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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
If we do that, there will be very, very little left of the internet, or any other medium.
I don't think so. People who have something worthwhile to say are usually intelligent and experienced enough to know that being abusive is counterproductive; so, if we got rid of all the abusers and the sites that thrive on them, what is left is actually the 1% or so that is worht spending time and money on - the part that was the actual, original purpose of the internet.
... 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
This goes way beyond offending people, though. This is abuse and harassment, which is not the not the same thing at all. Since you obviously can't tell the difference, you are directly part of the problem. There is no right to make rape threats. There is a right to make jokes about rape. Saying you are going to rape somebody is a threat and not a joke. If you can't tell the difference, maybe you should sit in a corner and think quietly before joining the rest of the online community again.
I am sorry if this puts me in the 'bad' column, but I believe in the right to say (type) whatever I please.
"It's my mouth, I can say what I want to."
Maybe Matt and his brigade should write a letter to Miley and tell her that, no, she can't, and it's offensive to suggest otherwise.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
People who have something worthwhile to say are usually intelligent and experienced enough to know that being abusive is counterproductive; so, if we got rid of all the abusers and the sites that thrive on them, what is left is actually the 1% or so that is worht spending time and money on - the part that was the actual, original purpose of the internet.
And I suppose everything you say goes inside that 1%, right?
Coincidence?
(Some people would consider that the first step would be to get rid of those who apparently never learned to use semicolons, or those who can't spell, or those who talk about "the original purpose of the internet")
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.
Talking about raping or killing someone isn't offensive speech, it's threatening to do bodily harm, which is illegal you dumb shit.
Arguing back against someone who says something that you find offensive is where people go wrong. They think they can "shut that asshole" up by enlightening them, then when that doesn't work, the argument escalates and one side or the other, or both end up threatening each other, while the "crowd" of onlookers cheer one side or the other on, sometimes just to escalate to violence or the threats thereof.
People are stupid, mobs of people multiply that stupidity exponentially.
Once an argument devolves into threats, stop the argument / conversation and report it - threatening violence online is a federal offense, let the feds handle the threats. Don't be the one that devolves the conversation to threats, if you do, admit to it when reporting the escalation / threats.
If you keep arguing your point, then you're part of the problem, not the solution.
That's political correctness bullshit. Everybody does not deserve an intelligent, rational response. Expressing disgust and disdain with profanity has a place, especially when the other side is neither open to rational arguments nor themselves willing to abstain from using stereotypes to attack their opponents.
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.
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."
The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended.
True. But that is not the point here, nor is it the point of legislation against stirring up hatred against religious groups. Criticising or making jokes about others is orders of magnitude away from inciting hatred or bullying a vulnerable person. The difference is in the consequences and the intentions: if you joke about religion, it is well-intended, but if you incite hatred, you are actively trying to harm somebody. It's like sex vs rape; one is good, the other is bad, and most people accept that there is a fundamental difference.
"Freedom of speech" once meant simply that everybody had the right to express their political or religious opinions without fear of being persecuted by the authorities. Nowadays it appears to be used as an excuse for why you can't be held to account for anything you say at all, no matter what the consequences. Call me old-fashioned, but I disagree with that notion - to my mind, you always have to face up to the consequences of what you do, freedom or not. If you drive like an idiot and kill somebody, you're guilty of man-slaughter; if you bully a vulnerable person online and they commit suicide, you're guilty of the same; if you incite hatred and your followers lynch somebody, the same applies. The last example is no different from the concept of corporate man-slaughter, which most people find very reasonable.
As I see it, GamersGate is much like Feminism.
It may have started as a good idea, with a real goal, but it's been hijacked by raving egotists spewing hateful bile against their perceived enemies.
And in neither case do people in those camps actually acknowledge that *maybe* *someone* in *their* community (aka wielding the same arbitrary label) might be at fault. Oh no, anything bad which happens is because of "the other side".
Mob mentality at its finest.
Did you miss the point?
I think you did.
Its not about what its OK to be offended about: its that THREATS of EXTREME VIOLENCE are not okay.
It is quite possible to define a set of rules that do not include committing violence, particularly here, sexual violence, against someone. If you can't get behind that, you're part of the problem.
This isn't about made up offense and political correctness and differing cultural norms. We're talking about threats of rape and extreme violence here. Its not okay to threaten to rape someone. Its not okay to threaten to murder someone. The topic is not a joke. You're the problem if you think otherwise.
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
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.
The language is a bit convoluted, but the author implies that these threats are the result of online misogyny ("gendered bigotry", really?), or at least that ending online misogyny would put an end to death threads as well. This sounds like one of those cases where harassment automatically is blamed on bigotry, instead of accepting the fact that people often simply dislike you for your actions and opinions and not for your gender or ethnicity. It's easy to make that mistake (especially as an outside observer) because once those threats and insults materialize, they often do contain sexual or racial slurs.
Before asserting that death and rape threats are the result of online bigotry, at the very least one should examine who exactly is getting these threats. Hint: it's not just women and minorities; it happens to plenty of white males. The language in those threats might be less racial or sexual, but they are threats just the same.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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
The topic was not defined as such. The topic included rape threats but was also about miscrediting someone's religion. Two completely different areas. I agree that rape threats should never be condoned. But if I want to make a point about a choice someone made (like cultural or religious customs) I will take that right. And trying to silence those that disagree by claiming that they do not understand will not work.
You misogynist... all you try is to muddy the water and distract from the problem.... 100% of the population that matters has the right not the receive death threats.
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?
"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.
Like Chris Kluwe?
As always, there are a large number of people on slashdot and elsewhere who seem to think there is something magically different about an act if it is done via the internet, rather than face to face.
Your "free speech" has consequences, only children would believe otherwise.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I second that, you have understood this, and I'll add: "The right to behave like a fool does not equal a duty to do so".
There is effectively no censorship on the internet now so whatever you say can result in criticism and attacks of any kind whoever you are. Obviously trolls will pick on the form of attack that generates the most outrage, that's what trolls do. If you can't take a mature attitude to it then don't get involved. Trying to censor the internet is:
a) impossible
b) damaging to everybody's interests
Grow up, get a life, stop whining and nagging.
Repeatedly stories like this. Fortunately there are alternatives now. No links from me here, since:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
And even if it wasn't, you deserve no sympathy if the police decide to treat it as though it was, and can prove it in a court.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
They say that, but there are lots of girls in the gaming clubhouse and in #gamergate itself. What they hate the most is the idea that they're helpless shrinking violets.
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.
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?
Nope, that doesn't meet the definition of being a misogynist in the slightest. If they were being incredible abusive and awful to women simply because they were women, then that would meet the definition of being a misogynist. If they are being awful to people for having an opinion, then they are jerks.
The real problem with this entire issue is the people who try to frame it as misogynistic men against oppressed women and not antisocial idiots against sensible people.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The original post isn't talking about getting rid of the abusers though. It's talking about boycotting Slashdot because some ACs are trolls.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They didn't report it because filing false claims is illegal and will pull down their whole house of cards over the matter once exposed.
Fuck face.
Common sense is a patriarchal construct you sexist pig.
There is a right not to be offended? Interesting. You are a moron. Don't disagree... it would offend me.
Just wait, there will be a flood of posts claiming that threads made over the internet, even if they contain your home address, are not "serious" and should be ignored.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4000? You realise their main subreddit alone has nearly four times that in subscribers right? Even the various automated blocking systems used on twitter have double that or more. On top of that you need only look up "gamergate harassment patrol" to see that they're dealing with even outside actors like the GNAA and various goons so fast that the accounts get suspended before anti-gamergate users can even retweet them for publicity. They even tracked down the source of much of Anita Sarkeesian's harassment to brazil and have furnished all the necessary information to the FBI and brazilian law enforcement... of course Anita has so far refused to actually press charges or do anything about that person. Meanwhile Leigh Alexander, Ben Kuchera, Bob Chipman, Devin Faraci, and many other leading voices on that side of the fence continue to publicly encourage openly racist abuse and even participate in outright doxing.
Also the idea that toxic voices get addressed by other feminists in any meaningful way is demonstrably laughably false. Where's the mainstream voices "addressing" West, Valenti, and Marcotte? Where are they "addressing" the fact alleged "feminists" against gamergate are openly racist and transphobic, have rallied around a domestic abuser, and have encouraged somewhere upwards of 30 outright criminal attacks against primarily women and minorities?
Or to give you what is perhaps one of the most egregious examples: right now in the US one of the most powerful and influential researchers working on the largest and most definitive study of sexual and intimate partner violence is a feminist who has explicitly stated she does not believe men are ever raped by women, but rather that they "choose to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse". Every year the NISVS classifies male rape victims as "other sexual assault".
You would think the deliberate and total erasure of almost 2 million rape victims from one of the most important studies in the US would be the sort of thing that needs to be "addressed".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Criticism and mere disagreement (and exposing corruption, etc.) has been repeatedly called "harassment" by the anti-Gamergate side. They clearly cannot tell the difference, so thanks for acknowledging they are part of the problem. Seriously though, this is a transparent attempt to silence dissent, not to protect anyone. And you know it.
Strange, and I thought the problem that people try to frame it as misogynistic men against oppressed women and not sensible people against antisocial idiots.
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
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?
you don't seem to have done any prerequisite reading on this subject before pushing the submit button
And I would suggest the same of you. But that doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.
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?
Stabbing women doesn't make you a misogynist, but stabbing only women (or specifically targeting them) might.
Can you show me any evidence that these people would treat men they disagreed with any better?
That has nothing to do with political correctness, and the fact you think it does says more about your perverse idea of what political correctness is, than anything else. You really should read more.
OP: "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."
You seem to be missing that the OP argues that we should abstain from offending people due to for example their religious convictions. I totally agree that threats of violence should be (and is in most countries) illegal. And I also agree that women are more likely to encounter threats of violence on the net. But if your fantasy friend in the sky and you believe that it is fine to kill homosexuals, apostates or whatever you should sure as hell expect others to ridicule your religion.
This clearly shows how misogynist you are. I suppose you are white, straight and male? Who cares how men are treated? Not automatically believing a woman is a sure sign of misogyny. Ok, ok... almost a sure sign... If a loud feminists declares this woman wrong, you are allowed to nod... a little.
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!!!
And no one says they are. But if you get an anonymous death threat,
1. you don't get carte blanche to assign the blame for the threat to any group or movement disagreeing with you, and
2. you don't get to conflate this with the "harassment" of people loudly disagreeing with you on twitter. It is not the same thing at all.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
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.
is more important than the right not to be offended.
Depends on the intent - if you say something and someone gets offended then fair enough; if you say something with the _intent_ for it to offend someone then that is not cool.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Oh suuuure... hundreds of films on YouTube against sarkeesian/quinn/dina/wu... All of them: Stupid women. What who let them out of the kitchen? Sluts to show their faces in public. Oh... and look how ugly those bitches are.
Btw... what did sarkeesian/quinn/dina/wu say? As proper misogynist I never listend to a single word of them.
Only for you: Sarcasm.
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.
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.
The sun shines!
Actually it doesn't. Shining is the reflection of light, and the sub emits light.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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
Trying to censor the internet is:
Ah yes the internet.
You know gaters were actually calling up Zoe Quinn and her family to yell threats and insults at them?
You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to walk up to someone and yell in their ear. There's also no need to "censor the internet", just apply existing laws on harassment and libel to anyone who gets caught.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
This clearly shows how misogynist you are.
I'm very careful to be just misogynistic enough to ask for evidence.
I suppose you are white, straight and male?
No.
Who cares how men are treated?
Apparently not you. As for myself, about half of the people I love are men, so...
Not automatically believing a woman is a sure sign of misogyny. Ok, ok... almost a sure sign...
You sound like a parody of a clueless, narcissistic feminist. Good thing I know some kindhearted, open-minded ones.
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."
You seem exceedingly rational, which is actually rare among netizens (male or female). I'm concerned that the abuse you receive may be mild compared to what some people have to deal with, where the abusers intrude on real life or at the very least make it difficult to do anything on the internet without having to wade through tons of crap.
People should not send you threats of bodily harm by any medium, whether we're talking about snail mail, phone, fax, or Internet.
Seems likely. That's exactly what happened last time. According to some people, somehow that being on the internet makes it different and therefore "doesn't count".
I'll bet they'd be the first to decry "yeah but on the internet" style patents precisely because it ISN'T different from everything else.
Basically double standards because they want to support really shitty behaviour but are too cowardly to say shitty things wit htheir own real name.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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)
It's both sad & hilarious that that's what you took away from the previous comment. Talk about mental gymnastics.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Maybe it's because I have the ability to distinguish between the Internet and the real world.
Yep the internet is not the real world. Making threats over the internet doesn't matter. Clearly nothing else over the internet matters either. Farud and theft of money over the internet doesn't exist either because the internet isn't the real world.
The internet is just another facet of the real world. It's all real people saying those things and just as capable of following through on threats as if they phoned the threat in, sent a letter or said it to your face.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I don't think so. People who have something worthwhile to say are usually intelligent and experienced enough to know that being abusive is counterproductive; so, if we got rid of all the abusers and the sites that thrive on them, what is left is actually the 1% or so that is worht spending time and money on - the part that was the actual, original purpose of the internet.
....which is precisely what user-moderation does. That's why user moderation is THE solution to this issue.
It may not be perfect, (for example, websites with predominantly male posters have a tendency to become the He-Man Woman Hater's club any time gender issues come up. Ahem.) but its the only solution that scales properly with the size of the forum's traffic.
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
If a loud feminists declares this woman wrong, you are allowed to nod... a little.
You sound like a parody of a clueless, narcissistic feminist.
Woops. Too early for sarcasm, it would seem. :)
The right to make rape threats is more important than the right to not receive rape threats?
Are you sure?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
Really? Because she said so? Do you know how you can see that a feminists is lying? Her lips are moving.
Ah so you are a raging bigot then. Thaks for coming out-right and admitting it. It helps to know who the scum are round these parts.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So, I suppose if someone said they were going to rape and kill your family and then posted the address of your family and pictures of them you would just laugh that off as being completely absurd because, hey, it's online and there's no way online can ever affect the "real world"?
Because that's the context of this discussion. That's the kind of thing that has happened to many of the people who are receiving these threats, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to treat those threats the same as if they were delivered by any other medium, and I'd hope law enforcement would, too.
Online impacts offline all the time in a great number of ways, and only an idiot would imagine otherwise. There's a reason you and I and a great many people here are using pseudonyms and go out our ways to avoid giving out potentially identifying information and that's because we are damn well aware of the fact that people can and do reach out from online to fuck with people in very real ways.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
The context is that no one knows where those threats came from. And that it is totally natural for a feminist the fabricate any evidence they need for their cause.
atkinson accepts anti-racism laws though. well, one step forward two steps back i guess.
the only place i have the right not to be offended should be in my own home. In every other venue, except for those public decency laws, because we as a species have collectively decided exposing sexuality to tiny humans isn't good for our societies, there should be no restriction on speech.
The problem is is that this 'debate' casts MASSIVE aspersions on men as a whole. They need to be much more conservative with their terms. Telling me gender is completely off the table is flat out ignorant. Men and women are different, mentally and physically, we re allowed to debate and discuss it.
Good-bye
well in the US that's pretty accurate. i'm assuming in lots of western countries rape jokes may be in poor taste, but they're certainly not illegal.
"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.
I have been insulted.
Stand aside! Captain Obvious is here ot save the day! Yes, me calling you scum was intended to be an unambiguous insult.
She only called me SCUM BECAUSE I AM A WHITE STRAIGHT MALE.
You're a liar too (to anyone else: this can easily be verified by checking the post that precipitated this sub-sub thread).
What a truly wonderful person you are.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
if they have your home address, and they've made a threat, you go to the po po. and you stop arguing about shit on the internet, because shit just got real.
and yeah, it's a crime.
There are only two sides and all idiots are on one side only?
Not from my outsider's view on what can only be described as a "crying while jerking off over a first world problem contest".
Just the social justice warriors and 4DLULZ-trolls alone are pretty distinct factions, followed by the "not your shield" brigade and whatever the social justice warriors against social justice warriors are calling themselves.
Also, where are the innocent bystanders and people who don't really give a fuck but still get bombarded with the issue - like me?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Now he called me a liar, too.... All because I am a man. I did absolutely nothing to deserve this. I only pointed out some of the problems we men have when we voice our concerns on the internet and immediately one of those misandrists appear and try to shut me up. I am sure next I get death threats. :'-) :'-) :'-)
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,
Indeed, while women are more likely to be sexually harassed, men are more likely to be harassed overall and more likely to be physically threatened on-line: "Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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?
Now he called me a liar, too.... All because I am a man.
Are you? This is the first I've heard of it. You'd never mentioned it before.
I did absolutely nothing to deserve this.
Nothing apart from making up lies about me.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There are two ways to censor the Internet:
1) The government imposes a "Don't Talk About X" order and punishes everyone who talks about X. This method is popular in places like China.
2) A small group of people on the Internet decide "We don't want anyone talking about X" and threatens/harasses anyone who talks about X. This leads to people either not talking about X or being forced offline due to the threats.
Right now, many people are experiencing censorship type #2. Note: This doesn't mean you can't disagree with someone online. Saying "I disagree with you and here is why..." is a lot different than saying "So-And-So is a **** and should be killed. They live at $FULL_ADDRESS." The former lays out your reasons for disagreeing. The latter is simply a threat of violence for daring to disagree. If you don't agree with the people who are being threatened, go ahead and state your reasons why. But don't think it is your right to threaten someone with violence. (Yes, I saw someone post that it was their right to threaten someone with death for disagreeing with them.)
As far as this being the work of "trolls", classic trolls would post something inflammatory and then would sit back and watch the firestorm erupt. A troll in Slashdot might post "Windows is better than Linux in every way" and wait for the Linux fans to respond. These people aren't engaging in "classic trolling" but in a new form of trolling which is better termed as simply harassment. They will follow people from site to site and will threaten to move the harassment from online to real life. (Showing up at conferences, calling the person, or posting the person's home address and threatening to go there.) These people shouldn't just be written off as harmless trolls, but should be treated as people engaging in criminal harassment.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Since it's already illegal what's the problem?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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
Which works really well when the poster is hiding behind an pseudonym. Also when he's in another country where your country's police can't get at him.
Dumber shit.
If I hadn't already posted the comment you reply to, I would have modded your funny +1 :-)
So, I'll have to do the next best and reply instead.
And I suppose everything you say goes inside that 1%, right?
Well, modesty forbids ... However, I do strive to always make intelligent posts, rather than just shoot off my gob.
(Some people would consider that the first step would be to get rid of those who apparently never learned to use semicolons, or those who can't spell, or those who talk about "the original purpose of the internet")
Not to mention those who put too much significance on minor errors, rather than trying to actually understand what is being communicated. I don't mind - I lose nothing just because some lack the ability to discuss content instead of form.
Look, sometimes someone's religion does little more than incite hatred.
Does that mean that we should do the same? I'm not preaching 'Turn the other cheek' - but there are intelligent ways of responding to hate talk.
So, I'm really really sorry religious people can be whiny, self entitled assholes who believe it's their right to be whiny, self entitled assholes.
But if you think your religion gives you the right to spread hate about others, you should not expect your status as a whiny, self entitled asshole to mean that you don't get the same in reverse.
If your religion says "God hates fags", or "Burn the niggers" ... or any of the other crap which comes out of religions ... then your religion isn't deserving of any special protection.
Because you're just using it as a shield to be a bigoted asshole, and you deserve to be treated the exact same way.
People who think their religion gives them unlimited right to say anything about anybody else, but that they should be shielded from criticism are hypocrites and assholes, not some protected class of people.
I agree. The law applies to all; religious hate speech is just hate speech, full stop.
How does including someone's home address make a threat more or less serious? Perhaps you are young and do not recall that not that long ago, Americans had delivered to the home annually a book that listed the addresses of most citizens of their city or town. Unless one takes extraordinary steps to hide, one's address is not private information.
My address has been on my resume on my website since the 1990s. Some random asshole posting "I'm going to kill that Tom Swiss for what he said on Slashdot!" wouldn't worry me any more or any less than some random asshole posting "I'm going to kill that Tom Swiss, who lives at 2119 Arlonne Drive in Catonsville, MD, 21228, for what he said on Slashdot!"
So how worried should I be over some random asshole posting a threat? Seems to me that the ratio of "I'm going to kill you!" posts to actual assaults is so low that I shouldn't worry. Over a quarter-century of flamewars (I was active on FidoNet BBSes starting around 1988) a few people have posted that they were going to kick my ass, none have ever showed up to do so.
If anyone is going to object "But you're a man, not a woman!", you need to keep in mind that as a man I am more likely, not less, to be a victim of violence.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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
Ah modded Troll. Looks like the gaters are out in force.
Bring it. I have Karma to burn.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Two posts in and we already have the douchebag who decides that any attempt to deal with harassment is the same as dealing with offensive material.
Let me spell it out for you, in a way that means your tiny little mind understands: You want to say "Feminazis are ruining videogames, I want more tits please!" go right ahead. Shout it out loud! We'll think you're an idiot who doesn't understand what's actually being asked for, and sure many will be offended, but nobody's denying your right to.
On the other hand, "@madamemariecurie Fuck you and your science you should have stayed in the kitchen, I'm coming right over to your lab at 37 Rue de Nord, Paris 50123 to murder you and defile your body": that's what we want people in jail for.
We also want some kind of action (but nobody's calling for legal/criminal action except in the most extreme instances) against people who dogpile and take other online action designed to specifically target individuals with hate messages. Again - you can post "Women suck, men are better at everything" 100 times in your own Twitter account, but ensuring @madamemariecurie gets 50 messages a day calling her a c---, and using sock puppets and even like minded individuals to bypass blocks? We'd like online services to kick you off their networks in response to that.
That's all anyone is asking for. Not censorship, because censorship is the prevention of a viewpoint from being stated, not even the suppression of offensive opinions, but an end to online harassment.
Why is that so hard? Can you seriously not tell the difference between "Women are evil", "@madamemariecurie You are a c---", and "@madamecurie I am going to rape and kill you."
Are you that stupid?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Whoosh.
Hyperbolic speech that includes vague threats of death is not illegal. One must cross the line to be a "true threat" before First Amendment protections no longer apply.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
... it is always appropriate to slur Nazis. Period.
you worthless clown.
How dare you harass this fine online citizen because of his proud circus-performer American heritage. Whose side are you on?!
No-one is trying to censor the internet, they are trying to prosecute criminals who make illegal death/rape threats. They are also trying to make a statement that society does not consider that sort of thing acceptable.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes. American law is clear that the right to make death threats is more important than the right to not receive death threats, provided that those death threats are political speech and not "true threats" that explicitly call for or promise imminent lawless action. Rape threats are not as bad as death threats. (If you believe that rape is a fate worse than death, that rape survivors would be better off dead, please go shoot yourself in the head.) So if the right to make death threats is more important than the right to not receive death threats, clearly the right to make rape threats is more important than the right to not receive rape threats.
Is it socially acceptable to make death threats or rape threats? No. If you see people doing it, tell them they're being assholes and to cut it out. Mod them down. Ban them from your forum. Don't invite them to the party. But it's a big jump from there to have the state point guns at some immature asshole punk who blows his top in a flamewar and says "I'm gonna rape you to death!"
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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?
It's misogyny because the reason they are getting the abuse is because they dared to suggest that gaming portray's women poorly. They dared to suggest that their gender should be portrayed better and people reacted to that with the same age old misogynist arguments and comments.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I give to you Poe's law.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
nobody has said a word about censorship (not the submitter, not the GP). you are the one throwing that in here. what they are saying is we need to accept that threatening somebody with physical harm is a Bad Thing and we need to reject this language so we can have a debate about things that matter.
So to make a point you reduced the topic category thereby making your comment appropriate to a different conversation.
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
Posting someone's address demonstrates the capability to carry out the threat. That's why they do it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Obvious internet troll is obvious.
Fortunately, that's already a crime.
Problem solved a century ago....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
he was being satirical.
I should give a flying fuck about American law why exactly?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
Haha you're right. I thought he was making fun of the fact that people seem to think that the only reason to criticize some of these women is because they are women. It seems you both seem to ascribe all criticism to that. I didn't think two people could mock sophistry while also simultaneously defending it. Poe's law indeed.
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.
If you're going to enter the land of pedantry, at least crack a dictionary. From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:
1. : to emit rays of light : give light : beam with steady radiance
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?
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
It is the author of this silly article who cannot tell the difference between (threats of) rape and offensive statements...
I feel like I'm missing something important going on right now, because it has seemed to me that this sort of confusion is becoming more and more prevalent, and I'm not sure what the cause is. I've seen lots of posts on sites like Facebook, and many posts in my Facebook feeds, that seem to conflate "things that women aren't happy about," with "systematic political oppression of women," and "physical violence and rape."
I got into a brief Facebook discussion with a friend who was complaining about the whole "not all men" thing. If you haven't heard about this, a little while back there was a bunch of complaints that when women discussed the problematic things that men did, some men would say "not all men do that," and the complaint was that these men were 'derailing the conversation." For example, you would see a discussion about how men won't tolerate women in a position of power, to which some unfortunate man would say, "Well some men will. I would." and he would get yelled at for derailing the conversation.
So this whole concept was brought up, and I thought, "Ok, I can understand why am man would want to interject that, but I can also understand some of the frustration being expressed, since these women know that 'not all men' do terrible things, because they're talking about trends, and not every individual case. Interjecting with an individual case seems to minimize the complaint, so that interjection is not welcome. I can understand that." But then the conversation went on.
One friend went on to say, "No, we're not just talking about trends. We're talking about what normally happens. Men won't hire women. Men won't pay women the same respect that they'll pay to another man. Men engage in violence towards women, and men rape women." At that point, I felt a bit ambushed. I'd just been warned that I wasn't allowed to point out that "not all men" do these terrible things, but shortly afterwards I was told that the "normal thing" was for men to rape women. It seemed pretty important to note that no, not all men rape women. It's not even the "normal thing" or really a trend. To my understanding, a large percentage of rapists are men, but that's not the same as saying a large percentage of men are rapists.
But these activists are unwilling to make that kind of distinction. In subsequent conversations that I've had, I've been told, for example, that men shouldn't "hit on women" because it was aggressive and made women uncomfortable, which supposedly makes it a form of rape. That's right, any behavior that made women feel uncomfortable was a form of rape. So I asked for clarification on what constituted "hitting on women", since obviously it can't be rape to approach a woman, pay attention to her, or attempt to talk to her. I was told that the distinction was whether the attention was "welcome". If a woman doesn't welcome the attention, then the activity is essentially the same as rape.
Now, I don't want to set up a straw man argument here. I'm not saying that women don't have valid concerns. They do. There are many unfortunate things that happen to women, and I'd welcome a discussion of how to resolve those things. However, reasonable distinctions need to be made. Not everything can be "rape" and "oppression". The fact that I might unintentionally benefit from being a man, e.g. getting paid more than a female coworker, does not make me an active oppressor of women, does not make me a perpetrator of violence, and it does not make me a rapist. Until I feel like I can get some agreement on that, at least from people that I know personally in IRL, I feel like these kinds of conversations are hopelessly muddled and we can't do anything to address any problems.
I don't disagree with what you say, but we have an obvious problem here - I'd say the majority of recent political campaigning is explicitly designed to incite hatred of the other team. There's some evidence to suggest it has had violent consequences as well, depending on how you lean on the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.
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
Sorry, what is "house ni**"? I've never come across that before in any context, targeted at women or otherwise.
I appreciate it's pretty fucking irrelevant as you're clearly misinformed and/or mentally ill, but thought I'd ask anyway.
You may be the first person I've spotted 'wooshing' themselves around here :)
Talking about raping or killing someone isn't offensive speech, it's threatening to do bodily harm, which is illegal
I think part of the point -- well, no, it simply is part of the point, no "I think" about it here no matter what my .sig says -- that pretending anything not actually illegal must be allowed, is a position advanced only by exactly the sorts of people for whom open, unilateral, ostracism -- to the point of simply silencing them, deleting their posts and banning them by whatever identification can be mustered, without warning and without appeal -- is exactly the right thing to do.
To anyone feeling some outraged right to some civil response, to demand some accounting for ~oh, but what about those nasty nasty People Not Like Me, they're just as bad, what are you going to do about _them_~ ... fuck you. I don't care how you do it, kill yourself. There is no rationalization for what you do. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul. Suck a tailpipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a yank friend, I don't care how you do it, it's the only way to rid the world of your evil fucking machinations.
But until you man up, finding some alternate way to silence you, to rid at least the public world of any trace of your utterly worthless self, is a perfectly workable, desirable and effective option. _That's_ the point here.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
There are only two sides and all idiots are on one side only?
Yup. Unfortunately, the people in the idiots camp seem to be trying to make it all about them.
Also, where are the innocent bystanders and people who don't really give a fuck but still get bombarded with the issue - like me?
In the non-idiots group.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
(Different AC here.)
Part of the issue is that hyperbole doesn't necessarily translate well in text.
Swearing that you'll see to it that the next build-breaker is denied a bonus, a promotion, or is fired? A threat. Suggesting that you'll slap next build-breaker in the face, probably the minimum amount of hyperbole that could possibly be taken as hyperbole, but it could plausibly be taken as a threat of (very minor) workplace violence depending on how hot-tempered the writer is known to be. It's that middle ground, between "slap you in the face" and "tear you a new asshole" (which could be verbal/workplace bullying) in which the trouble lies. Pretty much anything beyond that is going to fall into the category of hyperbole, long before we break out the salad forks.
The disproportionality of the response is what makes the joke work - the joke can only work if the reponse to a broken build is so far beyond the boundaries of plausibility that it is clear that it is intended as hyperbole.
So between us, I'm impressed by your kindness towards people who break builds (gratuitous hyperbole). I'd be hard pressed not to carve out their livers with said salad fork, sodomize their livers, and then eat their raped livers in front of them before proceeding on with the rest of the festivities. (Even more egregiously gratuitous hyperbole).
I can write that to you because I know the upper end of my range of threat-plausibility - somewhere between "slap in the face" and "tear you a new asshole" may not line up 100% with yours - but that it's clear that we're safely in hyperbole land when we break out the salad forks against each other.
The problem is that we both run into a real problem when someone else's notion of a plausible threat does include salad forks.
I remember there was a south park episode where Mr. Garrison says "Sorry I just don't trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die." That would certainly count as "gendered bigotry" but I still think it's funny anyways. If I was in the mood for making a joke, I'd say it too (though I haven't.) My mom laughed when she heard it on south park.
There is effectively no censorship on the internet now
I pick forums that have a level of moderation that suits my needs. In the past I tended toward more laissez-faire moderated places and just ignored what I didn't like, but as I've grown older for a handful of subjects I've needed forums that are little tighter. That's the great thing about freedom: you can pick what suits you, and get away from everywhere else.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Yes, but gendered bigotry against men is widely considered to be "in bounds" by society in general so the problem here is that internet commenters need to get in line and understand that it's only ok to harrass and send rape and death threats to men. Being men, they don't have feelings anyway and if they do they need to man up.
Or whatever.
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.
Your "free speech" has consequences, only children would believe otherwise.
If you think about this more carefully, this last point may have derailed your whole position...
Perhaps we should simply just hold the parents responsible for their offspring.... *ducks*
I sincerely hope you're not studying a science degree because your interpretation and application of factual information is highly flawed.
I'm sure the only guys making threats online always fall in the 20% of male murderers who wouldn't dream of killing a stranger.
Your sarcasm fails miserably when you take into account that most people making threats online fall into the category of "not murderers", which means that even if all of the male murderers making threats online were from the 80%, it's still less than 1% of 1% of the population.
But that's fine, misquote numbers for hyperbolic sarcastic hysterical purposes, this seems to be the right discussion for that.
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 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
Publicly promoting themselves and asking for money has nothing to do with assisting a police investigation. And do you think they don't want to ban "abusive" speech? Well, that's another way of saying any speech they don't like or that can be interpreted to represent a thought that they don't approve
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'.
I also agree that women are more likely to encounter threats of violence on the net
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
Yep, men are more likely to be threatened with violence online.
See also : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
But forget 'on the net', lets look at the real world:
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com...
Equality would be a wonderful thing.
If you believe that rape is a fate worse than death, that rape survivors would be better off dead
See also:
1 - Outrage at rapes in
2 - Absence of equal outrage that the men weren't raped because they'd been fucking executed
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
Install a filter on your computer so you never see the harassment online. Problem solved.
if we got rid of all the abusers and the sites that thrive on them, what is left is actually the 1% or so that is worht spending time and money on - the part that was the actual, original purpose of the internet.
Let's not talk about the "original purpose of the Internet" like it's some ideology that we need to stick to. It was come up with by different people with different goals, several decades ago, without any real understanding of what it would become.
There's a bigger problem though. What's being talked about is censoring anyone who someone-- it's not clear who will be the judge of this nice little utopia-- decides that their contributions are counter-productive or inappropriate. That sure sounds nice, since nobody likes inappropriate and counter-productive comments. Unfortunately, there isn't always complete agreement about which comments those are. However, once you start shutting people out of the conversation based on rules as vague as "they said something that I think is offensive, abusive, annoying, or counter-productive," it has a chilling effect on the rest of the conversation. Since it's unclear what will get you into trouble, any intelligent person will hold things back for fear of reprisal.
In fact, there's a great irony here, in that the complaint is that women don't feel comfortable voicing their opinions for fear of reprisal, and the proposed solution is to develop a way to bring reprisal to anyone who is determined-- by an unspecified judge-- to have said something offensive.
In reality, the Internet is already pretty good at dealing with these people. There are moderation systems on many websites which hide inflammatory comments. We all have the option to refuse to visit websites that lack moderation, but we also have the option to visit them. Say what you will about 4chan being a bunch of awful misogynistic trolls, but there's a lot of creativity that comes from that awfulness. I think you'll find that if you were to succeed in cleaning up all of the inappropriate and unfortunate stupidity that happens on the Internet, you'll lose a lot of those comments that you feel are part of the worthwhile 1%.
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".
You're the one with zero credibility. This may have allegedly started out by some feminazis annoying a certain segment of the twitter troll contingent but it was quickly escalated by the gaming media into a mass troll of all paying customers.
This hasn't just been about about doxxing annoying feminazi bloggers for awhile now. The real face of this thing now is the professional troll news media both from the games industry and at large.
They keep on pushing the narrative and hoping that their click-bait nonsense will generate ad revenue.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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 think the bigger point of the article is that too many people just look the other way. A new report of doxxing or threats comes out and quickly there are many many posts saying "it's not about women, it's about ethics in journalism!", which is a totally idiotic attempt to redirect the issue. Instead we need MORE people coming out and calling such infantile behavior unacceptable. The bullies need to be confronted instead of accepted or trying to hide them.
The difference being the women are attacked because they are women, and the guys are being attacked because they're assholes. If you can't see the difference, you are part of the problem.
What makes you think that the women weren't attacked because they were assholes?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
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.
Learn to use a dictionary.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I know how to use a dictionary. It didn't help:
http://ask.reference.com/web?s...
How the fuck am I meant to know you're trying to introduce the word nigger into a discussion on gender politics? Do you have the remotest idea of how to engage in discussion, debate or even argument? Your non-sequitors are not terribly constructive contributions.
The more apparent planning that goes into a threat, the more serious it becomes. Somebody who threatens to kill me in an unusually unpleasant way is probably just typing angry. Somebody who does even the minimal amount of work to get my address and phone number is showing some progress towards actually killing me.
It's like the law about conspiracies (if I've got it right, since IANAL). If several people sit around planning some criminal act, that's perfectly legal. If people start putting actual work into it, and doing things to further the plans, that's not.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"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
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.
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.