anyhow. Why is that?
Because the trolls don't give a damn for the polite bounds of society.
As to "shaming individuals who cross bounds".
First, they have to be able to feel shame. Second, this is an entirely arbitrary watermark. Third, it's just BEGGING for abuse. It's basically institutionalization of PC-speak. Never mind that there truly ARE legitimate usages of harsh speech. Fourth, in a way, isn't this part of the problem? Weren't some of these people attempting to shame someone who transgressed some notion of "decency"?
At this point, what would be the difference between you and someone who's doxxing or throwing off threats?
As for "losing all credibility". So, the second someone CLAIMS these people have transgressed, their arguments have exactly zero meaning? Even legitimate arguments? Sorry, but people can be assholes and still have a valid point. Not liking them is not a valid counter to legitimate arguments.
Sorry, but this has not been thought through, even a little. This is a very shallow thought experiment where none of the ramifications have even been considered.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Content doesn't matter in today's blahgspheres, only noise - and boy o, look at them comments!
Time to put on those marching shoes...
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
to whom alone applies the VTL
the others roll on smiling
stopping them would be profiling
and the civil rights attorneys would raise hell
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
who cannot emigrate to Israel
the law there says "Don't bother
with my quarter-Jewish father"
for my ancestry placed me beyond the pale
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
with no plaques on the wall as one can tell
for ev'ry bit of knowledge
I had learned apart from college
for no scholarships or other aid avail
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
who disagrees with Joanie and Michelle
the gays call me a bigot
'cause I dared to raise a digit
so that male and female marriage would not fail
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
for whom the social programs won't avail
you know it's not a myst'ry
it's to make up for bad hist'ry
when the bureaucrat says "Whitey, go to hell"
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
A tree that atheists just love to fell
They say "I'm out of season
we must all bow down to Reason"
so my core beliefs are not for rent or sale
Diversity in theory
inclusion of the other
However in practice
exclusion of the brother
I fear that all the bigots
had reason all along
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
whose sense of right and wrong will not avail
why would anyone heed me since
they are all devoid of conscience
so their twisted moral views today prevail
I'm an able-bodied straight white Christian male
Seriously what the FUCK has happened to this website? Total shit every god damned day.
You would think that a group that defines itself by being hyperaware of power dynamics would see the irony in using phrases like "widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not),", but apparently not, so I will spell it out. By putting things like this, in one fell swoop you both demonize your opponent as well as remove their ability to respond. No matter what they say, you can just go "oh, you're just not acknowledging what I know you to truly believe." No matter who they are, you can just say "well, you're an internet commenter, and internet commenters believe certain things whether they openly acknowledge them or not."
It ends all discussion, and effectively removes any possibility of debate or even reply by describing an entire group as having property X and then removing the ability of that group to dispute that claim. It's like saying "I am right, and anyone who disagrees is a he man woman hater misogynist asshole."
Whether they acknowledge it or not.
I seriously feel sorry for the guy who felt it was necessary to link an article on a female geek blog on Slashdot. This is a website for news, not opinion. Even worse, if you actually read the article, the author rails against online anonymity and does all but explicitly call for the same type of doxxing on harassers so they can be publicly shamed.
I thought everyone read Fahrenheit 451 when they were in like 9th grade but apparently I've been misled. Please don't ever post articles on Slashdot again if you think there is a reason we should do away with online anonymity and that it should be predicated on protecting people from butthurt.
that's the first problem when people like you anoint themselves the hall monitors of the universe and spend their time scolding, nagging and patronizing everyone. Here's a tip, fuck you die screaming.
I stopped judging people by their race, religion, financial status, gender, or sexual preference years ago. In this modern age, the best thing to descriminate by is ISP. For example, if someone has an AOL email addy, they should be thoroughly bashed.
"it's not enough to ignore the trolls."
Posting articles, tweets, etc. over and over... up to and including ones indicating fear of being doxed... is the exact opposite of ignoring. It's in fact the most nutritious and calorie filled form of troll food.
In all conflicts, the aggressor sets the rules of engagement; and, there is a PvP solution to every disagreement. Instead of blogging about more stupid rules, the harassee should arm themselves; and when threatened, kill on sight.
It will only take about 3 dead lanboi's to end the entire problem.
The Tumblr SJWs **DEMAND** that any self-appointed victim group not be offended, and that all transgressors be shamed or thrown in jail.
Too bad for them, that there isn't actually a right to not be offended.
For people like you. If you had read further you would have read troll do not care about whether they harass men, women, horse, or corpse, as long as they get a rise out of somebody. But no, you stopped at a sentence out of context. And jumped into Misandry (some other might jump onto part out of context and says "i stopped reading there misogynistic troll"). And people wonder why politician use sound bites, and everything get dumbed down. people stops reading at a sentence without even trying to understand the whole.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Take your retarded identity politics and blow them out your ass.
Don't worry, one day you'll grow up and a girl will kiss you and everything.
This place has gone to the dogs.
Thanks, Dice.
Stay offline.
If you cant handle it, dont go out of your way to read it, then bitch about it adding fuel to nothingness.
"Yeah but i cant live in a world without being online like everyone else".
There are always few sheep that dont follow the flock, those are usually the clever ones.
Typical media "fuelling the fire" story.
That word I do not think it means what you think it means.
If you are arguing about what rules Sony should have on their own private network, so be it...but as far as the wider communities:
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
don't be such a sally.
Fact: People are often stupid.
Fact: Stupidity can be offensive.
Therefore: People can often be offensive.
Conjecture: People being offensive often cross the line in to threatening behavior.
Posit: Those people are assh*les.
Fact: Assh*les are necessary to expel waste. It is just unfortunate that many of them continue to breathe.
Just say no - To allowing the SJWs to destroy yet another site. "Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility". Indeed!
... post nude pictures
We can start by stating the obvious:
You fucktards have no sense of humor.
Similarly, it is never acceptable to
Ahahahaahahaha... 10/10, perfect, friend! I actually took you as serious up to that point. Truly a magnificent FP troll!
Many of the journalists and supporters of the anti GG side have doxxed people... with their main accounts in the clear. Not sock puppet accounts that could be anyone. But they did it directly.
I haven't seen any of this; do you perhaps have a link?
I don't know why people keep bringing up harassment like this helps the anti GG side because the anti GG side has harassed far more.
Who said "we should bring back bullying" was that GG or anti GG? Anti GG. Every single fucking time.
I did see that one (only once though); at least the idiot in question apologised...
So they have no moral high ground there and I just thought that should be made very fucking clear. To the contrary, it is they that should be apologizing and explaining their own behavior which has been far worse.
People prominent in GG have received death threats, have had people call their work and tell their employers they're pedophiles, have had things mailed to their homes like knives or syringes...
Do you have any links about these?
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
Unlike those other things, religion is something you choose and something you can change. Moreover, religions are responsible for (directly or due to perversion) for countless atrocities. For gender, race, and sexual orientation, it is only bigotry against them that has lead to atrocities (although bigotry applies to religion too). Finally, many aspects of most religions don't make logical sense or are in direct contradition to established scientific fact or well-supported theory.
Therefore, I say that people should be subject to verbal criticism for aspects of their religions that are stupid.
That being said, many religious people are not intellectual enough to be able to question their religions, and due to the all-encompassing role that most religions play, religion is an integral part of their normal function. It's one thing to pick on someone for being intentionally stupid, but what about the cases where people are simply unable to think beyond their upbringing? You're not going to train me to want to eat grub worms any time soon, although it's perfectly normal in some cultures, so maybe I'm stupid in that way. There are some aspects of one's upbringing that are difficult or impossible to shake.
Consider sexual orientation. Mostly or strictly gay people make up only about 10% of the human population. Something we don't think about is the part of the population that is strictly straight. There are cultures where homosexual acts are or have been expected, and some people naturally are unable to bring themselves to participate, making themselves outcasts. Let's say for the sake of argument that that accounts for another 10%. That suggests that there is about 20% of humans who fundamentally have no choice about their sexual orientation. What about the remaining 80%? Some identify as something else (like bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc.). But most of them identify as straight. Why? Cultural indoctrination. They could have, if raised differently, been more flexible, but they had that flexibility trained out of them. Religion is really no different from that or any other aspect of culture that we take for granted.
Which is why it's unethical (I didn't say it should be illegal) to discriminate on the basis of religion. That being said, facts are facts, and when someone is wrong (regardless of how deeply ingrained it is), they should be subject to criticism. The rest of us should not be contrained by other people's backward cultural hangups, just because we apply the label "religion."
op is a faggot.
to post another anti-GG smear article.
But I feel like pointing out that actually, the majority of the harassment going on in the hashtag on Twitter nowadays is the anti-GG crowd harassing the GG supporters. Is it worth mentioning that a journalist who has supported GG has been sent a syringe and a dead animal in the mail?
Yesterday I saw an anti-GG supporter tell a prominent GG supporter (who is a woman who has been raped) that:
1) She's not really a woman
2) She should join her in hating all men
And then, after it was revealed that the rapist was female:
3) She wasn't raped, because women can't rape.
Or should I mention how GG has tracked down the identity of the person who sent death threats to Anita Sarkeesian (and many other people, under different accounts)... and Anita has ignored them and refused to press charges? I guess it's not good for the smear campaign if it looks like your targets are helping you.
But, go on, keep talking about how terrible it is that you think GG is a misogynist harassment campaign. Unfortunately, GG isn't actually even fighting that battle. They don't care about public perception, they care about taking down the corrupt giants -- and let me point out that Gawker has been bleeding advertisers lately.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Snark on:
Does anyone have a guide for which anonymous #GG users are legit and which anonymous #GG users are not?
Snark off.
The message has shifted since #GG became a thing; you can poke around the stories here, at Ars, and elsewhere and see that people who identified with the movement, early days, were often (note: I said "often", not "always" or "frequently") OK with calling people "feminazis" (since replaced with SJW). They also, sometimes, went on explain how "rape" and "kill" are almost used affectionately in gaming or dismissed the threats with arguments that, basically, said, "She hurt our feelings." I think that, as #GG has become more organized, the obvious trolling gets smacked down, at least in the forums (seriously, that's a positive step forward) ... but you can't walk back the fact that the harassing comments, (and fabricated stories about trading sexual favours for positive reviews) early on, muddled the message.
And it's the early comments that framed the debate. And those early, juvenile, minority opinion comments absolutely proved Sarkeesian's point better for more people than her videos ever could -- and gave her a FAR wider audience than she could ever have dreamed of.
Seriously, I have no idea why the #GG people interested in journalism ethics continued to use the #GG tag when its brand had been tarnished beyond repair. It tied a legitimate cause to one tainted in the public's eyes with threats (rape and murder), lies (sex for positive reviews), intimidation (doxxing, mass murder threats at the university), and outright misogyny (seriously, it's not OK to call someone a Nazi). No amount of damage control will fix that.
And, finally, since I'm about to modded down to troll anyway ... ethics in gaming journalism is not a big deal to most people. Gaming journalism rates as a cut below entertainment journalism. And, frankly, gaming (let alone ethics in gaming journalism) receives fewer column inches than the obituary section in most newspapers. It is, simply, not a subject most people care about because it doesn't affect them personally, any more than the extravagant gifts given to film journalists at film festivals (iPads, private parties) do.
Rational, caring people are against all kinds of discrimination.
You poor, pathetic straight white male. It must be terrible for you. I shed a tear. *sob*
Wait... You know you just used slurs and verbal attacks based on gender and race solely BECAUSE of someone's gender and race?
Assumed gender and race at that.
That does not seem very "rational, caring, and against all kinds of discrimination" to me.
Sounds more like this.
Rational, caring people are against all kinds of discrimination.
You poor, pathetic trannie black girl. It must be terrible for you. I shed a tear. *sob*
You know... Like a troll or a truly two-faced, hypocritical bigot who doesn't even realize their own bigotry.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
... is reading Brazilian law forbidding discrimination.
In essence, it works like that: you're free to think and act the way you want, but you cannot discriminate against someone based on gender, race, skin color, religion, wealth (or lack thereof), etc. As with everything, Freedom itself cannot be unlimited -- "virtue is in the middle", as the old saying goes.
Two remarkable consequences:
- One is forbidden from refusing service (the right to do so is extinct by law);
- Anonymity becomes forbidden, because people must be accountable -- of course, yelling cannot be prevented; with today's technology, though, one wonders until when.
See: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Afonso_Arinos (it's in Portuguese, Google is learning to translate, good luck!)
We had a recent case of a lady yelling "Monkey!" at a soccer/football player. Public attorneys entered the case and the result was, besides personal prosecution, her club being expelled/eliminated from Brazilian championship. I guess they were trying to send a message about what we think about racism.
In short, don't do it here.
But you can whistle at gorgeous girls whenever you want... and call them hot, baby, whatever. Just don't do like the Italians... we don't touch unknown people here, okay?
Certainly ad-hominem (of which harassment is but an extreme form) is essentially a concession of the logical argument in favor of the opponent. It is nonetheless used (heavily in politics) because the target audience is untrained in recognizing fallacies.
In arguing against harassment, exception (or silence) is often made for topics one feels righteously passionate about (climate change, Holocaust deniers, etc). If one cannot defend one's enemies against unfair attack, then it is unprincipled and merely opportunistic to defend anyone else, especially one's allies.
LOL. huge amounts of comments. Some of us internet fagtrolls hate everyone. jews, whites, women, gays. but the list goes on. Many of us are actually egalitarians irl. and we see the comment sections as places for comedy. "dont be fags" is my solution to online idiocy. and gamergate isnt about screaming at women and hating them. there are a few well known females in the people criticizing games journalism ethics and i dont even follow it closely. blowing 100 dudes is fine, whether you're male or female, but doing sex with people with even a perceived conflict of interest is usually grounds for voluntarily leaving a project as an editor, journalist or producer, or anyone involved. this is called journalism. its not about hating women, and the tactic of claiming such things is annoying. its like when you say "you know, shipping girls off to have their vaginas mutilated for religious reasons is bad" and someone goes "THATS RACIST!!!!!".
Seriously. I'm tired of reading these penis-hating clickbait articles. Stop giving them the time of day SlashDice.
"We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion." ^^ No, it is *VERY* good to use "slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on" someone's religion. Why did they try to lump "religion' into there? They need to get a reality check.
Our traditions have been to have the path hammered out by applying intense pressure of all kinds to oppositions. It may be rude but there is a point to it all. For example a person might remark that the governor of New Jersey could be mistaken for a blimp. But the remark points to the fact that a man who can not manage his own body should not be trusted to manage a state and there is reality in that view point,
It's not just you, you oversensitive whiney feminists. Let's rewind to just last week in an online game. I think I heard something about little kids, old people, women, mexicans, blacks, native americans believe it or not, and of course the gays.
It's bad, but it's not exclusive to women. Anyone who hangs out in the filthy sewers of the Internet (4chan, parts of Reddit, many newspaper and magazine comment sections) knows that threats of beatings, killings, and rapes are common. They are commonly laid out against men by men. Yes, that includes rape. Most of it is idle posturing by mouth-breathing basement-dwelling mental juveniles many of whom are chronological juveniles as well.
Could we please focus on the anti-social, violent nature of these threats and not label the entire Internet as misogynist pigs just because women are finding themselves included as targets?
Yes, but doesn't pushing a crusade against a hyped up phantom threat count as a campaign of harassment itself? Especially when you falsely project blame onto innocent third parties (aka bullying)
Try this on for size!
We can talk about the idealism of trying to protect those who are being harassed, and attacking the harassers all day, but unfortunately humanity doesn't seem to be wired towards that mentality. Our social order seems to still follow rules of mob mentality. This is why we still have situations where some kid is kicked down and rather than protecting him, many in the crowd kick or even stomp on the downed person. Sometimes we come to the defense of others who we feel have been wronged. Sadly, I have tried to do this act most of my life and found myself frustrated that I was actually standing up for someone who was just craving attention more than someone who was truly wronged. We as a society struggle with trying to protect the weak so that they can have an opportunity to flourish and trying to naturally select those who we deem worthy to move on.
Unfortunately, being on the protectionist side, we fail to understand how driven those on the aggressive side are and are often lured into becoming aggressive ourselves. Our best offensive strategy is not to be on the attack or shaming our opponents, but to find a way for these people to reflect on the negative nature of their behavior. As they are forced to consider the damage of their actions, then perhaps they might change their attitude.
I can not say that I am without being aggressive and attacking those who disagree with me. I have called many people racist and more than likely far worse. Yet now I reflect on this behavior with great sadness as I have been taught how to behave better than that.
Place something witty here
Really? Religion? I see nothing wrong with shaming someone for willfully following a religion that routinely performs ritual genital mutilation and treats women as property of their husbands.
What we're witnessing here is that Gamergate is a powerful Barbara Streisand effect in action. If they didn't q.q. so much about the whole thing, it would have subsided. Was it horrible shit that shouldn't have happened? Ya. There was a lot of begging for attention that led to the initial threats, and then continued begging for attention that led to the rest of this crap. And, the more it is posted about on news sites, the more negative attention it receives. It's like a small snowball that just keeps growing in size. And, of course women in the industry as a whole are egging it on by commenting on it via journalism, blogs, youtube, etc. Then you have the white knights stepping in to "shine a light" on the whole mess and make sure we don't forget. The troll is strong with this one. If you want this crap to stop, stop feeding them. It's really less about gamers and more about the whole situation being an easy target for bored trolls. I yawn when I see someone has posted yet another article about this. It is getting old fast.
Comments from a bystander:
I think everyone should accept that:
Some GamerGaters are behaving in an anti-women fashion and this is blatantly unacceptable to anyone with a modicum of decency.
Some GamerGaters have some social issues to discuss that are not necessarily anti-women and agree or not, they have a right to be heard.
But it's all one big mess.
Gamergate seems to me to suffer from some of the same issues that the Occupy movement suffered from. There's no leadership. There's noone to set an agenda and keep folks in line and take actions where necessary to protect the cause from being abused. There's noone taking the stand and getting in front of the media and the people and saying "Respect for everyone comes first, we condemn anti-woman actions and threatening behavior. Our goals can only be realized through peaceful dialog."
I'm not suggesting that I agree with GamerGate. Frankly I have a hard time getting a clear handle on what they really want as their message is a cacophony mixing the good and the bad. After 5 minutes of looking up information, I have the same reaction that many probably have: "Careful, don't get any on you".
While I support freedom of speech and the right to discuss social issues, if your movement is mired in self-destructive issues, you need to either get someone in charge and clean house or you need to cut your ties and start over somewhere else where the message can stay clear.
I think what they have now is too far gone to salvage anything positive. But without leadership there's no decisions being made to correct the core issues. When your group looks like a mob, screams like a mob and behaves like a mob... you might have a mob on your hands. That's never a good thing.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
Who decides what the bounds of decency are? There could be some wildly varying interpretation here.
... it is always appropriate to slur Nazis. Period.
What's the news here? Opinion pieces are more and more often frontpage articles on Slashdot. Are a lot of people even involved in this "gamergate" thing? Is this really all the gaming nerds fighting with all the feminist gaming nerds about who is true gamers and who has the right to "own" the sphere? How dumb is all of this? Just play games, you shutins.
Do I look like a man with a plan?
If We ever meet IRL, I would like to buy You a frosty beverage. Thank You.
We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
I think whoever wrote this grossly misunderstands the nature of language and human culture, as well as the nature of the Internet. Otherwise, problematic questions should immediately jump out right here, such as "Who decides what's a slur?" and "How can we tell if something is playing on a person's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion?" and "How would any of this be enforced?"
And metaphors? Really? We're not allowed to use metaphors anymore?
These rules suck. Oh, wait, I'm being dumb. When I used the word "suck" right there, the word is obliquely referring to oral sex, implying that only homosexuals perform oral sex, and by using the word "suck" as a negative, I'm implying that homosexuals are terrible.
Oh, but wait, I did it again! I used the word "dumb" to imply a lack of intellect, when really it means "to be mute, unable to speak." Therefore I'm implying that people who suffer the handicap of being unable to speak are mentally retarded. Crap, I used the word "retarded". You're not supposed to say "retarded" because it's offensive to call someone a "retard". Wait... and did I say "handicap"? That's super offensive now, isn't it?
And all this raises a different problematic question that I forgot to mention: What about humor? What about satire?
And hey, how about this: what about valid criticism? If I'm not supposed to use language that "plays on" someone's religion, for example, then am I not allowed to be critical of the actions taken by members of Westboro Baptist Church? Because maybe I have some fair criticisms. Maybe I have some fair criticisms of the roles that women play in our culture, or how our culture deals with homosexuals. But I'm not allowed to talk about that, because any kind of "language that plays on" those things is strictly forbidden.
Whoever wrote this seems to be intellectually deficient. I don't think this is a "play on" anything, since I'm not aware of who this person is. Am I still allowed to say negative things about people, so long as I don't know whether they're women?
Its not unbelievable to see a manifestation of selfishness in human character, but its harder to accept it coming from knowledgeable medical personnel when it has come in the form of complete idiocy. Male or female genders not understanding that when you come from a place where 10,000 people have been infected with a deadly virus from which half of those infected have died, don't be dismayed if the country you are returning to wants to keep you in quarantine for a bit. Its not personal you see. We just don't want to contract what you went to save people from.
It would also be a wise security measure mandated by the government if medical personnel were first screened, sociologically, before they are allowed to enter these ebola stricken countries from the place of their origin just to make sure they don't have plans to come back knowing they did their best to contract the virus in order to spread it around. Only IDIOTS would wonder why everyone seems to be against them in those circumstances. Sit down and shut up. This is not harrassment, just a rebuttal after seeing a certain person who had a tough time of it getting the message and scoffing on national tv at what was deemed as sensless fear coming from citizens of America. That coming from medical personnel is unbelievable.
Religion helps form an aspect of Ourselves so deeply personal to the point when any one particular religious belief if criticized/mocked/attacked/condemned, especially if the belief is similar or has its origin in beliefs which touch on Ours, We feel "threatened" to a certain extent. The closer the criticized/mocked/attacked/condemned belief is to Ours, the more "threatened" We feel. The more a belief shares an origin with Ours, the more "threatened" We feel. Feeling "threatened", We get defensive.
A 'threat' by its nature is a pre-emptive warning of violence, the violence part if the bad thing whether the warning is given or not.
Words without plausible intention to commit the deed are clearly not the same. Whereas the deed is bad, whether the warning aka 'Threat' is made or not.
He is not the problem, and the topic is a joke.
Paragraph 3, I can get behind. It's paragraph 2 that's horseshit. There ARE appropriate places to mouth off and be silly (And there's plenty of places/times when it is not). It is NEVER appropriate or right to be personal. And that's why I hate the PC crowd. They always have to have the icing on their muffins!
This discussion is mute. Every human has the birthright to say anything they want, which includes threats of violence, but also to face the social consequences of the exercise of that right (shunning, firing from job, losing friends). The US Constitution's first amendment guarantees this right is protected.
Similarly, doxing is not illegal according to the Constitution, whose fourth amendment states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
It is the right (and responsibility) of the people, not the government, to secure their own privacy. The law here only states that the government can't make laws to prevent people from securing their privacy. If you don't want the potential of having personal details exposed, either don't use the internet, or learn enough about internet security to remain anonymous.
SJWs kicked a hornet's nest, and are then surprised when those people use the exact same tactics they use (public shaming, doxing, etc) against them.
Grow up. If you haven't gotten an online death threat, you haven't done anything important online yet. I got my first one back in 2005.
I was a severely bullied youth. So severely that I have been diagnosed with PTSD as a result, as some of the events were life-threatening. In once instance, I was an early victim of what would now be termed cyber-bullying. It also was illegal under Maryland's two-party consent for voice recordings law, but was none of it was ever prosecuted. Anyway... I was recorded against my consent in day-to-day conversation. The content was then edited to make me sound either like I was intellectually disabled or a homosexual, depending on their mood. Nothing wrong with being either of those things, I'm neither, and obviously this was being done to harm. The audio files were posted on Geocities/Xoom/or one of the other free internet hosting providers at that time in RealPlayer format. This was around 1998-1999, for perspective. Due to Maryland's two-party consent laws, my 14-15yo self was able to get the audio taken down, repeatedly, by the hosting provider. Unfortunately, it took several violations before the provider finally convinced the students in question that their account would be deleted if they stopped. Each time, of course, their account was suspended until they complied. This made them very unhappy, leading to much worse taunting, and even shockingly well-targeted and convincing arguments that I should kill myself. Eventually, the audio was taken down permanently because they got tired of it. The point of my story being, this is not an easy thing to fight. Online harassment is difficult to fight even when you know the names of the offenders and they've clearly broken a law...that is nothing new.
So loaded with buzzwords. I think this is what is called (another buzzword) clickbait.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
You have it wrong, this is not about legitimizing harassment of women. It's about a propaganda war which attempts to perpetuate and inflate stereotypes of the oppressed women and abusive man. A similar propaganda war has been going on attempting to propagate racial tensions, and another war for Religious tensions. I won't distract further than the mention of the latter two, but if you are truly interested there is plenty of information to find on those as well. For now, lets stick with the misogyny.
First, there is real discrimination and real pricks that truly believe they are better than women. Those people are an extreme minority, but they do exist. In order to increase tensions, those extremes are portrayed as the normal. Small examples are inflated and portrayed like "everyone does it", and fake issues get repeated until people start to believe them. You hint at one of the latter, but completely miss the mark for "why?" the fake issue is not corrected.
As an example, we are told by media that women can't get IT jobs because "misogyny". The reality is that there are countless reasons other than misogyny that women don't want to work in many IT jobs. Journalists won't talk about those other reasons, and people over time start to believe that the only reason for a lack of women in IT is discrimination. Instead of the obvious, such as demand for insanely long work hours and tedious work for little reward. Lack of career progression, since the management side of IT is a completely different degree and skill set (some people get promoted up without, but we are talking "normals" not exceptions here). Work/Personal life balance is always shifted to "work" if you want to progress in IT. And lets not forget that if you want to start a family the woman must sacrifice work life, the man has no womb so can't do that work (which is another item often portrayed as misogyny even though there is an obvious physical requirement involved).
In reality, there are trolls. They do so for various reasons, but one of the known is a desire for attention. Given that known, it should be obvious to anyone looking that all kinds of people get trolled. They are a minority, and are best dealt with by simply ignoring them when they show up. Free speech is too important to pass laws requiring identity all the time. The trade off is not worth it, and the majority would suffer. You think trolls have targets today, imagine when they can see that QQ4322 is "Rebecca Smith", because that's what identity requirements will do.
Another interesting fact is that many Trolls are bought and paid for by various people claiming to be on your side. Snowden's leaks showed that the US and UK have numerous departments using paid people who's job is FUD at all costs. It has also been leaked that certain corporations pay for trolling. Funny that of all the reports of evil trolling I have not yet seen anyone demand the identity of the paid trolls from companies and governments that are known to use them. Cui bono from that little fact is fun, especially considering that most media has the same few masters.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
Wrong. Just because it hurts your feelings doesn't mean it's not appropriate. The entire POINT is to hurt your feelings.
Similarly for doxxing, posting nudes, etc.
So there is no problem then! Oh thank goodness. I was getting a little scared there for a minute. Discourse on the internet is okay and nobody is being sexually harassed or called the N-word. It is only that one crazy asshole who is issuing death threats. Are the only victims gamers? Being punished by reviewers not giving their favorite games 10s? I am really confused. Tell me how you are oppressed? Really tell me about your cause and why it is worth killing someone over?
How To End Online Harassment
Easy. Stop going online.
Next problem.
The article said this, in large letters:
"Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not)."
Why add the phrase "against women?" It's clear from the inclusion of "against women" that the writer doesn't give a shit about gendered bigotry against men.
In my day to day reading of Facebook, I see EVER SINGLE DAY, gendered bigotry against men. I hate it. I hate seeing it. I DEFINITELY don't want boys exposed to this, and I think the only reasonable response for self-respecting men is to hate seeing it as well.
You have been taught that it is normal and acceptable. You have been taught that you are tough, that you don't feel, or that you can "handle their feelings." You have been told that because the bigotry isn't violently expressed, that it doesn't matter, or it can't be labeled and responded to. You have been taught that you are professional, that you are competent, that you can handle yourself. That you are a MAN, so bigotry against you as a man should just roll off your back. You have been taught that OTHER MEN are the problem, and to not take it personally.
Well, FUCK. THAT.
I don't want to be in relationships any longer, where it is considered acceptable to demean men. When one party in a relationship is allowed to constantly criticize and complain about the other party, but not the other way around, in a relationship that was supposed to uphold ideals like equality, respect, and love -- that everything falls apart. I don't want to live in a society that refuses to help men in times of struggle and need, because it holds men in contempt. The entire social apparatus converges in the attack on the character of the other party.
Men, our society gives you FOUR options:
1. You can go ballistic and on the offensive.
2. You can "hold it in," and silently die inside.
3. You can flee.
4. You can turn on other men, and play "Men are evil. But I am not THAT GUY."
Let me tell you about #4: It works great, until YOU are the guy who is breaking down, until YOU are the guy who needs help, from a wife that physically attacks you, until YOU are the guy who is homeless, until YOU are the one who is falsely accused of rape or assault or harassment. And if not YOU, then a friend of yours, or your son.
I want YOU to complain and step up and shove back, when people tell you that you must take shit, just because you're a man, or that men as a group must take shit, just because they are men. When you see gendered bigotry against men, I want you to refuse it, toss it back, say something. Don't just "hold it in," and don't go on the offensive either. Don't run away, and don't deflect onto other men. Rather, stand your ground, and say: NO.
If you see statistics that are lies about men, or insinuating against men -- including pay/wage gap or "1 in 4" that are not true. If you see contempt for men as a class expressed. If you see mothers favored over fathers. If you see violence against men considered "OK." (I'm not talking about video games.) If you see anything implying that it is okay for women to trick a man into paying child support, or tricking a man into being a parent. If you see anything suggesting that paternity fraud is OK. If you see eye rolls expressed about men or the value of mens' feelings. ESPECIALLY the eye rolls, and ESPECIALLY men's feelings. If you see "man up" or "be a gentlemen" used to control men. If you see anything making light of people attacking men physically (non-consensually). When you see ANY OF THESE BEHAVIORS, you tell people that it is UNACCEPTABLE.
Dox the trolls. Pierce their pseudonymous veils. Find out who they are and where they live, and expose them. Turnabout is fair play.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Get rid of nerds. They're still pissed off because the internet is not their private own playground. Anyone by now should have understood that nerds are mentally ill, a danger mostly to themselves but occasionally to others, and a nuisance. Have them locked up or medicated into a semblance of normalcy and be done with it.
I already dropped all Gawker websites from my feeds. I added Slashdot because I was told this was a tech news site. Not fascist anti free speech site like Gawker.
If I see one more article like this I am out of here. Nothing more. Just out of here.
If some 14 year old l33t gamer tells me online "I swear to god I'm going to fucking kill your whole fucking family" it's just the typical trash-talk common to video gaming.
But if I had a vagina and the same asshole calls me a "stupid cunt", suddenly it's intolerant hate-speech that MUST be stopped at all costs?
Last time I checked, we spent most of the 60s and 70s fighting for women NOT to be demeaned & patronized, eg. like "hothouse flowers whose sensibilities are just too delicate for the world' and just to be treated like men treat each other?
(Hint: men treat each other like shit; respect is something you earn, not assume - even if you have tits.)
Want to campaign for PEOPLE to stop acting like assholes online? I'm totally with you.
Want to campaign for people with ovaries to be treated especially nicely? Then you're just a garden-variety sexist.
-Styopa
I haven't seen any of this; do you perhaps have a link?
easily found:
http://theralphretort.com/game...
Lots of information there. They're very brazen about it because no one in the mainstream ever calls them on it.
They don't even use sock puppet accounts. They do this under their own names.
I did see that one (only once though); at least the idiot in question apologised...
They only did that when it hit mainstream and there are so many other examples of the same thing I don't know where to start.
Do you have any links about these?
KingOfPol was sent a knife in the mail
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...
Milo Yiannopoulos was sent a syringe full of an unknown fluid
http://www.escapistmagazine.co...
I have links for everything else if you want it. It is very easy to find if you look for it. The media is doing a complete snow job on the issue. It is so striking that we're seeing this:
http://techraptor.net/content/...
You might also find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They're lying.
Look at this in regards to Anita:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Then watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is colbert from the comedy central show basically giving her a puff piece. Now he isn't a real journalist but you can see the pervasiveness of the media blackout on the issue.
Note that comments are disabled on that video. Look at his other videos... comments are permitted.
This is what gamer gate is about to a large extent. Systematic media corruption and censorship. They're lying to everyone.
Does it matter? Is it a shit issue about a shit community that no one cares about? That is relative to you. However, they are doing it and there is nothing to stop them from doing it anywhere else.
They actually banned someone right in front of Julian Assange. Which had him join in the issue on our side as well.
Everyone that opposes, questions, or criticizes these people is labeled a bigot out of hand.
There are so many god damn links. If you are really curious, I can put you in touch with other people that will tell you themselves. No one in this is hiding. The media outright refuses to interview anyone but the anti side. And when we invite the anti side to come onto channels and talk to us they refuse.
They won't talk to us. They won't debate. They won't explain themselves.
All they do is lie, make threats, and trick idiots into backing them.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If there's one thing I've learned about GG is that they just can't read..
abigsmurf: Journalists are covering GG death threat stuff, but they gave no sh*ts about Jack Thompson or the Penny Arcade guys, and were like 'yeah, they deserved it'
AmiMoJo: Strawman! No one is arguing that it's ok to threaten men.
serviscope_minor: It's not a strawman, its just plain bullsh*t. The threats against Thompson and Penny Arcade were not ignored, so abigsmurf's point just just made up.
you: oh, let me passive-agressively bring up Quin and Sarkeesian back into this.
What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? I though y'all were about ethics and not Quin And Sarkeesian, but here you are just dragging them back in for absolutely no reason.
Bonus points: someone writes an editorial article, so it must represent what all journalists are thinking right?
How on earth do these articles keep making the cut here? I'm not about abusing women because there women, but the idea that the women need special protections belies the very foundations of equality. Never mind this is a tie in to the GG mess, which is founded on the idea that criticism is automatically misogyny because the person being criticized is a woman, and the consumer/public backlash to that mentality.
How to end online harassment? That's easy end online anonymity. How to cure women hating that's not so easy as IMO women haters become who they are by years and years of what they believe as positive reinforcement by really bad fathers and really bad mothers.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I think the people involved can distinguish between "omg I'm going to kill you fa**ot" and "I'm sitting on your steps with a knife at 123 Avenue Road waiting for your kids to come out" I have no idea what the actual threats were, but I really doubt that anyone involved would have gone to the police with only 'you suxxorz'.
"It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion."
Funny, women are very quick to pull out the "you must have a tiny dick" and similar comments if you say something even slightly offensive. If that's not a slur, graphic negative imagery, or kind of language that plays on someone's gender - then I don't know what is. Also personal attacks become very common via the internet, as people pile on the slightest negative comment with shaming language designed to browbeat the speaker into silence and submission. This is a herd mentality designed to bludgeon all dissent into conforming with one side's view via social oppression.
The article writer needs to acknowledge that both sides need a swift kick up the ass in some situations. Otherwise it's simply pushing one side of an agenda and as such: biased.
We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
Similarly, it is never acceptable to dox, harass, post nude pictures, or in any other way violate someone's privacy due to disagreement with their opinions.
"...we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency."
You can't shame anonymous people. All of this bad behavior, which everyone doing it already knows is wrong, is driven by anonymity, (see also: cars). The only way to shame them is to expose them. Sensible people are already "boycotting" this dreck.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
burp.
Install a filter on your computer so you never see the harassment online. Problem solved.
/. I can't read you any more. It's not you, it's me. I hope you find more readers one day, but for now, I'm ignoring any media that offers up a platform to discuss this particularly divisive bs. I never thought I would see the day.
I don't really have much of a dog in this fight, since I am not a gamer, and do not hang out in the various chat rooms or whatnot where this is going on. But, since the shitstorm is spreading out beyond those bounds, I have developed a firm opinion:
I think some people should be doxed.
People that send threats of death or extreme violence. When one of these threats is posted, the venue of those posts, Twitter or whatever, should be compelled to cough up all the details about who did it and from where. Or. Else.
And the identities of the perpetrators should be made public, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
On the whole SJW thing, I have a really low opinion of SJW types, and yes, a lot of people on the anti-gamergate side (from my removed perspective) come off as complete nut jobs. But the death threats are completely beyond the pale.
Track down and dox the people doing the death threats. Now. That should never be tolerated. Ever.
The following is not "harassment":
1) Political disgreement
2) Publicly questioning the credentials of one who has publicly asserted said credentials
3) Publicly calling someone else a liar about something they publicly said.
4) Arguing that something is or is not harassment
5) Arguing that something is or is not sexist
6) Arguing that something is or is not misogyny
7) Publicly questioning a claim someone made publicly
8) Criticizing someone who has been harassed
9) Claiming that someone has engaged in unethical behavior.
10) Changing the subject
(some of these may be other sorts of bad behaviors besides harassment, but only conditionally)
Furthermore, and it should go without saying, but the opposite is an axiom for one side: What's good for the goose is what's good for the gander, and vice-versa, in nearly all cases. The gender-reversed version of bad behavior is bad behavior, and the gender-reversed version of acceptable behavior is acceptable behavior.
The greatly expanded version of "harassment" (generally applied to people with the wrong political beliefs only) that denies all of these things should not be "ended".
Another post from the corpse of slashdot about women in tech.
It's interesting how it's fine for these people to be OK with shredding the principles of something found in the Bill of Rights but will happily go along with the idea of forcing on everyone the standard created by some lesser statute with a dubious legal foundation.
Using the Ten Commandments as some sort of paragon in a secular court seems less absurd now for some reason. There may actually be something to it. The idea that certain things really are categorical imperatives held above everything else including the 612 other laws.
You don't have the right to "not be offended".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I really don't know if I should "unsubscribe" from slashdot after this piece of crap article, or stay bacause of commenters.
because, FU soulskill.
Why is it that a persons political views are not also protected or cited as in need of protection? Sure, all of the proposed protections are in line with what is protected for housing and employment, but a persons personal political views still seem subject to all sorts of discrimination. Someone may be fired, denied housing, and harassed for being a democrat, republican, libertarian, a green, communist, anarchist. These views should also be protected.
You are either a shill, or an idiot. You can't counter my points so resort to ad hominem for anyone that does not agree with your delusional opinion. Either way, you are pathetic and the problem, not I.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
...you will need to disenfranchise and silence virtually every, single, Democrat - for that is all they can ever post about Republicans. Not that I'm AGAINST the idea. I just wonder if you have really thought through the actual implications of what you are saying.
This needs to stop, and while it's impossible to prevent all forms of harassment from occurring online, we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency.
Does this include shaming individuals that fake their own threats, such as Anita Sarkeesian and silence any attempts to call them out?
Similarly, it is never acceptable to dox, harass, post nude pictures, or in any other way violate someone's privacy due to disagreement with their opinions.
Does that include the kinds of harassment performed by Chelsea "Zoe Quinn" van Valkenberg, Sarkeesian, and the like? Or is it OK if they do it, but not if anyone else calls them on it?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It bugs me when I'm strolling alongside the information superhighway, and someone says, "hey! nice tits!" or whatever.
Do they really think I want to hear that? Do they think it turns me on? That I'll be glad to know they approve of my body, or my genetic inheritance? Sometimes I just want someone to follow me around the streets of N.E.T. with a hidden camera to see what it's like to walk a mile in my sensible yet stylish shoes.
"Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters"
Nope, morons will believe this of OTHER PEOPLE that they don't agree with.
"(whether they openly acknowledge it or not)"
Ah, right "I know what you're thinking better than YOU do". What blatant hypocrisy. Is there any more of my life you want to control?
Which you berate as evilwhen it's "you're merely a woman, you wouldn't understand" but is FINE when it's "you're a WASP male, you wouldn't understand".
Dawkins was hit with that."You wouldn't understand about rape!". Well, he'd been sexually abused several times as a boy. "Doesn't count, you're a privileged male!".
YOU CANNOT prattle on "your gender precludes you understanding" as a response when you're claiming such ideas as inherently WRONG.
Start up a men-only fitness site.
Legal guardian of your child (unless the state decides the mother is entirely incapable and dangerous, in which case you're close run second to the state).
But please tell me of a job a woman cannot get other than Male Actor.
Because doxing, name calling, and death threats didn't come from both camps in this stupid clusterfuck. It DID start out as a genuine inquiry into corruption in game journalism. Whether it remained on track or not is up for grabs. But to act like it was founded on misogyny or that the fucking retarded feminists who cried patriarchy were completely innocent little princesses is just fucking hilarious. So much for not being a bunch of damsels that need to be rescued Anita. No one with any sense buys your shit. And I don't care how many of you dumb feminists, male or female, keep posting this gender baiting bullshit to slashdot, people will continue to call you on your bullshit. And if for some reason you do manage to take over via the way of 4chan, we will abandon you and you will be nothing but a former shell of yourself. Some would say slashdot is already there; I say it's just got more competition than it used to have. But go and do this, and see just how many nerds give two fucks about you. You are a god damn vocal idiotic minority and nothing more.
Don't feed the trolls.
Don't be ass.
Let's pretend for a moment, that no one knows online if you're a dog posting. Once we do that. Perhaps we can put this to rest. Lastly, YOU, not ME, give my words power. If you choose to see these comments as an attack on you, then it is. If you choose to see these comments as supporting you, then they are. If you choose to ignore them, then you've won.
- just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean I'm not out to get you.
When it's a woman being threatened, people sit up and take notice. When it's a man being threatened, it's rarely noticed by others or taken seriously. As long as ending online harassment includes both genders, and complaints by both are taken seriously, then I'm in favour. If it only serves one gender, then forget it.
"Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not)"
That is not true. It is more a case of people thinking that their singular effort won't have any effect and not wanting to put in the effort, for they have lives to lead. They have friends, family, jobs, etc... And they have enough things to do as it is.
It's not so much acceptance as the fact that talking about it makes people uncomfortable. So nobody talks about it, so everyone thinks that they're alone in the matter. And so they give up, saying "well, that's just how it is".
This doesn't mean they consider it "in bounds", it means they're unwilling to put in the effort, because it may affect their lives and their social circle. It may affect how they've grown accustomed to spending their free time and even how they spend their income.
"we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency."
That will achieve an opposite effect. You're dealing with people lacking in social graces to begin with. And you're going to respond by "shaming" them? Very ambiguous by the way. The description seems to come down to "telling them it's not acceptable and trying to reason with them".
The person who wrote all this clearly does not understand what a troll actually is.
Trolls are to be ignored. Saying that that isn't enough shows 2 things:
1. You don't want people being treated right, you want punishment for those who offend you.
2. You aren't ignoring them at all. Which is obvious from point #1
First the Gamergaters must stop to see them as victim, as long as they are only criticed for making wrong claims against video games.
Then they need to realize, that haressment against them is haressement against them and not against women in general.
Then they need to calm down and report the threats to police, people doing such things need to be reported and face the consequences.
Then they should realize, that even false criticism does not incent death threats alone, but the aggresive tone makes the music. And you should set the standard, you want to discuss at. So calm down again and write unemotional articles, about the subject, not about the people who like the subject. If you start attacking a group of people you will get a lot more enemies than when you just attack a subject.
Attack ideas, not people.
Someone posting a threat wants to threaten you and is not just doing it. So filter it, you do not even see it, the person does not get any feedback if the message arrived (do not send negative feedback, they can try to evade the filter than) and must assume they are filtered. So they either need to publicize the threat in their own media (being easily traced, standing publicly with their reputation behind it) or just stop it. Or they can escalate it to the reality, which is something well known by police, which can act without thinking about "is this the new cyber thingy". Most people would just be stopped and with me not even noticing it i would have the people of mind.
both are just not constructive.
The death threats are just plump and they are anonymous cowards.
The other side actually believes their stuff, but does not use death threat but only arrogant hate speech looking down to the people who are criticising them, saying "the critic not relevant, its just a misogynist, it's not possible (s)he's* attacking the argument, (s)he's or me as asshole person, but (s)he must be attacking the feminist movement"
* sorry for gendering, but i did not want to silently accept the "all critics are straight white men" statement in my own argumentation.
Can't people just grow a pair? Sticks and stones.....
Not talking about the case at hand.
Just in general, as the comment separating the issue into idiots and non-idiots generalizes.
Sadly, you can have both idiots and non-idiots aligned with various sides of any issue, all of which in conflict with other sides of said issue.
I.e. You don't have to be wrong to have idiots on your side and non-idiots against you. And vice versa.
Humans are non-rational actors who value and cherish both rationality and factuality (logic, reason, knowledge) AND irrationality and delusion (feelings, fantasy and straight up cognitive fallacies).
We are walkin-talkin cognitive dissonance machines - and we wouldn't have it any other way.
Cause that would be either robots or... evil.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Please rephrase.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Death threats are not okay
Most of these feminists (you need to distinguish) reinterpret personal critic or criticising their point of view as prejudices against all women instead.
Ah yes... Their excitement at receiving any kind of abuse is well noted.
People that don't want to be trolled do their best to not feed the trolls. The feminists however go out of their way to instigate the process and then methodically feed the trolls as best they can.
In all likelihood they would be disappointed if they didn't get death threats. They appear to thrive on abuse as much as trolls thrive on negative attention.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Recently i read an article with some linked tweets, which mentioned death threads, while the tweets read like "go die". I only though, how long have they been on the internet? Stuff like go die, STFU, fuck yourself are just slang.
The sad thing is that they have been around long enough to know better. They're just hamming it up for the camera.
Think of those soccer players that fall to the ground weeping over their kicked shin right when a penalty would be very convenient for their team. Same thing basically.
You point this out and they call it "victim blaming"... even when the people you're blaming have admitted to faking it. It is still called victim blaming.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.