Slashdot Mirror


Interviews: Brianna Wu Answers Your Questions

Last week you had a chance to ask the head of development at Giant Spacekat Brianna Wu about Gamergate, starting a company, and women-in-tech issues. Below you'll find her answers to your questions. Penalties and Online Harrassment
by Anonymous Coward

I read all the time about the experiences of online harassment victims. As pointed out in your Patreon, most all of this is obviously criminal activity, and it takes lots of time to document it for police. Why have I virtually never read about someone getting arrested? I've even looked around. I was sure at the height of Gamergate, a flood of news about arrests was coming, and now it seems like that's never coming.

I can only think of two cases: One was in Canada, where a very mentally ill young man, no older than 20 I think, was arrested for SWATting people repeatedly, among other things. The other was in the UK where again a very young man was arrested for threatening a politician over twitter. Just googling "twitter arrest" brings up lots of cases where people who pulled various stunts had their anonymity removed and were arrested, but none of them for the kinds of harassment you've discussed reporting to the police. The first hit is several Huffington Post articles about it. Is it not reported in the media? Do the police just not care, or not know how to investigate it? Are the people doing the harassment just that crafty? Do you believe increased enforcement will reduce harassment online, and particularly if so, what needs to happen between then and now?


Brianna: So, starting this conversation - I should say that the FBI has asked me not to comment on the specifics of ongoing cases. But, I can talk about the situation in general terms.

Working with law enforcement has been one of the most exasperating experiences of my life. The amount of media attention to my case has been extreme. There was a Law and Order episode based on my experiences and those of other victims of harassment. I’ve been in most major media around the world. I’ve been on Nightline and John Oliver, and there still have not been any prosecutions in my case.

As bad as it’s been for me, the women I worry about are ones that don’t get media attention. The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own.

I don’t think the people working on my case don’t care. I think most people go into law enforcement because they want to help people like me. It does seem like a question of training and resources, particularly with local police, that the need has far outpaced the tools.

It greatly troubled me when, after sending the FBI leads for months, they asked me to mail them a hard drive with my evidence. They said, because of their systems, they were unable to read email attachments or access shared Dropbox folders. It’s hard to imagine how any law enforcement agency can operate in 2015 with those constraints.

The FBI employs over 15,000 people. As best as I can tell, none of them are specifically tasked with prosecuting cases like mine. In June, Representative Katherine Clark submitted a proposal to congress that would allocate 10 operatives and an attorney to prosecute online threats. I hope we can make that happen.



Questions:
by juanfgs

I never heard much about game developers, but it seems like GamerGate has put many of them in the spotlight, specially women. Has the Gamergate movement somehow boosted your popularity and of other game developers and benefited you in any way? Do you regret that a big part your popularity didn't stem from the work you've made all these years in your professional life and rather from a political counter-movement?

Brianna: One of the biggest misconceptions about me is that, professionally, I was unknown before Gamergate. I had more conference invites than I could accept before Gamergate. I had a show on 5by5 before Gamergate, which was a very prestigious network. I had been speaking up on women in tech for years before Gamergate. In fact, the month before I was dragged into the mess, I had a two-hour talk with my team about their need for me to be in the office more. It's been a struggle for years, balancing my role as head of development with the responsibility of being an increasingly public figure for the company.

I do think it’s accurate that Gamergate has made me better known to the general public, rather than just industry insiders. It frustrates me to no end that the public doesn’t recognize my work as an entrepreneur, as a software engineer, or as a leader of an ambitious company - but rather as a feminist figure and a victim of Gamergate.

My career goal has never been to be a feminist media critic like Anita Sarkeesian. To be honest, the thought of my career still being about this five years from now is incredibly depressing.

I want to make games, and I want to provide jobs to the many talented women I know in the industry. I don’t want to be known as a victim. I want to be known as someone solving engineering problems about emotion the rest of the industry isn’t interested in.

One the key parts of my personality is I am extremely pragmatic. Maybe it’s the developer part of my brain - but I work with the system I have and not the system I want. And, if standing up to the horrific abuse of Gamergate has opened doors for me? Yeah, you'd better believe I’m going to walk through them.



Capital
by HellYeahAutomaton

How did you secure the capital to start Giant Spacekat? How did you do it in 3 months, and what obstacles did you face?

Brianna: So, I can’t talk specifically about all of our funding. But I can say how we started Giant Spacekat and made our "minimal viable product." I quit my job when I married my husband, and followed him to Boston. I was trying to figure out what to do with my life. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to pursue a graduate degree or start my own company.

A family relative offered us the chance to live in Frank’s grandmother’s house for free if we renovated it. That would free up capital for us, so I jumped at the chance. I spent half a year renovating the house. Then, we moved in - took our rent money, and used it to hire our first employee.

The part of this story that’s key is, I saw an opportunity - and I went all in. Renovating this house was disgusting and backbreaking. My husband and I spent hundreds of hours removing this horrible wallpaper from the 40s. I had to wear a hazmat suit and a respirator to encapsulate asbestos in the basement. We had to redo the entire electrical system of the house. But I sucked it up, got to work - and I launched my company.

As for obstacles faced, something that a lot of people don’t know about are the criminal efforts to harm our company financially. We’ve had multiple attempts to hack into our company’s dev account, to the point where we have had to work with Apple to put additional safeguards into place. We’ve also had to deal with repeated identity theft and credit card fraud.



egalitarian?
by johncandale

Why are you a feminist instead of a egalitarian?

Brianna: Egalitarianism is about equal rights for all people, but this is assuming that everyone starts in an equal situation, which is not the case.Feminism is advocating equal social, political, legal, and economic rights for women - and we are at a huge deficit with those rights.

I think this question is really telling about the incredible amount of unconscious privilege men have in technology. Anyone outside the industry can see it - this is a place built by men for men. It’s so built to serve them that women can’t even have a movement to address our systematic exclusion without some men insisting it should be about them too.

I am a feminist because my focus is, correctly, on making technology more equal for women.

The absence of privilege is not oppression. But, I think it often seems like that to some men. It distresses me greatly that when I talk about problems like exclusionary hiring practices - just how quickly men turn the conversation to what is fairest for them. You’re essentially asking for your privilege to be baked into the language of our fight for equality.



Game Design
by deltatype0

I am a "neutral" in the Gamergate debacle, preferring to observe more than directly interact, but in one case I watched the somewhat-infamous interview between Wu and Reddit KotakuInAction mod TheHat2. In it, they discussed the points of her iOS game "Revolution 60" and game design in general. One of the questions asked there was why she decided to work with iOS first versus the popular PC platform Steam. I don't remember the exact answer, but I think it revolved around developing for a platform that more women were likely to use, being the mobile market, and maybe some development-specific answers.

My question is this: Given what you've learned about programming in iOS, would you have developed for a PC platform like Steam first and ported to mobile later? Given female trends towards mobile platforms like the Nintendo DS/3DS, would it make more sense for your studio to explore developing games there? Or was your goal all along to produce a more 3D-visual action title for mobile phones?

For context, my wife is not as big of a gamer as myself, but I find she enjoys playing a lot of mobile puzzle games. I think the mobile market has a lot of potential for bigger things, and I think having the input of the majority player base on that platform makes sense, but I often don't understand why, as a mobile developer, you would be overly concerned with "the core gamer" demographic in the console platform. It seems to me that they aren't likely to crossover into the mobile market often, so there is little reason to "attack" that demographic as we've seen a few people, including Brianna, do through the last year.


Brianna: First of all, if you are “neutral” on the horrific abuse many women have suffered at the hands of Gamergate, you are a part of the problem. Being able to lean back in a chair and talk about Gamergate as if it’s a fun controversy isn’t a privilege I have, and it’s not a privilege women in the game industry have. This is about being able to continue working in the field I love.

Being neutral about threats to murder, rape and intimidate women with opinions is a character defect.

As far as your question - we’ve certainly thought about working with Nintendo. I have good connections with Nintendo of America - but Unreal is barely supported on Wii-U and 3DS. Often, these versions of Unreal are custom variants that are not supported by Epic. It’s a shame, because I think the touch interfaces would make us a natural fit for both - though the vert decimation it would take to get our skeletal meshes to work on 3DS makes me cringe to think about.

My proudest accomplishment with Revolution 60 is that anyone can pick it up and play it, regardless if they are a gamer or not. I don’t think that you should have to be a hardcore gamer to enjoy a story. That didn’t happen serendipitously, it happened through game design constraints and a lot of playtesting. I think that design philosophy is extremely compatible with Nintendo.



Are custom engines dead for 'normal' developers?
by MBCook

More and more developers seem to be using the existing engines (i know you used Unreal 3 for Rev 60, Unity, UbiArt, etc) which makes sense given the huge number of features they provide with little initial development cost and common tool sets/plugins used by other developers. Do you think there is much future in developers using custom engines for games (both indie and non-AAA) or do you think it will continue to become more uncommon for common genre games as you start at a larger and larger feature 'deficit' by having to redevelop the features on your custom engine, let alone porting issues, leaving only vert large/profitable houses (Naughty Dog, Insomniac, EA, etc) to be able to bear the time/$ costs?

Brianna: When you are an indie studio, you have to be absolutely ruthless about what you spend resources on. To me, getting into OpenGL and coding custom engines is a suicide mission for small teams. It’s worth noting that Apple’s 3D frameworks just don’t measure up to Unity or Unreal.

If someone has solved an engineering problem already, I see no point in reinventing the wheel.

I think indie teams get a little bit of a break - but you still have to do one or two things better than anyone else, including AAA. For us, we concentrated on characterization and animation. I would put the quality of Revolution 60s animation against anything on any platform. We wouldn’t have been able to do that if we’d wasted resources writing a custom engine.



"Developer" or "Journalist"?
by Rick in China

I'm interested in what development languages you excel in and how you mastered them - as head of development for a gaming company, I think that's my first question. Follow-up side-points would be when you transitioned from journalist to game developer, and why game development? Was it related to some of the 'sparks' and 'movements' by some other females 'in the gaming community' - and seen as an easy way to jump on a bandwagon that was clearly going to make waves? Journalist to developer just seems like a very strange transition to me, so I'm curious about the particulars. Do you have a github account where you publish some of your code?

Brianna: I’ve had many jobs over the course of my life. I’ve worked in politics and well as media. Both have been very helpful backgrounds for me in running a studio, which is a very political job. One of my greatest frustrations as a developer is that I don’t get to spend as much time doing gamedev as I used to. The truth is, I can hire another engineer - but I can’t hire someone to replace me.

I feel like my entire life has prepared me for this moment. There’s very little I would change about the choices that brought me to this point.

I can’t help but read your question and feel like you might not have the best of intentions. I read it as you are feel that I need to prove to you that I’m a legit developer. I think my record as someone whose first game won several game of the year awards speaks for itself. I think my two popular shows on Relay.FM where I am an industry analyst on technical issues speaks for itself.

I do have code up on Github, but like many women developers - it’s under a gender-neutral pseudonym, because I know it will be torn to pieces if it’s not. I once wrote a joke on Twitter with pseudocode, written to be readable for non-developers - and received a litany of sexist accusations and code critique.

There is an unconscious bias that men are assumed competent until proven otherwise, and women are assumed incompetent until proven otherwise. My track record of success speaks for itself.



Customization / Modification of Unreal Engine
by Anonymous Coward

Hi Brianna. No idea if this will bubble near enough to the surface for you to see it, but I'm curious how much, if any, work you and your team had to do in the "guts" of the Unreal Engine to get your game out the door, or if all of your work was done at the Unreal Script / editor level.

Brianna: One of the great things about Unreal is that there are certain game types that are coded into the engine already. If you want a top-down Diablo game, they’ve done that work already. If you want to make an FPS, they’ve done that work already. But it doesn't cover everything so we ended up having to do a lot more work than other game types.

It’s hard to stress just how much work we had to do to get Revolution 60 to run on older Apple devices. You start out with 512 megs of RAM, and a good chunk of that is taken up with Springboard. Then, iOS 7 came out midway through development and we found ourself suddenly with 134 megs less RAM to work with. We lost over four months solving that problem.

Revolution 60 got a lot of critique for our textures - which has always felt unfair to me. Low resolution textures were a deliberate tradeoff. Infinity Blade looks amazing, but they only have 2 characters on screen at a time. Cyrus has 22 mesh influencing bones, with a level 2 joint influence. Holiday has over 75 mesh influencing bones - requiring a second draw call with level 3 joint influence. We have up to five characters on screen at once, all with a 2k diffuse and a 2k normal. On top of that, there is a ton of custom animsets and sound that isn't hardware decoded. This is very ambitious to ask all of this to run on the iPhone 4S.

I would guess that about 1/4th of our development was spent working around these hardware limitations in Unreal. Holiday doesn’t run because we are loading and unloading every section you walk through from memory. I was handed sections to texture, and I had four 1k maps for many of them. Given those constraints, the game looks AMAZING. I could write a textbook on extremely efficient texture stacking.

A lot of people think beautiful textures are the test of a good materials artist, and it's true. But - I think working under memory constraints is an even greater challenge.

There are a lot of gamers out there that like to play armchair developer because they don’t understand these engineering tradeoffs. None of them could have made a game as ambitious as Revolution 60. I made the choice to emphasize characters over graphics, and I’d absolutely do it again.



Virtual Reality?
by Anonymous Coward

You hinted a bit in an episode of Rocket that you're playing with the idea of making a game for VR. Can you go into any detail on that, or talk about the future of VR gaming (if there is one)?

Brianna: As much as I would love to, I am unable to comment on that right now. I will say, if you thought I shook up the industry last year? Trust me, our best is yet to come.

557 comments

  1. Thanks. by juanfgs · · Score: 1

    For the interesting response.

    1. Re:Thanks. by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The truth is, if you are a [life form of any kind], and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own.

      There, I fixed it for you.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  2. So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.

    What's the point of having these /. interviews, regardless of who they're with, if all we get are answers to lame, uninteresting questions?

    This isn't the only case where this has happened, of course. The same thing happened with the Linus Torvalds interview a few weeks ago. The best questions remained ignored, or if answered indirectly, the answers were pretty half-arsed.

    If the best and most relevant questions aren't going to get answered, then /. should stop with these shitty interviews. Each one takes up two front page slots that could instead have been filled with relevant, useful stories.

    1. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe they were really bad questions. Retard level stupid. :D

      You have some links to the questions so we can verify or rule out?

    2. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.

      I doubt she has an opinion one way or another on systemd.

    3. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Brianna Wu doesn't fail to disappoint yet again. Always ducking the hard questions. Too bad the truth is already out there, and failing to address it yet again only adds more confirmation. Cowardly to the end.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Always ducking the hard questions. That's not news or stuff that matters. I do not welcome our click bait overlords

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly what I was thinking reading through this. She answered not a single negative comment, only the positive ones. Just like Cosby, if you don't respond to critics, they will bury you.

      I am still very curious about her response to the accusations of her harassment and doxing of others. If she truly thinks these things are wrong when used against women, how can they be acceptable when used for a woman against people she disagrees with.

      Also, though it is hardly my business, I would have loved to see her either confirm or deny all the comments about her being trans. There is nothing wrong with being this way, but it does kind of reduce credibility of her cause which may be why there was no answer either way.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by NecroPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

      Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.

      I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the question had, or how many people supported it.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    7. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.

      I doubt she has an opinion one way or another on systemd.

      First of all, if you are "neutral" on the horrific abuse that is systemd you are part of the problem!!!

    8. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by mattventura · · Score: 1

      Some of the questions she chose to answer she weaseled her way around anyway. She'd make a great politician.

    9. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that they got filtered out, but she was apparently aware that they existed based on a twitter comment. Or she at least claims to have read through them at the point where there were about 300 questions.

    10. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

      He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter.

      And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into when faking harassment again! Oops!

    11. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson, you are a techie trans-woman, right?

      In your opinion, do you think Brianna Wu tries to play the victim card (ie. asking for money to "fight internet attackers" and feigning outrage to avoid answering questions)?

      And a question about you. Do you have a hard time making a living doing software or computer related work?

    12. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by pla · · Score: 2

      We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

      Perhaps Slashdot could use a new Director of Talent? I hear a pretty good one just went on the market after her former employer slashed and burned any remaining semblance of their credibility...

    13. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?

      They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by jez9999 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Transgender voice?

      You recently tweeted that no one who isn't transgender should voice opinions on transgender issues yet you regularly voice your own opinion on these issues. Is this a tacit "coming out" of your own transgender past, and if so, what does it mean for your own position as a representative and "megaphone" for women's issues and how you speak to the personal history of growing up as a woman?

      Steam Greenlight

      You recently ran a successful campaign to get your game approved on Steam's greenlight. What approaches did you use to get your game ranked high enough to be greenlit. What do you feel had the biggest impact in getting the numbers? What suggestions do you have for other Indie Game Developers who want to get their games approved on Steam's greenlight system?

      Regarding your own game

      Considering you have spoken out in the past about female characters in games being overtly sexualized, could you explain why the protagonists of your own game Revolution 60 wear what appears to be skintight lycra to show off their perfect hourglass figures?

      And that's just a few that didn't get modded down. Many of the +5 best questions early on got "mysteriously" modded down to -1 flamebait by.... somebody. Like this one which was at +5 funny when I remember reading it a few days ago:

      On Managing a Patreon Campaign

      Ms. Wu, when sending yourself harassment over steam [theralphretort.com] or twitter and faking having to leave your house [theralphretort.com] over harassment in response to trolling people, do you find TOR or a more traditional anonymous proxy to be more effective?

      A bunch more were mysteriously modded down.

    15. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

      He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter.

      And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into when faking harassment again! Oops!

      Now that should be modded informative.

    16. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.

      It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the time frame for someone to notice and mod them up again is small).

    17. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're assuming she's done something wrong. You seriously think she's going to say "yup, the morons behind gamergate were right, abuse of women is a good thing because they shouldn't be in gaming, and I'm only doing this for the lulz"?

    18. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      You're asking why a flamebait answer got modded flamebait?

      It often happens that more sensible moderation comes along later, as grown ups are often working, and not reading Slashdot right through the day.

    19. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.

      What's the point of having these /. interviews, regardless of who they're with, if all we get are answers to lame, uninteresting questions?

      This isn't the only case where this has happened, of course. The same thing happened with the Linus Torvalds interview a few weeks ago. The best questions remained ignored, or if answered indirectly, the answers were pretty half-arsed.

      If the best and most relevant questions aren't going to get answered, then /. should stop with these shitty interviews. Each one takes up two front page slots that could instead have been filled with relevant, useful stories.

      Maybe because she has answered those questions in many other interviews? You have not but to google if you are interested. Personally, I found the questions regarding game development interesting... Apparently, most of Slashdot is interested in bullshit questions tailored to criticize her for defending herself against harassment rather than geeky technology.

    20. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by narcc · · Score: 0

      She answered not a single negative comment,

      That's very obviously not true.

    21. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by jez9999 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bullshit.

      Several questions were at +4 or +5 for days, and then suddenly got modded down to -1. That is pretty blatant abuse of the modding system by someone.

    22. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Some trans adopt a hyper-feminist line to deflect attention from the whole question of their previous gender. It's a technique some trans also use to affirm their legitimacy as real women while attacking others and denying them the same courtesy. Slashdot should have asked the hard questions. Wu should realize that when you become a publicity whore you're fair game. Of course a denial would have produced proof to the contrary, and an admission after refusing to provide a clear answer for so long would make people wonder if she saw her past as an impediment to being accepted as a woman.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    23. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good questions. I was outed on Slashdot a decade ago, and it wasn't a problem. To the contrary, I highly recommend it to those in a similar situation, more so now that we're the new cool kids on the block.
      It hasn't been a problem when applying for jobs - I took a job as the receptionist at one place when I was between regular jobs. The question never came up.

      Unfortunately my retinas are diseased so no more sitting in front of a computer all day. There was a long period where I couldn't even read. I have the fonts on my phone set to the largest possible, and I still have problems. I still miss writing code, though, as most of us would.

    24. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Oops sorry for the bold. My bad.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    25. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by DirtMcGirt · · Score: 1

      We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

      Well, we know she saw at least some of them, because she complained about them.

      Note that in Brianna's circle, disagreement is "harassment" or being "toxic".

    26. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      To the other question, I have made it clear that she is playing the victim card for all its worth, both as a shield and a sword. Like many, I don't buy that all the harassment was genuine; recently the authorities were asked about the investigation and said they're not in the business of embarrassing people. Ouch!

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    27. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Didn't see that I had accidentally touched the post anon check box. Using the sit on a phone sucks. I suspect it will be fixed around the time they fix Unicode support - not holding my breath.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    28. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Caitlyn Jenner has already stated that she currently sees herself as asexual, but probably more of a lesbian. When people transition, sometimes the sex they're attracted to also changes, sometimes it doesn't. And Ms Wu is already married, so I guess that's not going to happen unless she wants to ride Jenner's coat tails and get more attention.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    29. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the answers. I think the same thing but I was curious to hear your opinion and experiences.

    30. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Don't forget lying and misleading answers. Wu was flat out given hundreds of thousands of dollars by her parents to start her "company" and uses her patreon to buy expensive motorcycles.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    31. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So the questions are:

      1. Can you please, in a Slashdot Q&A, please confirm something deeply personal in public?
      2. A question that's essentially marketing tips, and not hard hitting at all
      3. A question that's (mostly - see last part of this comment) reasonable, and that actually she hasn't shied away from at all - she's actually publicly talked about the models being of inappropriate shapes on her Twitter feed, apologizing for it, and confirming all the characters are being redesigned. BTW though, did you seriously describe those characters as sexualized? I mean, seriously. Have you looked at them? You think anyone's sticking posters those up above their beds to masturbate to? That's not the objection...
      4. Are you still beating your wife?

      And you think it's a conspiracy that these ended up being modded down or not answered?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    32. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots on the internet abused women before gamergate.
      The fact that those assholes tried to destroy the message isn't registering with you, because you are too dumb to realize it.
      If I want to ruin your "message" online, I just need to get some foul mouthed trolls to jump on board. Then whatever you stood for is toxic.

      You could want to save puppies, but if a group of white-power trolls join your movement it's over.

    33. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it is surprising they were down modded. However, there may be a bit of funny business if they were at +5 for a long period of time and then suddenly cratered after most of the interest in the section would have departed.

      It's probably a coincidence, however. While ./ editors and staff do have unlimited mod points, I doubt anyone legitimately expected the mods to submit those questions, so it would be unnecessarily underhanded to pretend they were down modded.

      Of course, unnecessary doesn't mean impossible, I suppose.

      Or, it could have been an organized group waiting in the wings to down mod it when they believed that no one was watching anymore. I mean with this mod system, it doesn't make much to turn +5 into -1. It's not like you have to overcome 1000000 up votes to do so.

      I still think it is coincidence, but I suppose that there are people who take this sort of thing a lot more seriously than I do.

    34. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by billstewart · · Score: 0

      Definitely abuse of the modding system. People who saw troll questions like that and modded them up got away with it for a couple of days before other people noticed them and fixed them.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    35. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your faith in the /. moderation system has been exposed and found hilarious.

      Grow up, kiddie.

    36. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: "Troll" does not mean "something I disagree with".

    37. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      You didn't understand 1, of course she's not transgender, she is just not following her own standards.

      And yes this person should be accountable for what she did and asked the hard questions. She's a chronic liar that still to this day manipulates people to give her donations and publicity.

    38. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wonder how many new Slashdot accounts were created from her Twitter whining and suddenly got mod points.

      That or Dice decided to pull a Reddit and just hide them so they didn't appear "unfriendly to women in industry".

      And right now I'd like to point out that Randi Lee Harper is speaking at OSCON this weekend.

      TL;DR: A large and prominent tech conference (3.5K attendees) run by O'Reilly Media and sponsored by major tech companies is presenting Randi as an "anti-harassment" activist. When evidence of her track record of abuse and harassment was brought to the attention of the conference organizers last month, they publicly dismissed those contacting them about her as "trolls".

      WHY THIS MATTERS: This is by far the biggest venue Randi has ever appeared in and the deception that she and the conference organizers are engaged in is shameful. If enough of us post evidence of who Randi really is to the #OSCON tag, there's a very good chance that future conference organizers (and their sponsors) will think twice before embarrassing themselves by giving Randi a platform.

      DETAILS:

      Although #OSCON was notified of Randi's antics when news of her speaking engagement became public last month, they chose to ignore the evidence, instead of taking seriously their obligation to their attendee's well-being. Adding insult to injury, a statement by @joshsimmons dismissed those who had raised concerns as "trolls":

      http://www.oscon.com/open-sour...

      They followed this statement up with a fawning "interview" in their online magazine in which they didn't ask Randi a single question about her atrocious behavior:

      http://opensource.com/life/15/...

      The conference starts today (Wednesday) and runs until Friday. Detailed information including the list of sponsors, can be found at http://www.oscon.com./

      Details about Randi's talk can be found here: http://www.oscon.com/open-sour....

      Here are some links to some resources about Randi's misbehavior, such as Milo's just concluded series of articles, Ralph's followup, and Stephanie Greene's series from a few months ago. Please post links to other resources, such as blogs, articles, images, etc., which you think are worth posting to the #OSCON hashtag, in the comments.

      http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-h...

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

      http://theralphretort.com/pill...

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/hi...

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/th...

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/th...

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/bl...

    39. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 2

      And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into when faking harassment again! Oops!

      Sarcasm in text. It's hard. And some people just don't want to understand, which makes it harder.

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    40. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you expect from the Centrist dogs who now control Slashdot?

    41. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Both sides are doing it. First you get the GamerGaters come in early and block mod their sock puppet accounts up, while modding everyone questioning them down as flamebait or troll. Then later the grown ups and meta-mods come along and reverse it all.

      The initial down-modding looks exactly like the screenshot you posted. It's what happens a lot of people finish/start work around the same time. It happens on every story - the early moderation is rarely representative of the final scoring because the 'Gaters always try to get in early and influence the direction of the conversation, trying to keep it on their terms and on their talking points, and because the people who do a lot of heavy moderation are the ones who come along too late to comment.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Do you really expect her to answer your troll questions where you won't even acknowledge her gender? I wouldn't answer questions about my mental health, or about allegations that were already debunked by other commentators etc. Engaging would only feed into the harassment, it's best to just try to answer people with a genuine interest in what you are doing and forward copies of the worst of it to the FBI.

      By the way, have you ever heard of retweeting? It's where you copy/paste a tweet that someone else sent into your own feed. There is a retweet mechanism but it links back to the original tweeter, and sometimes you want to avoid giving them any publicity by name.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    43. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Not taking sides, but your sarcasm detector might be broken?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    44. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Replied to wrong post. Should be attached to the parent.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    45. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Please, show me the error of my ways.

      I read every question, and most of the answers, I see none of the negative questions getting any response, it was like we all sucked up to her in the original article, rather than it being questions critical of her. Questions about the harassment and doxing she herself did to others, what sex she was born, if she herself was the source of the harassment she claims targeted her, and about the fact that people were able to prove she never left her house when she was "afraid for her life". I don't even recall reading any of these questions in the original article, they must have dug through pretty deep to get to them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    46. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, bullshit.

      Here's how Slashdot generally works: when a story is first posted, you get the most posting and moderation activity. This is because it's fresh and everyone is getting in on the conversation. The moderation and posts at this point represent the majority of the Slashdot readership - and, you'll note, the majority of Slashdot is pro-rationality, pro-libertarian, pro-merit. All of that makes them anti-SJW, which means that to the anti-gamers (like yourself) it appears that the the majority of Slashdot are "GamerGaters." Not true, but it sure looks that way to the anti-gamers who live in an "us-or-them" world of black versus white. (Quite literally in the minds of SJWs - see how upset they get about "all lives matter.")

      As time goes on moderating activity slows until the story falls off the front page. Fast forward a few days until just before the story becomes archived - that's when the mod-bombers swoop in and mod down everything they disagree with, secure in the knowledge that no one will bother correcting their mods because no one is paying attention any more. Oh, and look, that's the SJWs, who you flat-out admit are trying to game the system.

    47. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by rochrist · · Score: 2

      Here's a thought: What the fuck business if it of yours what sex she was born? I mean, really? Who entitled you to that information? What fucking relevance is it what sex she was born? I mean behind the notions rattling around your gamergate addled brain.

    48. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The instant he decided he wanted to crusade for "feminist rights" and do it under the guise of being a woman, it became our right to know his birth gender.

      Or to put it another way, remember Rachel Dolezal? Remember how no one would have cared if she championed black issues as a white woman, but when she pretended to be black, it all blew up in her face? It's literally the same thing: if "Brianna" Wu wants to champion women's rights as a man, no one would care. But when he pretends to be something he isn't, just like Rachel Dolezal, it becomes information we're entitled to.

    49. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      You do realize that new accounts don't get mod points right away, right? That's to prevent exactly what you're describing. I would wager most of the modding up or down was done by relatively established slashdotters with sufficient karma.

      http://slashdot.org/moderation...

      (scroll up to "Who")

    50. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breitbart ... Nice source you got there, just need ED and your credibility will be off the charts.

    51. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were trolls because they were rude and belligerent. They weren't sincere questions, but personal attacks, from dickless "men's rights" advocates, with fragile egos.

    52. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obstinate fool.

    53. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, I heard you were a kitten stomper, and a crack addict. PROVE my absurd claims are wrong!!! The burden is on you!!!

    54. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In her circle you call people out on their shitty, anti social behavior. That circle is called, real life.

    55. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is the message? People have you a chance to tell us what was sos unethical about game journalists, and it was all innuendo and bullshit.

      I agree that Brianna is not acknowledging the message of GG, but she won because GGers were trying to push this absurd conspiracy theory, instead of just saying, "We don't care about women in tech issues. We don't care about games because they were made by women. Don't call us angry man-boy losers. We need better representation in the game news web."

      That was the true greivence of GG. Journalists were socially progressive, you guys aren't. Fine. You can start your own site, with your own politics. But instead, you screwed yourselves, and harassed a lot of basically good people, and I have zero sympathy.

      TL;DR - Feminists framed the argument, because GG was disingenuous, and unclear about their message.

    56. Re:So the good questions were ignored. by bertoelcon · · Score: 1
      Didn't /. go down around that time?

      I wonder if it's related...

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    57. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Brianna Wu. If you've seen anything he's ever done online, you'd be aware that he doesn't understand "sarcasm" or "humor." That's the reason people disagreeing with him became this whole crusade against "web harassers" in the first place: some people made some jokes he couldn't take without going to the police.

    58. Re: So the good questions were ignored. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?

      They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.

      I wonder, Is that related to how most of the hard questions / questions that don't fit Wu's agenda got mass downvoted to -1 flamebait from being +4 or +5 insightful after the post fell off the front page?

  3. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The truth is, I can hire another engineer - but I can’t hire someone to replace me."

    Impressive.

    "I read it as you are feel that I need to prove to you that I’m a legit developer. I think my record as someone whose first game won several game of the year awards speaks for itself. I think my two popular shows on Relay.FM where I am an industry analyst on technical issues speaks for itself."

    Neither speaks to being a developer at all, unless you wrote the game yourself, which you didn't. And being an analyst doesn't make you a developer.

    Incredible.

    1. Re:Wow by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But dude, she totally wrote some code that's under another name that she can't disclose at present because of, you know...stuff.

      And I totally have a hot supermodel girlfriend in Canada. She's a developer too!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Wow by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to call herself a producer/manager then? I'm not saying that's any more or less legitimate, but it seems like that's what her job entails. A lot of modern games have dozens to hundreds of people involved and getting everyone to work together is just as important as creating the sound assets, coding the enemy AI routines, or tightening up the graphics on level 3.

    3. Re:Wow by Talderas · · Score: 0

      And I totally have a hot supermodel girlfriend in Canada.

      Is her name Alberta?
      Does she live in Vancouver?
      Does she cook like your mother?
      Does she suck like a hoover?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Neither speaks to being a developer at all, unless you wrote the game yourself, which you didn't.

      Jesus H. Christ on a bike, I have never, ever seen such bizarre and persistent attempts to discount someone's ability as a developer. She writes games for a living. She runs a games dev studio. She won some game of the year awards. Her studio started when it was just her---how do you think that worked if she couldn't code? Unicorns and fairy dust?

      She even has a github account.

      Say what you want, but I have never seen a bloke who claims to be able to code subjected to this level of flat-out disbelief.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I totally have a hot supermodel girlfriend in Canada. She's a developer too!

      The difference is that you don't run a modelling agency for a living, she does run a game dev studio for a living. That lends an awful lot more credibility to her claim than yours. And for fuck's sake if some random dude said he could code you'd almost certainly believe it (maybe not assume he could code well, but not disbelief). Fuck it why not. I'm going to claim that I can code. I've actually made this claim before and it has never once been met with disbelief (no piping up now years after the fact does not disprove my point).

      And there is literally zero evidence I can code. None. Zip. Nada.

      She runs a gamedev studio which she started herself. That is way way more evidence than I've ever provided. And yet you disbelieve her.

      Now, why is that?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Wow by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Say what you want, but I have never seen a bloke who claims to be able to code subjected to this level of flat-out disbelief.

      Well with Mr. Walker aka Briana Wu you just have.

      Now I know you are very very adept at not seeing things that conflict with your prejudices but

      He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter https://archive.is/AiKKt .

      And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged intohttps://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/623939409797357568 when faking harassment again! Oops!

      You really have to wonder how big a lying sack of crap someone has to be for you to call B.S.

    7. Re:Wow by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Can you prove you're a developer? I guess not, since anonymous cowards refused to disclose the code and is only on slashdot for political purposes.

      Get real. 99% of modern gaming devs aren't really doing development anyway, few people write the gaming engines anymore, so most gaming devs are really just scripting or creating graphics/animation/sounds. When you can got a working game done in a "hackathon" over a weekend then you know they're not really doing coding anymore. So why accuse Brianna of this when this is the way of the entire industry? Why is she the evil one who must be exposed by the crusading gamergate basement dwellers?

    8. Re:Wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Tell me Crashmarik, how, precisely do you define gender?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Wow by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Seeing as I asked first

      He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter https://archive.is/AiKKt [archive.is] .

      And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged intohttps://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/623939409797357568 when faking harassment again! Oops!

      You really have to wonder how big a lying sack of crap someone has to be for you to call B.S.

    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "She runs a gamedev studio which she started herself. That is way way more evidence than I've ever provided. And yet you disbelieve her."

      My boss runs a multibillion dollar software company as CEO and has never coded anything in his life. What does "running" a gamedev studio have to do with it?

    11. Re:Wow by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      She won some game of the year awards.

      Yeah, by the same trash sites that gave Gone Home 9/10 or 10/10. Game reviews are a joke. If you push the right ideology, either inside or outside the game, you will get rave reviews by the same trash sites.

    12. Re:Wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Seeing as I asked first

      Asked what? You posted a bunch of irrelevant junk unrelated ot the topic.

      You have repeatedly refused to define gender, despite making claims about it.

      You appear to be nothing but a substance-free blowhard. Well, that and a swivel-eyed loon.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Wow by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Seeing as I asked first

      He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter https://archive.is/AiKKt [archive.is] .

      And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged intohttps://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/623939409797357568 when faking harassment again! Oops!

      You really have to wonder how big a lying sack of crap someone has to be for you to call B.S.

      So once again what does it take for you to admit he is lying attention whore, whose only knowledge of the troubles of women is how to capitalize on them

    14. Re: Wow by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Informative

      We initially disbelieved her because of the lies, nothing to do with sex or gender. That came later.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    15. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't have to because he never claimed to be one. Wu has been trying to generate publicity as "Head of development". Why in the very answers given here, Wu claims to be a "Software Engineer" when it's obvious to anyone who has ever written a single line of code that it's a lie. That is why Wu diverted attention away from any questions that pertained to software development.

    16. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she does run a game dev studio for a living. That lends an awful lot more credibility to her claim than yours.

      That doesn't make her a game developer. That makes her a businesswoman. Specifically, an entrepreneur and a manager.

      If someone said to you, "As an entrepreneur and a manager, I know a lot about coding", what would you think?

      Hell, if someone said to you, "As an entrepreneur and a manager, I know a lot about [anything other than kissing ass and delegating responsibility]", would you even bother listening to them?

    17. Re:Wow by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      So basically the crappy games I made under a fake game studio name means I can claim I know about the industry because I made flash games with my cracked copy of Macromedia Flash and AS1?

      I only ask because the graphics for her game would be dated for something released 15 years ago, and the voice acting is some of the worst, dead pan (not good dead pan) voice acting I've ever heard.

    18. Re:Wow by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      She runs a gamedev studio which she started herself. That is way way more evidence than I've ever provided. And yet you disbelieve her.

      Because I'd rather listen to someone that didn't have the parents to hand them $200k to start a game dev studio.

    19. Re:Wow by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If you were trying to make yourself a public figure you would be subject to more scrutiny. Note: I have no idea or opinion if you or this person can code.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Again, that's not a question, it's a rant. It's also irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

      You're an incompetent debater who seeks to drag discussions into the mud as soon as you start to lose. Which, given your level of competence is very soon.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:Wow by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Why won't you answer the question ?

    22. Re:Wow by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You're an incompetent debater who seeks to drag discussions into the mud as soon as you start to lose. Which, given your level of competence is very soon.

      More than you deserve but anyone reading the thread can see you are projecting.

      Anyone reading your posts in this thread and any other can see that not only do you ignore any factual information presented, but you keep reiterating the same questions as if by the magic of repetition they can gain power.

    23. Re:Wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I have no idea or opinion if you or this person can code.

      Too late. I've been holding forth on coding here for years, but that's all: holding forth. No one has expressed the slightest doubt I can code. Sure some people have expressed doubt I can code well, but they all assumed I could because I said I could.

      Then this person who runs a game dev studiop which she founded and started herself says she can code and suddenly people are concern-trolling all over the place because there's no proof.

      It stinks like rotten meat.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    24. Re:Wow by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      By "stuff" you mean harassment. She is between a rock and a hard place, either she is accused for lying or gets harassed. Your suggesting is basically that she should accept the harassment to satisfy your scepticism.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because when Wu posts anything, it's blindingly obvious that she doesn't have the slightest clue what she is talking about. It's pathetic seeing her try to toss around tech jargon and become so defensive when asked a direct programming question because she's undermining her own lies and doesn't even realise it. Software engineer my ass.

      I've worked with quite a few women programmers and never had to ask them to prove they could code. Simply having a discussion with them made it clear that they knew what they were talking about.

    26. Re:Wow by Vanderhoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      She won game of the year because she's friends with the editor and chief of iMore Rene Ritchie (https://archive.is/oexmd) who happens to be the guy that judges games and hands out the game of the year for iMore. She's been on his podcast (http://www.imore.com/debug-34-sexism-tech) and pretty frequently talked to him on twitter. Just another case of journalists supporting their friend's crap games over much better stuff. Oh, but yeah GamerGate was totally just a hate movement to drive women out of the industry and not because journalists were ruining the indi scene by giving more favorable coverage to people they were friends with without disclosing it.

    27. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She couldn't even list a single programming language...

    28. Re:Wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Anyone reading your posts in this thread and any other can see that not only do you ignore any factual information presented,

      Your "facts" were completely tangential to the debate, and yet you keep posting them in response to simple, unrelated questions. I'll keep on posing the question because it's hilarious to watch you flap round like a floundered fish.

      So again:

      How do you define gender?

      It's incredible how someone with such rigid views on the matter is unable to tell me what he even has rigid views about! You have no idea what you view are, but by the old gods and the new you hold then firmly!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    29. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. She creates the drama she claims to be against. Proof has been linked many times already.

      Also, everybody gets harassed online. Most people are mentally stable and secure enough to brush it off and go on about their business. What you want is to exist in a curated vacuum, separate from other humans and society.

    30. Re:Wow by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You continue to try and deflect.

      It is now completely clear that there is no amount of evidence that will make you admit that Mr Walker is lying sack of crap.

      Seeing as you want to make this about gender, just how does someone who had their company paid for by their parents understand shit about women's difficulties in the workplace.

      Once again you can have the last word, seeing as you have irrefutably shown that your position has nothing to do with reality

    31. Re:Wow by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Being born with testicles and/or an X and Y chromosome kinda defines you as male. You can have some cosmetic surgery to change this, but that doesn't change your chromosomal makeup, nor at this time does it allow you to have children.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men in similar situations get criticized like this plenty. The highest profile example I can think of, how many times did we hear "Bill Gates couldn't code, I mean he bought DOS for like a dollar and totally fleeced the actual coder." Repeat for Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Ellison. The connotation seems to have changed a bit, but we used to use "brogrammer" to refer to a guy working in tech who wasn't a geek, and couldn't code.

  4. Thanks, /.! by nyet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To be honest, the thought of my career still being about [gamergate] five years from now is incredibly depressing.

    If it happens, you can thank /. in part for that.

  5. Thanks.. by kuzb · · Score: 0, Troll

    I appreciate all your accomplishments as a developer. I don't appreciate all your comments as a feminazi.

    I'm getting really tired of people trying hard to make it seem like all women are victims and we need to be run like a nanny state as a result. If you continue to treat men like the enemy you'll have a self fulfilling prophecy.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Agreed, and further, this person was a guy. Why is he spouting off like he knows what it's like to grow up as a female? It's simply impossible.

      That's like me (a caucasian) putting on black costume makeup and pretending I know what it was like to grow up in pre-1960s America.

    2. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anytime you say "feminazi" with a straight face, your credibility flies out the window.

    3. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what it is though. It's not feminism for the sake of equal opportunity. It's feminism for the sake of misguided personal gain at the expense of everyone else.

      Modern feminism has become about being equal+ rather than just equal.

    4. Re:Thanks.. by kuzb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it's fair to say men can't talk about women's issues because they're men. That just creates a closed loop where any outside argument can be shut down by saying "well you're not a woman, so anything you say is invalid". That's the sort of thing you see a lot from hard line feminism - the idea that nobody but them can truly understand the argument, and we just have to take their word for it. Other SJW groups tend to do the same things. Any time you hear something like "check your privilege" or statements which point in that direction, it's a sign that the person you're talking to probably has no reasonable rebuttal to an argument.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    5. Re:Thanks.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A man can speak from a position of sympathy, but never a position of experience. This is the difference. Just as an Indy developer cannot speak from a position of experience compared to all women developers.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's fair to say men can't talk about women's issues because they're men. That just creates a closed loop where any outside argument can be shut down by saying "well you're not a woman, so anything you say is invalid". That's the sort of thing you see a lot from hard line feminism - the idea that nobody but them can truly understand the argument, and we just have to take their word for it. Other SJW groups tend to do the same things. Any time you hear something like "check your privilege" or statements which point in that direction, it's a sign that the person you're talking to probably has no reasonable rebuttal to an argument.

      I agree in general, but I think it's perfectly fair to say that a man (in this case, "Brianna" Wu) shouldn't be given the same weight on women's issues that an actual woman would be. By way of analogy, let's say my only experience with Linux was as a server being run by IT. My experience is that it's always down, frequently being hacked, and completely unreliable. Does that make my experiences with Linux valid? Of course not, it means that the IT department is shit. Or maybe not and my view is completely invalid - I remember a real-life incident when the entire lab of Linux servers was hacked where I worked. This was because they were maintained by developers and not IT, and the developers had left the root password as "password" based on the theory that no one would be able to access the computers except internally. And had never run patches. And didn't have a complete inventory of running machines. (Cue someone finding a way past the firewall and then disaster. This is why I think "devops" is a terrible idea - there's more to being a sysadmin than installing patches!)

      So it's perfectly fair to say both that a man (such as "Brianna" Wu) may comment on women's issues, but that their opinion shouldn't in any way be given the same weight as an actual woman's.

    7. Re:Thanks.. by kuzb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a great deal of irony in that statement. Do you think men never suffer harassment, or discrimination? Are these things which are exclusive to women?

      Do you not see how hypocritical it is to shut someone out of an argument based on gender?

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    8. Re:Thanks.. by narcc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's the sort of thing you see a lot from hard line feminism

      An interesting perspective. I've never seen a feminist, hard-line or not, espouse such a thing. That argument seems to exist exclusively withing groups like GG and AVFM, who apparently have inside information in to the secret feminist cabal that's out to destroy the world.

      Sorry about that last bit. I just can't take you conspiracy nuts seriously. Particularly when you spend so much time and energy arguing against your own imagination.

    9. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See here. Context: Github adds a code of conduct to its own repositories, and advocates other repos doing the same. Some are complaining that it striped some language from the coc it's partly based on, which explicitly says some forms of racism/sexism/prejudice are okay. The implemented code of conduct (as it stands, minus some iffy language that could potentially be abused to force people to accept bad commits) could be considered feminism. The issues some raise, the code of conduct they want to see implemented, is feminazism.

    10. Re:Thanks.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I can't say I, as a man in tech, have any clue as to the harassment my female coworkers go through. I can be sympathetic of it, but I cannot speak from experience of being sexually harassed, or harassed because of my gender. Do you not see the difference here?

      I also don't claim to be an expert on the harassment that women in tech go through. Even if I were to transition to female (as Wu allegedly did), I would not claim to be an expert on the harassment that women suffer in tech.

      On the other point I was trying to make, claiming to be an expert on the discrimination that women face in development, while only ever working as an indy developer, itself only a very small subset of the group developers, makes little sense. Do you not see what I am trying to say there?

      I have heard some of my female coworkers complain about the amount of money they make, but when delving deeper into it, they make MORE than a male with the same amount of experience. This is unfortunately so much in the media of late that it is just expected that women make less than men when it just isn't as true anymore.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:Thanks.. by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 1

      Is it hypocritical to shut white people out of discussions of racism and ignore the effects of racial bias they experience on an hourly basis... on another issue, why does no one promote the fair treatment of unicorns and dragons!

    12. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've never seen this, so it doesn't happen. Now I'll namedrop GamerGate and increase my SJW internet points!"

    13. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time you bitch when someone correctly describes a leftist, your credibility flies out the window.

    14. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (there is no shortage of "if you are a male ally, (1) shut up (2) listen ..." kinds of slogans in feminist circles)

    15. Re:Thanks.. by kuzb · · Score: 1

      No, that's bullshit. If you're going to shut down an argument, shut it down by attacking the failings of the argument. Not the gender of the person making the point. All arguments should arrive at a weight of 0 until valid points are made to either support, or debunk it.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    16. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I mean, we're so goddamn racially bias we have a black president. OH SNAP.

    17. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mansplaining. The practice is so common, it has its own word. "I don't see it" is no more an argument than when it's applied to sexism in the workplace; it just means you're ignorant.

    18. Re:Thanks.. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem to stop feminists from spouting off what it's like to be a guy, generalizing and stereotyping men as they go. The real catch is that their spouting often becomes state and institutional policy everywhere. That's quite a privilege, so perhaps feminists should check it.

    19. Re:Thanks.. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      However, with or without direct experience, anyone can speak to feminists from reason, fact, and observation to tear down their arguments. They just don't like it when men do that so they use shaming language that claims it as victimization.

    20. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that all arguments are objective. The problem is when it comes to people's experiences, they're subjective. So if someone claims that "as a woman" they experience certain things, I have no method of verifying that as a man other than to compare what they claim to what other women claim.

      So, yes, you do have to weigh lower a man making claims about what women experience. There's no other way to do it. They may be correct, they may be basing their claims on real world experience, but ultimately, they haven't personally experienced it so their observations simply aren't as useful as an actual woman's.

      Plus, it's entirely possible for one woman to have experiences that don't mirror another woman's. For example, if one "woman" is actually a man and a vindictive asshole to everyone "she" meets, "her" experiences likely won't match a woman who actually gets along with other humans.

      All this adds up to needing to weigh an individuals claims about "what people experience" based on their personality and, yes, gender. Much like a Windows user can't make accurate claims about what Linux is like if they've never used it. I mean, they can claim they don't like it, and give reasons why they don't, but having never tried it, those reasons would be somewhat suspect...

    21. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HALF black president. There you go again, trying to shut the white out.

    22. Re:Thanks.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Harassment and discrimination are not created equal. There's different varieties. I can be harassed, and I have been discriminated against, but it was not because of sex or race. I have no good idea of what it would be like to face prejudice routinely. What I can do is listen to the experience of others and draw my own conclusions.

      I am inherently excluded from parts of arguments based on other people's experiences. I can make observations, ask questions, try to draw conclusions, even question the thinking of other people, but I'm not a primary source.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:Thanks.. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Brianna Wu was born a man. I'm honestly not sure if, despite being transsexual, Brianna Wu can actually speak to the problems women face.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    24. Re:Thanks.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't experience racial bias at all. (I may be a victim of it in some sense, but not to the level that I notice it.) If I did notice racial bias against me, and didn't dismiss it as someone else's problem, it would almost certainly be rare and intermittent. (The color of my skin does have something to do with this lack of racial discrimination against me.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Thanks.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And anyone, with or without direct experience, can dump a lot of people into a certain classification and badmouth that classification. I've known women who considered themselves feminists, and listened to them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooper X: For years in this industry, whenever an African American character, hero or villain, is introduced USUALLY by my white artist names. They got SLAPPED with racist names that singled them out as Negros! Now--my book, "White-Hating Coon", don't have any of that bullshit. The hero's name is Maleequa and he's descended from the black tribe that established the first society on the planet while all you European motherfuckers were all hiding out in caves 'n shit, terrified of the sun. He's a strong role-model that a young black reader can look up to. 'Cause I'm here to tell ya: the chickens are coming home to roost, y'all. The black man is no longer going to be playing the minstrel in the medium of comics and sci-fi fantasy. We're keeping it real! And we're going to get respect by any means necessary.

      Holden (Ben Affleck): Ah, c'mon, that's a bunch of horseshit! Lando Calrissian was a black guy, y'know, he got to fly the Millenium Falcon! What's the matter with you!

      Hooper: Who said that?

      Holden: (standing up) I did. Lando Calrissian is a positive role-model in the realm of science fiction fantasy.

      Hooper: Hey, FUCK Lando Calrissian!

      (Holden shrugs and sits down)

      Hooper: Uncle-Tom nigger, heh. Always some white boy gotta invoke the holy trilogy. Bust this! Those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother-man down--even in a galaxy far far away. Check this shit. You got cracker farmboy Luke Skywalker, Nazi poster boy blond hair blue eyes. Then you got Darth Vader, blackest brother in the galaxy. Nubian god!

      Banky (Jason Lee): (standing up) What's a nubian?

      Hooper: Shut the fuck up! (Banky sits down) Now. Vader, he's a spiritual brother, down with the force and all that good shit. Then this cracker Skywalker gets his hands on a lightsaber, and the boy decides HE'S gonna run the whole fucking universe! Gets a whole KLAN of whites together and they go bust up Vader's hood, the Death Star! Now what the fuck do you call that?

      Banky: Intergalatic civil war?

      Hooper: Gentrification!! They gonna drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote-unquote safe for white folks! In "Jedi," the most insulting installment when Vader's beautiful black visage is SULLIED when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty old white man! They trying to tell us that deep inside, we all wants to be WHITE!!!

      Banky: Well, isn't that true?

      (Hooper pulls out a gun, releases the safety, kicks over the podium and shoots Banky several times, and Banky falls, clutching his chest. All the other speakers and audience members (excluding Holden and Alyssa who we are about to meet) dive for cover or scatter screaming as...)

      Hooper: (shooting into the air): Black rage!!! Black rage!!! I kill all white folks I lay my motherfuckin' eyes on!!

    27. Re:Thanks.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think they've got a secret backdoor network where they communicate with themselves. The outside world is baffled when they talk to each other in code yet they seem to understand each other. They say "SJW" and agree upon the meaning of it and agree on the concept that it's somehow bad; they agree that "gamergate" was not about women or doxxing at all but only about the miniscule problem of some journalists in game websites being biased; the instantly show up whenever certain names are mentioned like those names are on a master hit-list somewhere. It really is like a group of conspiracy theory nuts.

      People have been accusing feminism of things it isn't since the word was first invented. Using things like feminazi just brands them as lunatics (a Rush Limbaugh classic trolling joke that some people took seriously).

    28. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to gain some experience, try saying something pro-GamerGate on Twitter. You'll learn about harassment pretty quickly; just don't expect to keep your job.

    29. Re:Thanks.. by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      No, it is about equal opportunity and equal end game. However that means men will *lose* some of their current state of privilege which infuriates some of those men. When women no longer have to work harder than men just to get to the same place then it will be equal, and we're nowhere near that place today.

    30. Re:Thanks.. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      And anyone, with or without direct experience, can dump a lot of people into a certain classification and badmouth that classification

      Exactly. Feminists do this to men all the time. It's their standard modus operandi. Men who speak up are shouted down with cries of "It's a women's issue! You're not a woman, you don't understand!" Then they go right back to pushing for law and cultural change based on their own generalizations and stereotypes of men. It's quite hypocritical.

      'Considering' yourself something and being something are two different things. There are lots of feminists who, when put on the spot to justify some sexist position taken in the name of feminism, claim the 'no true feminist would' fallacy as a response. "Oh that isn't really feminism, my own brand of it is." This doesn't change the basic fact that the de facto feminism exists, manipulating law and culture in hypocritically sexist and harmful ways. One, two, or 100 women claims of being feminists, and your choice to listen to them is irrelevant as far as this is concerned.

    31. Re:Thanks.. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Right well, if the person defines these 'subjective' experiences, then holding others responsible for them is oppressive, and really how can men be expected to modify their behavior accordingly if they can't understand? Conversely, how could women be expected to? It would be best if everyone's civil liberties were returned to them, allowing individuals to set up their lives as they see fit.

    32. Re: Thanks.. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You might not be a primary source TODAY, but we have the technology to fix that ;-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    33. Re: Thanks.. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Many of us can - but I wouldn't want Wu to be one such. Too many lies, and too many transsexuals go to extreme feminism as a way to help deny their past even to themselves.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    34. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a man in tech. I can speak in terms of having been sexually harassed. My harasser was fired for inappropriately putting their hands down my pants. The idea that men do not face sexual harassment or have no ability to speak about it is ridiculous.

    35. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A man can speak from a position of sympathy, but never a position of experience.

      That's self-contradictory. How can you know whether a man can speak from experience, unless you've been a man? If you have been a man, how can you know that's true of all men, without at least having been several men?

      To know how men's & women's experiences differ, or even how the experiences of multiple men or multiple women differ, you need a sample size greater than one.

    36. Re: Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish it was that simple, but those leading the charge would be out of a job if the ever achieved equality.
      So... do you really believe that is their goal?

    37. Re:Thanks.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re: Thanks.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Thank you, but I'm happy in my male identity. It's good that the technology exists, but I'd rather not use it myself. :-)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I can be harassed, and I have been discriminated against, but it was not because of sex or race.

      How do we know?

      If someone sticks their hands down your pants in an act of sexual harassment, does it really matter what their motive was? Is there any motive which can make the act itself a less horrible experience?

      I say this as someone who was sexually harassed at work in the manner described above.

    40. Re:Thanks.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They keep repeating it because they need useful idiots to believe it and join their cause. Then those useful idiots give them credibility, a mass of people that they can point to as grass routes support and proof that their cause is legitimate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Thanks.. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      most software devs were not the popular kids in HS

      as such most software devs understand what its like to be bullied and abused

      if anyone gets it, its us

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    42. Re:Thanks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should understand what a Feminism Ally is and then actually search for instances where feminists have said that men can't understand. That is just casually searching twitter. I bet you if I google search, a shit ton more comes up.

      https://twitter.com/m_nimzzz/status/562154392145514498

      http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Allies

  6. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously! This is apparent because the FBI can't read shared Dropbox folders! The humanity!!!

  7. wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Brianna: First of all, if you are “neutral” on the horrific abuse many women have suffered at the hands of Gamergate, you are a part of the problem."

    no, anyone who attacks a neutral party is a part of the problem. not everyone knows all of the details, and neither side seems to be entirely trustworthy.

    carry your argument out a bit further - you are suggesting that portugal,in part, caused the holocaust.

    roflcopter captcha: partly.

    1. Re:wrong answer by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was expected, "if you are not for us, you are against us" would be her answer.

      She was unknown to me before gamergate, and now the only thing I ever see from her is hate speech against men. Her toxic views of male gamers appear on video game sites as fact. Her views of video game design as being misogynistic is being promoted as fact.

      Her video games reviews are only about sexism, leaving off what games are really about, gameplay, interaction, puzzles, design, ingenuity.

      Shes a one sided hate parrot, and I really cant condone her viewpoints or actions. The professional victim act gets old.

    2. Re:wrong answer by tbannist · · Score: 0

      The professional victim act gets old.

      Yes, it does. So why don't you cut it out?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:wrong answer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      no, anyone who attacks a neutral party is a part of the problem.

      All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

      i.e. neutrality is part of the problem.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you peruse Slashdot, the chances that you have heard of Gamergate and have not heard of the women that have received death threats, doxxing, persistent harassment through email and social media, and swatting as part of it are near zero. Your point does not hold.

    5. Re:wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that is required for the triumph is good is that evil men do nothing.

      i.e. neutrality is not a part of the problem, it's a part of the solution.

      your argument doesn't hold water. neutrality without perfect information is a valid stance.

    6. Re:wrong answer by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Unless you started backing the evil side before finding out they were a bunch of Jew killing Nazis. In that case neutrality is better than taking a side.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    7. Re:wrong answer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      First they came for the Jews, then they came for the etc... I'm sure you know the quote.

      Neutrality is better than literally rounding up people to be murdered, but it still isn't good.

      Neutrality is what lets evil triumph.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you're talking about the Anita instead of Brianna?

    9. Re: wrong answer by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      My point was that her side is the Nazis and is saying we are wrong if we don't support her. Fuck that!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    10. Re:wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jennofhardwire.wordpress.com
      gamergateharassment.tumblr.com

      or are we still pretending only women get harassed and only gamergate does the harassing? Wu's demonization campaign encourages this climate of hate.

    11. Re: wrong answer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Wiat, you're saying that her, the vitim on the receiving end of threats is somehow analogous to the Nazis who were the ones rounding people up, rather than their victims? Riiiiight.

      This isn't talking about "generalised gamergater crap" you're talking a specific person who received specific threats. And you're apparently neutral about that and won't condemn the death threats and rape threats.

      In my view, and oddly enough hers, that makes you a reprehensible person.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:wrong answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sometimes being neutral is morally unacceptable. To pick up your example, the Vatican has been rightly criticised for not being more critical of what was happening during WW2. Similarly, if Portugal had known about the holocaust and did not speak out against it, that would have been morally wrong.

      You make a fair point that some people might not know about GamerGate. Perhaps the questioner could have phrased it as "I don't know enough about GamerGate to comment", except that they apparently know enough to associate her fame with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:wrong answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      It's interesting how you continue to twist everything she does to fit your narrative. For example, let's examine this claim:

      Her video games reviews are only about sexism, leaving off what games are really about, gameplay, interaction, puzzles, design, ingenuity.

      There are plenty of reviews covering those aspects. She examines the portrayal of women in those games in addition to other reviews. She provides something that other reviews do not, complementing them.

      A lot of people try to do the same thing with Anita Sarkeesian's videos. They claim she hates games because the videos mostly talk about the negative portrayal of women, but at the very start of each one she clearly states that it is possible to like and enjoy those games while still being critical of them. The goal isn't to provide a comprehensive review, it's to look at one particular aspect.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re: wrong answer by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

      If you can pay attention for one second and try to listen. She has made the threats against herself. YES! I do say that makes her a reprehensible person. There are links to the screenshots of the evidence here as well as other places where she attacked innocent people.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    15. Re:wrong answer by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      You're not really one to talk about twisting everything to fit a narrative. Every single story on GamerGate has you adamantly arguing against all facts and berating/belittling anyone that doesn't agree with you.Maybe we're all guilty of this, but don't pretend you're immune and not as equally as bad as everyone else here.

    16. Re: wrong answer by Vanderhoth · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think it's fair to say she's made ALL the threats against herself, but she has been proven to be a liar and has on a few occasions been caught trying to drum-up harassment.

      Like the time she forgot to log out of her dev account on Steam before starting a thread saying bad things about herself. She was called on it by a Steam mod and ended up removing the thread shortly after. (https://archive.is/t1Oxl)

      Or the time she was talking private chatting with a group of anons that ended up mysteriously being involved in harassing her (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1WSLdFCAAEicWf.png:large)

      Or the time she claimed GamerGate was threating a PAX conference, except the threats were from one of her followers directed at GamerGate supporters (https://i.imgur.com/nAxgNCD.png)

      Or the time she created the brololz account to harass & mock people on twitter (http://imgur.com/y1OK1By)

      I don't agree with anyone receiving death threats and it's dumb that I have to state that whenever Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian come up, but I'm all out of empathy for these women. Who seem to continually kick beehives, get stung by wasps then parade it around as evidence that bees need to be eradicated. They're definitely creating they're own "misery" which gets them big bucks and lots of attention while breaking the #1 rule of the internet (don't feed the trolls)

    17. Re:wrong answer by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      If you read the same stories you will also come across many instances of Ms Wu harassing others. Take a look at those pictures. Half of them are her claiming to be harassed, which may or may not have happened, but many of them are also her harassing others, such as the second one where she calls someone else a "gross f'ing aspie", how is this someone you want to defend?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    18. Re: wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words, you're admitting to being an evil man?

  8. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I've been on Nightline and John Oliver, and there still have not been any prosecutions in my case.

    Just because you've been on TV doesn't mean the justice system has to drop everything and take care of your case.

    First of all, if you are âoeneutralâ on the horrific abuse many women have suffered at the hands of Gamergate, you are a part of the problem.

    Stopped reading here.

  9. Interesting choice of questions to address by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of all the good questions actually upvoted in the original thread, why the hell did you decide to respond to not only the most soulless of the bunch, but ones that also require the disclaimer "I can't talk about this, but here's my opinion about a tangentially related issue"?

    You say that you don't want to play the victim or the token IT female or the feminist propagandist... And then proceed to focus on literally nothing else, even at the expense of answering the damned questions asked. Seriously, why bother?

    1. Re:Interesting choice of questions to address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but many of those questions aren't even at a 5. They went through and picked 2, 3, and 4 comments that fit their narrative.

    2. Re:Interesting choice of questions to address by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I think the editors need to expand the Q&A FAQ. They usually say they will pick 10 of the highest rated questions to send along, so I don't think Brianna Wu actually picked the questions. The editors would probably filter out any questions they thought would be offensive to the interviewee, so likely the "hard" questions wouldn't have been sent along.

      Also, I'd note that many of the so-called "hard" questions could easily be categorized as "bullshit" or "harassment" questions.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:Interesting choice of questions to address by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      She avoided the questions that were either debunked in other comments (like the stuff about trolls being kicked out of her talks etc.) or that were themselves trolling (questioning her gender, deliberately using the wrong pronoun, trying to legitimize the harassment). To do otherwise would have just re-enforced the professional victim/propagandist accusations that GamerGate keeps repeating.

      Instead, she answered the questions about her work.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Interesting choice of questions to address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even Wu cares about these comments enough to read them, not to mention reply to them - but you're running around, with your tongue out, doing damage control for her so hard, in so many places, it makes me wonder if you're actually her full-time assistant. But you're not, are you? You're just that fucking pathetic. A loyal dog to someone who doesn't even know you exist.

    5. Re:Interesting choice of questions to address by pla · · Score: 1

      Yes and no - That would count as a valid reason, if not for the fact that Wu has five minutes of fame solely because of GG. No one gives the least damn about the co-founder of some two-bit game studio.

      When your pony has only one trick, no one comes to the show to hear its opinions on the merits of alfalfa vs clover. Heck, until the trolls showed up and explained why we should care about this Q&A, I dismissed it as a blatant Dicevertisement.

  10. This is funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Stopped reading after the second question after Wu said she was well known before GamerGate. No, no she wasn't. She's taken full advantage of the GamerGate situation for her own shameless self promotion, even going as far as trying to incite abuse against herself on Steam. She just forgot to log out of her developer account.

    http://theralphretort.com/wp-content/uploads/Selection_999023.png

    1. Re:This is funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how all the Wu supporters and Gamergate bashers are strangely quiet about this post?

    2. Re:This is funny. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well the moron mods are out in force.

      Finding conference invites (which is what her claim is about) from before gamergate is an easy google search away and yet people mod up these easily disprovable lies.

      And I fully expected to get modded down for this.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:This is funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If its easy to prove do it, otherwise shut the hell up.

    4. Re:This is funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      suppose someone said something like, "as well known as Paul Erdos". well, in the mathematics world, and maybe some science/tech circles, he is pretty well known. but to the man on the street, umm... no. but the latter is pretty likely to know who Kim Kardashian is, for better or worse.

      so was she well known earlier? in some circles, i've no doubt. does that count as "well known"? depends on one's perspective. she clearly believes it does, others clearly disagree. personally, i go with the average member of the social-circle/group in question. if 9/10 frob-makers know you for being a frob-maker of some repute (good or ill), you're "well known" in the context of frobs.

      i'm not a gamer developer, so can't say on that end. i am an engineer though, that works on products that are related to games, and i'd never heard of her. does that mean anything? probably not...

    5. Re:This is funny. by Panoramix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well the moron mods are out in force.

      Yep, I can see that. What the hell happened to you, Slashdot? I leave for a couple years, 'cause I've been busy, and now you're giving this opportunist a Q&A? Not only that, but throwing her softball questions so she can push her professional victim schtick, and downvoting people who point this out?

      This is just sad.

    6. Re:This is funny. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Yep, I can see that. What the hell happened to you, Slashdot? I leave for a couple years, 'cause I've been busy, and now you're giving this opportunist a Q&A? Not only that, but throwing her softball questions so she can push her professional victim schtick, and downvoting people who point this out?

      Simple, they got sold off to an advertising company, that also mets out a job search site and they tossed their lot in with the social justice crowd because "outrage sells."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:This is funny. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      That wasn't an attempt to incite abuse. That was her asking people whether she's a terrible person.

      Should I take it your answer is "yes"?

    8. Re:This is funny. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is how GamerGate operates. Repeat the lies over and over, and provide the odd link to a screenshot taken out of context in the hope that no-one actually bothers to do their own research. Anyone who does gets mod-bombed or replied to with vast amounts of copy/pasted material designed to waste their time and mire them in pointless arguments.

      It's been that way since day 1.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:This is funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeat the lies over and over,

      Hey, have you stopped lying about Gjoni claiming there was a paid review, that he was dumped, that he claimed Quinn was sleeping her way to success? Since the zoepost is still up and you can see he never made those claims.

      and provide the odd link to a screenshot taken out of context in the hope that no-one actually bothers to do their own research.

      Hey, link us to that ars article again, with the out-of-context screenshots showing that 4chan discussing a hashtag = 4chan manufactured a hashtag and it's only 1 person with 500 sock puppets.
      This is what aGG does: project, hard. You blatantly lie about things that can be debunked with the vaguest attempt at effort. When evidence is posted, you just outright ignore it, and go repeating the same lies.

    10. Re:This is funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google trends[1] completely demolishes her claim that she was well known before GG.

      https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=brianna%20wu

  11. This is a joke, right? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Being neutral about threats to murder, rape and intimidate women with opinions is a character defect."

    Once again, the narrative is that the entire controversy was "evil misogynistic gamers" vs "poor innocent woman".

    Both sides have done fuck up things. Trying to pretend it was a completely black and white, good vs evil conflict does not get you any respect, neither does being a professional victim.

    "Feminism is advocating equal social, political, legal, and economic rights for women - and we are at a huge deficit with those rights." ...What rights do men have that woman do not?

    1. Re:This is a joke, right? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't recall saying it excuses either side. What I'm saying is you get nowhere when you are unwilling to admit that both sides were in the wrong and attack neutral parties purely because they are neutral.

      "Based on your 'but they do it too!' bullshit above"

      How is it bullshit when both sides did, infact, do immoral things to each other?

      Part of being an adult is realizing issues are not black and white, good against evil. Another part of it is willing to admit you have made mistakes. This person is unwilling to do that, so I can't possibly take her seriously.

    2. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The right to not be able to choose parenthood.
      The right to be financially ruined in a divorce.
      The right to be accused for sexual misconduct for any or no reason.

      Oh wait women don't want those rights.

    3. Re:This is a joke, right? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      What rights do men have that woman do not?

      HATER!!!

      Any other questions?

    4. Re:This is a joke, right? by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 1

      It's not 'the narrative', it's the facts. The only people who believe the whole 'ethics in journalism' shtick are the gamergaters themselves. And she's right, it's like saying 'well I'm kinda neutral in the whole issue of driving while intoxicated.' If you're neutral, then your passivity is aimed at maintaining the status quo and allowing the lives lost on the road to continue.

    5. Re:This is a joke, right? by narcc · · Score: 2

      There is a massive difference in degree here.

      Consider this: Alice and Bob get in to an argument. Things get heated, and Alice calls Bob a jerk. Bob then beats her severely. Alice, after regaining consciousness, files a police report.

      Both sides have done fuck up things. Trying to pretend it was a completely black and white, good vs evil conflict does not get you any respect

      What I'm saying is you get nowhere when you are unwilling to admit that both sides were in the wrong and attack neutral parties purely because they are neutral.

      If you're neutral in the case of Alice and Bob, you are indeed part of the problem. Sure, Alice was wrong to call Bob a jerk, but that is not in any way equivalent to the severe beating Alice received. Insisting that all wrongs are somehow equally egregious, and using that to justify taking a neutral position is absurd.

    6. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could the gamergaters possibly be believing the ethics in journalism thing without participating in it? That statement makes no logical sense whatsoever. Are you trying to imply that gamergaters think they're doing the right thing and are trying to bring about ethical journalism reform but somehow instead they are harassing women, or that they genuinely believe that ethical reform IS harassing women? Or are you just a lying sack of shit who can't even get their own bullshit narrative straight? Hint: The last one. It's the last one. Get your story straight before you lie.

    7. Re:This is a joke, right? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I'm going to need to call false equivalence, as there is a massive degree of difference between mean words and physical violence/injury. We are talking about two groups saying mean things over the internet, which are more or less equal.

      I'm not insisting that all wrongs are equal, or that it's all okay because they both sides emotionally harmed each other.

    8. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rights do men have that woman do not?

      They have the right to be conscripted into military service against their will.

      They have the right to be laughed at when raped.

      They have a right to be arrested when their wives beat them.

    9. Re:This is a joke, right? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      This is one of the stupidest posts I hae read this week.

      She personally recieved death threats, rape threats etc.

      Yeah, telling someone who received a bunch of nasty threats that you are neutral about them does make you part of the problem.

      This is not some "narrative" as your paranoid little brain is trying to make out. This is someone saying to the victim's face that he's neutral on the victimisation. I.e. it doesn't matter.

      Death threats are wrong, mmmkay? Pretty much everyone except sociapaths and raging moral relativitsts agree.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Bob overreacted to a greater degree than Alice, doesn't mean everyone is now obligated to believe Alice was right about the thing they were arguing about.

    11. Re:This is a joke, right? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What nobody has ever explained to me about GG "ethics in journalism" problems: when the heck were there ethics in game journalism? Way back when, I looked for some and didn't find any.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:This is a joke, right? by narcc · · Score: 1

      We are talking about two groups saying mean things over the internet, which are more or less equal.

      I'd disagree. There are differences there that can hide rather well. The most important, of course, is credibility.

      Let's say I make the following threat, directed toward you: "I'm going to murder you! Murder you to death! I'll kill you with murder!"

      You, presumably, will be unaffected. We don't know each other, or anything about one another. You have no reason to believe I have the ability to make good on my promise. I simply can't make a threatening threat that will threaten you in the slightest.

      Now, image we're high school classmates. You say to me, over facebook, "After school tomorrow, I'm going to pound you until you piss blood".

      That's a far more credible threat, as I know you have the knowledge and opportunity necessary to actualize it.

      Now imagine that you're the target of a large movement filled with very angry people and you receive a number of credible threats...

    13. Re:This is a joke, right? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      turn it around, Bob calls Alice a jerk and Alice planks him with a steam iron.

      DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A GENDERLESS ISSUE,

      I'm with Whoopi Goldberg on this one: if a woman hits a man SHE SHOULD EXPECT TO BE HIT BACK. If you can deal it out you can take it in kind.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    14. Re:This is a joke, right? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      so why has nobody been prosecuted over what is clearly criminal behaviour, that is evidenced and accessible via server logs (if it actually happened as described) and traceable to an individual?

      I call bullshit by a self-entitled radicalist man-hater.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    15. Re:This is a joke, right? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      How is it bullshit when both sides did, infact, do immoral things to each other?

      "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death threats are wrong, mmmkay? Pretty much everyone except sociapaths and raging moral relativitsts agree.
      Flag as Inappropriate

      On the internet everyone gets death threats. Grownups just ignore them. Anyone who takes death threats on the internet seriously has paranoid delusions of grandeur.

    17. Re:This is a joke, right? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that the people on "her" side of the argument also made death and rape threats. There's even an entire website dedicated to it.

      http://gamergateharassment.tum...

      "KingofPol just got sent the emergency services to his place, someone used his doxx to send a false alert for a suicide attempt"

      "I hope you all die of bone cancer"

      "I'm going to kill you misogynist fucks"

      She isn't special just because people threaten her over the internet. You know how many times I've received "personal" death threats? it isn't unusual in the slightest. The difference being is that I don't take every single idiot on the internet seriously to the point of being scared some keyboard warrior is actually going to show up on my doorstep.

      And you call me the paranoid one? Go look in the mirror.

      Oh, and I don't tweet bomb threats to people I don't like.

      http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/...

      I never said death threats weren't wrong, so stop trying to misrepresent what I'm saying. Both sides have done wrong. BOTH SIDES. That doesn't make it right, but sitting in the corner pretending to be the victim when you're just as guilty is laughable.

    18. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the source on these "number of credible threats" are solely the alleged victims, and credible threats against the other side (like a bomb threat at a meet-up that caused an evacuation) get ignored.

    19. Re:This is a joke, right? by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      The explanation to the problem is right there in your post.

    20. Re:This is a joke, right? by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Here is why Neutrals in this debate exist:

      ProGG: Revolves around ethics in journalism, but also fighting against people that are basically neo-puritans that think that if a woman isn't wearing a burqa in a game, then she is revealing too much skin... but also say that slut shaming and body shaming is bad. The fight for the ProGG side is many different things. I'm about 50/50 split between Ethics and keeping SJWs out of gaming culture. They already destroyed enough cultures. The way I see it is that the current ethics problem is due to the SJW indie clique that controls most of the gaming media sites. So really, fighting for ethics happens to be the same thing as fighting the SJWs out of gaming culture

      There are people that are purely in the fight for ethics, and other people that are in it because they hate SJWs. So it really comes down to a combination of things

      AntiGG: Says that ProGG are misogynists. Regularly violate journalistic ethics to give their friends in their indie clique a leg up. Basically part of the problem. They say they fight for a more inclusive culture in gaming, but the only way things can be inclusive for them is if every hero in a game was a Female Non-Binary Queer PoC.

      The neutrals are here because both sides are having two completely different conversations. My friend said GG was a bunch of bullshit harassers until I showed him what was really going on. Now he stays a bit in the neutral side, because he does what most of us should be doing - Just playing fucking games. The problem is that most AntiGG folks seem to NOT be gamers, and are more interested in changing things to fit their whims.

    21. Re:This is a joke, right? by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Now imagine that you're the target of a large movement filled with very angry people and you receive a number of credible threats...

      You will then understand what its like to be ProGG. Milo got used syringes and dead animals sent to his house from people that didn't agree with him on his articles or his stance on GG.

    22. Re:This is a joke, right? by narcc · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! In your rush to repeat your favorite MRA line, you've completely missed the point!

    23. Re:This is a joke, right? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      when the heck were there ethics in game journalism? Way back when, I looked for some and didn't find any.

      Late 90's and early 00's when the guys who said fuck you to the magazine industry for the same shit started out. Then they decided ~6 years later the clickbait would be okay, and it continued the downhill spiral. Even the owner of Destructoid understands where Gamergate is coming from.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    24. Re:This is a joke, right? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You seem to forget that the people on "her" side of the argument also made death and rape threats.

      So basically some people allegedly affiliated with some global cause with her received death threats so it's OK to be neutral on her personally receiving them. Basically you're reducing it to partisan shit flinging= and using that to not condemn reprehensible behaviour.

      It's not us-versus-them.

      This person received actual death and rape threats.

      If you are neutral about that, then yes, you are part of the problem.

      All you are dodging and weaving and trying to bring in things that other people were involved in to justify not condeming death and rape threats against this one person.

      So don't be a coward, if you elieve these death and rape threats against her are OK (i.e. you're neutral) then say so and declare it here and now for all to see.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    25. Re:This is a joke, right? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Once again, the narrative is that the entire controversy was "evil misogynistic gamers" vs "poor innocent woman".

      No, that's your narrative, a straw man argument. Look at what she actually said. There is no question that some elements of GamerGate have been involved in harassment, and regardless of who they were harassing it should be condemned. No-one, regardless of what else they have done, deserves that.

      You made up the bit about "evil misogynistic gamers" vs "poor innocent woman" yourself.

      "Feminism is advocating equal social, political, legal, and economic rights for women - and we are at a huge deficit with those rights." ...What rights do men have that woman do not?

      The use of the word "rights" in this context is a bit unfortunate because people tend to misunderstand what it means. Men still have a lot of privilege that women don't. It's a lot better than it used to be, but still not perfect. As Wu pointed out, many women use gender neutral pseudonyms on the internet to avoid harassment. Not being harassed is a legal right, since harassment is illegal, but as she also points out it is not well enforced.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides have made death threats and both sides have faked death threats.

      Considering that I have seen more blowhard internet tough guys over the years, I just dont put much stock in the death threats being credible.

      Due to the fact that everyone involved seems to be acting like self entitled fucking brats then yes, yes I will be neutral on the subject.

      If any of the threats were in the least bit credible, why did she not actually leave her house but claim she had, and why have there been no prosecutions on either side by the relevant authorities. Its because even the fucking police who love to over react know that this is just a bunch of immature millenials flinging poo at each other.

    27. Re:This is a joke, right? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      no I'm not. According to Ms. Wu's logic, if a man hits a woman she should get protection from the local police to the point where the man is floored and double tapped. If she hits him, it's "self defence" all the way. I'm not an MRA, this is the reality of the situation and they want MORE.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    28. Re:This is a joke, right? by Linkreincarnate · · Score: 1

      Ding Ding Ding Both sides did stupid shit but GG's side was turned into social pariahs over the actions of people on their side. Why isn't that level of shared responsibility and social consequence applied to the other side of the argument if it is applied to GG? Why isn't it ok to classify GG by the most radical actions attributed to it but not AGG?

    29. Re:This is a joke, right? by Linkreincarnate · · Score: 1

      There were a number of cultural weapons that people perpetuating damaging and false stereotypes about gamers had already refined that were ready to go as soon as the first "Gamers are dead" article hit. Gamers were caught by surprise and thus the first combo in this culture war stuck. Gamers are now labeled as misogynistic on the actions of a tiny select few. A lot like how we were painted in the past as violent by a few school shooters owning a copy of some game. On top of that anyone who questions that label is also hit with it. Wu's outrage at neutral parties is more of a tactic than a belief in my opinion. It's a nice rhetorical trick that works for a little while to prevent the label applied to gamers from being unstuck. Problem is that people begin to question the labeling of neutrals and people who question the original smear. Then the whole thing starts to fall apart. That's why gamergate grew so large. It's why it's so big today. People don't have to rely on the "news" to find out what a hashtag really is. They can see for themselves. I hope they look long and hard.

    30. Re:This is a joke, right? by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      As we say, our biggest recruiters are AntiGG people. The complete intolerance for neutral or parties questioning the sides tends to push them to the ProGG camp.

    31. Re:This is a joke, right? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      so why has nobody been prosecuted over what is clearly criminal behaviour, that is evidenced and accessible via server logs (if it actually happened as described) and traceable to an individual?,

      Because we don't live in a world where the police are super competent especially with relation to tech related crimes?

      I call bullshit by a self-entitled radicalist man-hater.

      Ahhh well this explains it. If I don't side with the g8rs I'm "anti man".

      Dude, you're nuts.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    32. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men still have a lot of privilege that women don't.

      This has been said in this thread and elsewhere, as if repeating it will make it true. Since there are so many privileges that people possess, by the sole virtue of being male, please list a few.

    33. Re:This is a joke, right? by deltatype0 · · Score: 1

      She can speculate about my character all she wants. I grew up on ever Calvin and Hobbes book made, and if that taught me anything in life, is that every moment in my life where I have had to pick myself up, dust myself off, and do something to get it done, without any external help, I've done so to /build character/.

    34. Re:This is a joke, right? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "What rights do men have that woman do not?"

      The right to be the huge majority of on-the-job deaths comes to mind.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    35. Re: This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women are completely capable of the bottom two, particularly in a society that doesn't demonize female traits, discourage women from joining most high paying fields, and paint women as weak and incapable (in this case of rape).

      If the woman were richer than the man in a divorce, she would be just as screwed. Pretty much the only thing I agree with you about is that the alimony/child support CALCULATION laws in this country are effed up.

      The first is a biological difference, and you don't see a lot of feminists blaring that we need feminism because periods are SO UNFAIR

    36. Re:This is a joke, right? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      no, I'm a realist.

      Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. We haven't seen ANY evidence of ANY description.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    37. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if "both sides have done fuck up things", that in no way *excuses* the fucked up things done by *either* side. Being 'neutral' about threats to rape and or murder *anyone*, regardless of the target's gender, is a character defect.

      I think you are mistaken what neutrality means on the issues. Threats of rape and murder are illegal activities to be taken to the proper authorities. They are not part of the discussion surrounding GamerGate. I dont think anyone is neutral on those illegal activities and what should be done about it but I do think people are neutral on the primary points that surround GamerGate by both sides.

      "What rights do men have that women do not?"
      In theory, none. In practice, quite a few.
      If you're genuinely unaware of the difference between theory and practice in this particular arena, do some research.

      I take it you are a feminist? I almost half expected your response to be It's not my job to educate you shitlords! but that would be stereotyping...oh wait you basically said that...If you cant back up what you claim and tell everyone else to find the evidence instead, I'm going to have to go with the old saying That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

      I suspect, however, (based on your 'but they do it too!' bullshit above) that it was a disingenuous question by someone busy pretending that there's no difference between how men and women are treated (e.g.: in the legal and medical arenas, just to name two where the differences are *blindingly* obvious).

      No, you're too far up the ass of feminism to understand that their comment wasnt about gender. GamerGate isnt men vs women. So when they made the comment they were saying both sides of GamerGate do fucked up things. The fact that you brought gender into it shows your lack of understanding of the issues surrounding GamerGate.

    38. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its not a false equivalency because of that reason. It is a false equivalency because the scenario is about gender to push the point that only one side is doing fucked up shit. A more accurate scenario would be two guys, one guy punches himself to justify him punching the other guy, the other guy retaliates and when the cops show up, the first guy claims the other started it.

    39. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mistake you are making is assuming that the primary arguments surrounding GamerGate are about rape and death threats, both of which are illegal in the US, which is fundamentally wrong. I dont think you'll see a person say that they are neutral on those two things. They are neutral to the arguments presented by both sides that are relevant to the discussion, which rape and death threats are not. Trying to lump in rape and death threats into the arguments surrounding GamerGate is trying to pollute the discussion with noise generated by trolls. If you continue to try to push those two illegal activities back into the discussion to force someone to choose a side then you are part of the problem

    40. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please pray tell, who have suffered violence at the hands of Gamergate?

      I've got a dozen examples of threats of violence and doxxing from profiled aGG people, I've mostly seen sockpuppets do the same the other way (with the exception of RogueStar, who is really, really dumb).

    41. Re:This is a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that both the coppers and alphabets have looked into these threats claimed by aGG and found them all to be baseless and non-credible? Whereas threats made against GG, for example the bomb threat against meetup in Washington DC, were found to be credible.

  12. I wish this crap would go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The internet! Where EVERYONE actually gets the 'equality' they all claimed they wanted!
    Nobody knows who or what you are! Everyone is treated the same!

    So whats the first thing most people do?
    Out themselves to try and get special treatment. 'i'm a woman you cant say that to me! you must hate my game because i'm a woman!'

    Shut the fuck up and keep that shit to yourself. Nobody cares what color you are, if you have tits or not, or who you like to fuck.
    And they won't even know UNLESS YOU TELL THEM!

    So shut the fuck up and enjoy actual equality in all it's brutality.
    Or stop pretending it was ever about being 'equal' and was really all about getting special treatment. But only when you agree with it or approve of it.

    1. Re:I wish this crap would go away. by narcc · · Score: 2

      The internet! Where EVERYONE actually gets the 'equality' they all claimed they wanted!

      Ummm... No. See, as you point out, women can't express themselves freely because, by virtue of being a women, they will be treated unequally the instant their gender is known. That is not the case for men, who are free to reveal their gender as people tend to assume that anonymous users are men. You insist that anyone who's not a straight white male must hide some aspect of themselves to avoid unequal treatment. That's not equality, it's oppression.

      This isn't complicated.

    2. Re:I wish this crap would go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many, reasonably popular, place on the Internet, where outing myself as a man would instantly "disqualify" me from this very discussion.

    3. Re:I wish this crap would go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that they're women. It's that they mentioned their gender as if anyone cared. I know it's not always obvious, particularly because the response typically involves a lot of sexist jokes and misogynistic rhetoric, but that button-pushing behavior was learned from the people who use it to chase "undesirables" out of their social circles in the real world.

      You have to understand that it isn't a distaste for women, transgendered people, or for membership in any kind of minority. It's a distaste for identity politics, which is obnoxious enough in real-world discussion and debate, but is especially irritating on the Internet where we try to judge ideas and opinions on their own merits. Sure, if I'm on Facebook and I'm trying to get to know you, I'm interested in who you are, what you've done, how life brought you to where you are today. But right now I'm on Slashdot and I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut who you are, I'm only concerned with how you're perpetuating a fundamental misunderstanding of a very important and precious aspect of web culture. We're all here being equal humans, and somebody comes along saying that they're a special kind of human that is more equal than the rest of us, and we're the assholes for calling them on it?

      people tend to assume that anonymous users are men

      That's actually a negative stereotype. It originates from the early days of online communities, when computers were seen as inconsequential toys that only men were stupid enough to care about. Nowadays, when the whole damn world runs on the Internet, it's a running joke. Except, perhaps, to you - which says more about you than it does about everyone else, don't you think?

    4. Re:I wish this crap would go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plenty of places on the net where being a straight, white, or male will get you shit on just as fast.
      and usually with even more venom.

      but that goes against your bullshit so you'll never admit it's true.

    5. Re:I wish this crap would go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet! Where EVERYONE actually gets the 'equality' they all claimed they wanted!

      Ummm... No. See, as you point out, women can't express themselves freely because, by virtue of being a women, they will be treated unequally the instant their gender is known. That is not the case for men, who are free to reveal their gender as people tend to assume that anonymous users are men. You insist that anyone who's not a straight white male must hide some aspect of themselves to avoid unequal treatment. That's not equality, it's oppression.

      This isn't complicated.

      Oh yes, it's a sad situation that I cannot just come out and say "I'm a woman, ON THE INTERNETZ and here's my SSN CODE!"... It's really despicable. Everyone should be able to just open an account and post a picture of his house and address just to tell people that they are proud to be women on the internetz. Because there would be absolutely ZERO people who would exploit that thing to sell something to me or to take something away from me.

      However I must come and smash your childish dream because that thing is not fucking related to be women on the internet, not being able to express yourself is a disease that comes from everyone else who is not happy like you (if you are a sexy woman there may be women with self-image problems who can try to silence you because you are happier than them), and this shows well expecially someone who has a grain of power. And the words "white, mysogynistic cis-sexual MRA manbaby" were flung far too many times around to take seriously any so-called proponent of "social justice" and equality.

      Journalists and their cronies have tried to use the card of "we use our connections to try to bog down your business"

      Kotaku mounted a campaign against a kickstarted game
      http://kotaku.com/5910304/come-on-a-card-game-about-tentacle-rape

      Note that later they endorsed one of their friend's game
      http://kotaku.com/tentacle-alien-sex-card-game-isnt-as-perverted-as-youd-1638675233

      What about the time they tried to get a company CEO out of business by endorsing some rape allegations that were false?
      http://kotaku.com/5940401/pc-gaming-studio-said-she-ruined-their-game-but-only-after-she-sued-the-boss-for-sexual-harassment

      They also tried to fire you because of your affiliation:
      https://medium.com/@markankucic/that-time-i-got-fired-over-gamergate-dc80b4c0a279

      Or politcal stance
      (google for pleb comics or plebdox)

      Or to try to silence you like what happened to actor Adam Baldwin:
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/keogh-like-it-or-not-supanova-popular-culture-is-political/6128572
      http://www.themarysue.com/supanova-keeping-adam-baldwin-after-outcry/

      Or to make businesses get your products out of the shelves
      http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Why-Target-Removed-GTA-5-From-300-Stores-68746.html

      This is essentially what Gamasutra had promised and endorsed early in gamergate:
      http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JamesBeech/20141016/227866/A_Farewell_Letter_to_GamerGate.php

      So I say get out while you still can, while there’s still the slightest shred of deniability. A potential employer may see your pro-GamerGate tweets and have it raise a red-flag. Do you really want to endanger your future to cling to this rag-tag group of loudmouths?

      Gamasutra, website held by UBM, home and host of the Game Developers Convention, only the fucking most important representative of the gaming industry.

      Gaming journalist arranged to have a fucking whole TV SHOW about the whole "gamergate incident". Brianna Wu says it was based on herself, I fail to see how guns were involved in the whole gamergate saga until now. Oh, yes, I forgot: Gamergate activist _icze4r got swatted after she was interviewed by VICE.

      http://www.vice.com/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it
      https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2mjhxo/be_careful_peo

  13. No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, if you are “neutral” on the horrific abuse many women have suffered at the hands of Gamergate, you are a part of the problem.

    And this is why we can't have grown-up conversations. Even the mere thought that there might be anything of merit on the GG side is tantamount to a rape threat. It's intolerant and childish.

    1. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Translation+Error · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you don't like people re-interpreting your words as rabid, intolerant vitriol, lead by example. She didn't say everyone who had anything to do with Gamergate is an evil monster.

      When there's public abuse and large numbers of people thinking "Meh, whatever" or "Not my problem" allow it to continue and are part of the problem. Instead of "being neutral", support the parts of the movement you believe in and condemn what's not acceptable.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    2. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      Gamergate was originally about ethics in video game journalism. The moment female developers were targeted ended that conversation with those people. After all, you can't have a movement about ethics while utterly lacking them.

    3. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      That's not what she's saying; that's a gross misrepresentation.

      The fact of the matter is that Gamergate, from its inception, was largely a misogynistic endeavour that wildly eclipsed anything legitimate buried way underneath. It started with an insane screed by a jilted ex-boyfriend and continued on as an excuse for hundreds of people to harass women. It MAY be possible to feel that Gamergate had legitimate points, but there's so much hate swirling around it that it was hard to get down to those points.

      It is undeniable that many women (and some anti-GG men) were doxxed, threatened physically and sexually and were basically forced off the internet all together. You can't be neutral on GG, honestly. Even if you ultimately feel like maybe someone in there had a point about money and corruption in game reviews, the overall context of the whole thing was just awful. There are many reasonable ways to have a conversation about a contentious point, and GG was precisely zero of them.

    4. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 0

      "Gamergate was originally about ethics in video game journalism." So why did the 'movement' not exist until a complete nobody of an ex-boyfriend posted entirely fictitious and horrific accusations against his ex-girlfriend? Why was there never a mention of such issues before the accusations of her 'whoring around'? Did the issue not exist before those made up allegations?

    5. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we allowed to just not get involved? Because that's what 99.9999% of the population want to do, without having this kind of reaction.

    6. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what has bothered me about both groups involved from the very beginning. It's obvious that there are a few opportunists and provocateurs on both sides who are directly responsible for the lion's share the antisocial behaviours that we've seen exhibited, yet both sides seems eager to characterise one another as being accurately represented by those people. It's very difficult to feel any kinship with groups that are so openly sensationalistic and illiberal. Of course, I suppose that the way that this has all unfolded is not surprising once one considers the cash-deficient university graduates, has-been celebrities, progressive ideologues, and proto-fascist prophets involved.

    7. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moment female developers were targeted ended that conversation with those people.

      Like when agg tried to raise a hatemob to get Jennifer Dawe blacklisted? Well, I don't know if I'd agree, since I don't think those people were interested in a conversation in the first place.

    8. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gamergate was originally about ethics in video game journalism."

      So why did the 'movement' not exist until a complete nobody of an ex-boyfriend posted entirely fictitious and horrific accusations against his ex-girlfriend? Why was there never a mention of such issues before the accusations of her 'whoring around'? Did the issue not exist before those made up allegations?

      https://thezoepost.wordpress.com/

      What's fictitious here?

    9. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by rabtech · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even the mere thought that there might be anything of merit on the GG side is tantamount to a rape threat. It's intolerant and childish.

      No one said that, you made it up.

      Being neutral that people (mostly women) are being repeatedly doxed is definitely a character flaw. Having strangers call your family or coworkers at 3AM and screaming at them is a pretty clear cut case of abuse.

      There is definitely one side to the GG controversy that is intolerant and childish, but it isn't the women game developers.

      Here's a plan: stop being assholes because someone said some words you don't like. When other people, even ones who agree with you behave this way call them out and tell them to stop.

      Maybe then we can have an adult conversation about this stuff.

      The worst part is the fact that games are starting to get actual criticism around them is part of the process of moving to accepted art form. No one doxes movie critics or film schools because they dissect trends in movies. The whole GG movement is retarding the progress of games as a socially accepted form of artistic expression.

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    10. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know very well that your side had people doing exactly what you accuse the other side of doing in terms of harassment. This is not Twitter, and most of us are not going to take everything said against the "other" as pravda. This is not a case of the woman-hating villains the progressive heroes. I doubt that anything in this world is truly so black and white. I'd put most of the blame for how horrible this whole affair was squarely on the Twitter community, which has a long history now of being horrible.

      Now, admittedly, I'm not entirely clear on how the whole thing started, but the scandal that grew up around the woman you alluded to was related to the fact that her partners also happened to be industry insiders and journalists. Negative attitudes toward the gaming press existed in the community long before, so very little pressure was required to trigger everything that followed. I completely agree that the woman was harassed, but that does not actually make the movement as a whole responsible. There's is no clear reason to assume that most or even many of the people involved are misogynistic.

      I suspect that the whole thing would have died without agitators like Breitbart managing to expose some genuinely disturbing behaviours by one Kyle Orland of Ars Technica. I don't think that it actually turned out that he had done anything wrong, but it had the appearance of impropriety. And here we all are, still talking about it months later.

    11. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Quinnspiracy scandal was incredibly minor and would have blown over within a week or so. The only reason it got big was because discussion about it was so heavily censored, all for a VERY minor developer. Fears about the gaming media had existed for a long time prior, but it was only the censorship of the Quinnspiracy that caused it to ignite. If there are allegations that a person is using sex to gain power and coverage and those allegations are immediately and widely censored, what do you think people will say? Certainly not "Oh, I guess we're all just a bunch of misogynist neck-beard basement dwellers after all and there's nothing to see here. Obviously we were wrong!" It was a wake-up call and a rallying cry for people to revolt against an ethically bankrupt media.

      It's been almost a year now, far too long for a simple hate movement.

      Also, do you have any proof that the Zoe Post is made up of forgeries? Have you even read it? It's still online. What I read was commentary backed up with screenshots of conversations. Either the guy was such a nut that he spent ages forging fake Facebook and text conversations or he hit prtsc a few times. Occam's Razor, no?

    12. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out she was bullshitting pretty much everything I fell in love with her for, and is actually an unbelievable jerk. She lied to and manipulated me for months — effortlessly — because it was not believable that someone could be that selfish of a person, that convincing of a liar, and that good of a manipulator, while completely ignoring the very principles she so adamantly espoused. So I dumped her.

      jilt
      verb
      past tense: jilted; past participle: jilted

              suddenly reject or abandon (a lover).

    13. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      It started with an insane screed by a jilted ex-boyfriend

      So what part of the "insane screed" agaisnt Zoe Quinn are you claiming was untrue? And on what evidence?

    14. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by narcc · · Score: 1

      GG has merit? I thought that anyone with something reasonable to say abandoned that moniker a long time ago. The remainder being just a noisy bunch of bottom feeders pretending it's all about ethics in journalism while spending all their time ranting about feminism and harassing women online..

      If you actually think there's a diamond at the bottom of that cesspool, please, pull it out and show us. Then get it as far away from that mess as possible. Leave it in that filth and no one will ever see it.

    15. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Quirkz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't be neutral on GG, honestly.

      I can only speak for myself, but I think a lot of others may fall into the same category. Most everything I know about GG is spillover in slashdot discussions. I know there's accusations of journalistic impropriety, and accusations of misogyny, and a lot of harassment, and a huge heaping pile of arguments. But it's such a mess that I still don't even know what someone means when they say they're "anti-GG" for instance, because I don't know which side of which issue that actually means. And frankly, just based on the generally incoherent and overheated arguments that have spilled over here, I'd rather not investigate further.

      I know I'm against harassment (of all kinds, against all types). I know I'm against unethical journalism. I'm also disinclined to insert myself into situations of histrionic drama where I'm unlikely to be able to make a difference. So I don't really know what sides of what parts of what sub-issues that puts me in relation to GG, and I don't care to find out. So I'm agnostic, or neutral, or maybe willfully ignorant of enough details to be able to say more. It doesn't seem such an unreasonable stance to take.

    16. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't tell that games are now VERY mainstream and have been for at LEAST the last decade, you either need eyes or are really, really, really, really, behind the times.

    17. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what she's saying; that's a gross misrepresentation.

      The fact of the matter is that Gamergate, from its inception, was largely a misogynistic endeavour that wildly eclipsed anything legitimate buried way underneath. It started with an insane screed by a jilted ex-boyfriend and continued on as an excuse for hundreds of people to harass women. It MAY be possible to feel that Gamergate had legitimate points, but there's so much hate swirling around it that it was hard to get down to those points.

      It is undeniable that many women (and some anti-GG men) were doxxed, threatened physically and sexually and were basically forced off the internet all together. You can't be neutral on GG, honestly. Even if you ultimately feel like maybe someone in there had a point about money and corruption in game reviews, the overall context of the whole thing was just awful. There are many reasonable ways to have a conversation about a contentious point, and GG was precisely zero of them.

      Way to be disingenuous.

      So by extension of logic, aren't the opponents of Gamergate man-haters due to so many of their allies being open (and admitted, Wu's close friends included) misandrist?

      I dare you to mince words and dicker with definitions on that one. Dare you. By association, all opposition to Gamergate is misandrist and has anti-male agenda.

      We can do this stupid crap all day.

    18. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're seriously having intense, emotional reactions to what happens to strangers on the internet.... get help. Seriously.

      That's broken. Equating something that proverbially happened to a stranger on the internet (which you can't and haven't confirmed, only taken on faith) is a great sign you're just mentally ill.

    19. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Touche. Your post is a precise example of why we can't have grown up conversations.

      Imagine walking up to someone who just got suckerpunched and saying you're neutral on the whole punching-in-the-face thing.

      That is, frankly a colossaly stupid thing to say and not remotely indicitive of a grown-up. The fact that people liekyou are some how dogpiling on the fake reasonableness is even nuttier.

      No, basically, your position is utterly wildly unreasonable and not remotely grown up.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      Sure, but then don't bring it up in conversation. Easy.

      You don't need to start things off with "I'm neutral on the whole confederate flag thing" when talking to someone from the south, or "I'm neutral on the whole Nazi thing" when talking to a German.

      Now, you don't need to say it especially when dealing with someone who has been directly impacted by 'them'. What kind of reaction will you get from a holocaust survivor when you tell them 'I'm neutral on the whole Nazi thing' as a lead in. You know, lots of Nazi/German soldiers and party members where perfectly decent human beings, not involved in the holocaust or any other atrocities, but I bet you that their response to the question, especially if you asked them less than a year after getting out of a camp is not going to be very neutral.

    21. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you can't just go around targeting females! Gotta focus only on males that behave unethically and after that, move on to some other issue!

    22. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of people (allegedly) doxxed by GamerGate is precisely one - Brianna.
      On the other hand, many people who, seemingly pseudonymously, spoke out in favor of GG found themselves getting fired from their jobs soon after.

    23. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      How about the sex for good reviews bit?

    24. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Being neutral that people (mostly women) are being repeatedly doxed is definitely a character flaw. Having strangers call your family or coworkers at 3AM and screaming at them is a pretty clear cut case of abuse.

      It is true that you should not support people harassing other or doxxing them. That is why the GG side is the evil side. They have done way more doxxing and harassing than the innocent people who just want to play games. In fact, most of the threats against women were perpetrated by the GG side against themselves so they could have ammo in their cause. Wake up to the facts and do some research yourself!

      There is definitely one side to the GG controversy that is intolerant and childish, but it isn't the women game developers.

      I would agree it isn't women game developers that are the problem. It is only the GG gang that seems to be causing all the problems!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    25. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Imazalil · · Score: 0

      Maybe media people don't write stories based on blog rants?

      There is a difference between censoring and ignoring. It's been proven (the best she got from the sexy-time-served journalist is 1st mention in a steam early-access-thing round up) that she got no reviews for sex, so who was right to ignore the story? Some people see censorship, some see ignoring the ramblings of an angry person.

      Even if the gaming media took it up, it would have taken days to actually do some research, interview people, write the story, and put it up, and by that point 'the outrage' had reached a boiling point.

      Why did it take allegations of sex to incite the riot and not the numerous instances of cash and paid-for-reviews?

    26. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 2

      Seriously, right when I read that sentence, I knew that absolutely nothing had changed about her. She still sticks herself in a situation where "if you aren't with me, you're against me" seems like a reasonable attitude. So unproductive, in any meaningful sense.

      I still cannot decide whether this was incompetence or malice on the part of Dice and Wu, but one thing is certain; They will be milking this for as many clicks and attention as they can.
      I was really hoping that the whole explosive controversy could just settle down so more level heads can triumph (along with market forces, which hopefully won't keep rewarding ideology/click baiting over game design/honest journalism forever). But this sort of nonsense will keep dredging up the bottom feeders. Kicking a hornets nest isn't how you avoid a swarm.

    27. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were as whiny as you, I'd punch them again myself.

    28. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Gamergate was originally about ethics in video game journalism.

      Not according to the data.

      http://www.newsweek.com/gamerg...

      "So, is GamerGate really about ethics in journalism? Newsweek asked BrandWatch, a social media analytics company, to dig through the more than 2 million tweets about GamerGate since September 1 discover how often Twitter users tweeted at or about the major players in the debate, and whether those tweets were positive, negative or neutral. BrandWatch sampled 25 percent of tweets—what it considers a reflective amount of data—on the hashtag #GamerGate from Sept. 1 to Oct. 23."

      September 1 to October 23 is right at the beginning of the GamerGate phenomenon. So no, it wasn't "originally about ethics in video game journalism".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the sex for good reviews bit?

      Which is never claimed, I searched the blog for "reviews" and only got

      https://thezoepost.wordpress.com/?s=reviews

      https://thezoepost.wordpress.com/about/

      Games Journalism — no I meant games “journalism” — is basically PR and rife with all sorts of nepotism that no self respecting publication outside of games would allow. Forget that Zoe had sex with someone who covered her game jam fiasco a few days earlier. Romantic relationships with people in the industry would only be avery small part of the problem. The issue is that in general journalists who are close friends or romantic partners with people in the industry they’re covering can be prone to biases — not only because journalists can offer exposure to their friends, but because they can be influenced by those friends to give good reviews to their friends. Or even more toxic, they can be influenced away from covering the games of people who those journalist’s friends don’t like.

    30. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A guy talking about his abusive relationship and warning people about an ex who tried to convince him he was going insane - and cut him off from his female friends because she was paranoid of being cheated on, while cheating on him. is now an "insane screed".

      And this is why I have zero respect for anti-gamergate. You're shaming people for being victims of abusive relationships.

    31. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when the women game developers and their twitter army go around doxxing or scamming people (How's Rebel Game Jam going again? I recall Mike Cernovich fled his home. Plus the whole bomb threat in DC.) Stop pretending they have clean hands.

    32. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gamergate was originally about ethics in video game journalism.

      No, it was not, at any point, other than as a convenient smokescreen for attacks on female developers and progressives.

      "Actually it's about ethics in video game journalism" is mocking phrase for a reason.

    33. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between censoring and ignoring.

      are you sure you know it?
      So what was the deal with that reddit r/gaming 20k+ thread about? You know, the one about TotalBiscuit saying that using the DMCA to take down criticism is not cool because it's not its purpose, regardless of details? Nuked top to bottom with automod. Not a censorship? Didn't the mod actively seek out ZQ beforehand? Hell, even the famous hacker 4chan "ignored" the story and i thought anything goes there.

      Even if the gaming media took it up, it would have taken days to actually do some research, interview people, write the story, and put it up, and by that point 'the outrage' had reached a boiling point.

      yeah, instead they chose the easy way: set up a narrative, coordinated and pretty much plagiarized each other writing that "gamers don't have to be your audience, gamers are dead" tripe. They shit the bed, now they can lie in it.

    34. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Nobody has been pushing that line besides the aGGros. Go ahead and read the whole thing and show me the exact part where he says that. I wont wait too long because its not in there. From the posting, people have put two and two together that she got positive coverage (an Indie game review where her game was prominently featured), but nobody was claiming she did it for good reviews.

    35. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      ...jilted ex-boyfriend

      Zoe, by her own definition, raped Eron. Had the genders been reversed, this would have been a completely different story. Now, we just have SJWs acting as rape apologists.

    36. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      The fact that you just buy into what the media says is a precise example of why we can't have grown up conversations.

    37. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your citation is paywalled. Really?! What the hell man?

    38. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by trawg · · Score: 1

      Thank you for neatly summarising exactly how I feel about Gamergate. I wasn't sure if I was an idiot and was just missing the point, but I felt a staggering amount of the commentary I read on it was /clearly/ trying to take a position - but I could never understand /what/ position!

    39. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Protip: Gamergate started in August, september through october we had a lovely bout of fighting with Ayyteam, GNAA, and SomethingAwful because they decided to troll both sides.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    40. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why there was the DMCA pulldown of Mundane Matt's video, and why a thread with 20k replies in /r/gaming disappeared. Why according to the modleaks logs that several subs were actively banning people who were talking about it, and why GameJournoPros(a clique of writers), went out of their way to spin positive coverage for her, and even lavish her with gifts right?

      The 'games media' didn't want to do anything with it, because it showed their own corruption. Nothing more, nothing less. There are numerous cases at game sites were authors were caught either shilling for people they know without disclosure, or actively screwing/shacked-up with someone in a PR company and spinning stuff in a positive light. It was bad enough at IGN that the guy who was writing about Ubisoft(he was shacked up with their PR person), had all of their articles pulled.

      You can check through http://www.deepfreeze.it/ or the timeline. Fair warning, there is a lot of reading material.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    41. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So what part of the "insane screed" agaisnt Zoe Quinn are you claiming was untrue? And on what evidence?

      There's nothing that's untrue that's the thing. The post written by Eron has screenshots, evidence, proof, that Zoe Quinn was an abusive and lying scumbag. And if the the roles had been revered people would have been cheering for her.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    42. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why /r/kotakuinaction has more page views every month, usually in the 600k-700k range and climbing. That's why they've done numerous things, including funding feminist causes. And that's why developers and even hollywood stars that actually look into agree with it right?

      If you get all your news from one place, you're living in a tasty world of group think. And of course, whenever one of these people come out pro-GG, the first thing that happens is the SJW crowd starts harassing them, and threatening to kill/rape/murder them. Such loving people right?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    43. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I am pretty damned neutral. I am not a gamer though nor do I really give a shit if people get doxxed or the likes. I read just for the amusement. I really do not care who is right or wrong and only finally went and learned the history (oddly, Encyclopedia Dramatica was an interesting source of information) about the whole subject. It matters not one bit to me but I do find the comments amusing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    44. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      My view is that Gamergate attracted a lot of trolls and other idiots, several people were ruthlessly dogpiled, but other people did genuinely see that there was a legitimate point about ethics in journalism and felt that the trolls were just one of those things you get on the internet. Meanwhile, those who support gamergate were also relentlessly attacked and dogpiled, but the attackers seem to get a free pass, even when they send death threats.

      Meanwhile, the politics of the anti-GG lobby appears to have made it into an extreme feminist ideology that has attracted a lot of right wingers to gamergate, even though they have no interest in video games.

      Then you get the complete and utter morons with high profiles like the Ralph Report, who seems to think everything is about gamergate, and Rebecca Watson actually advocating violence and Doxxing.

      So I personally am in favour of video game journalists making it clear when they know the developers they're reporting on, but am against relentless harassment of people for the audacity of disagreeing with you.

      So ultimately I'll say I'm neutral.

    45. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The point is it's irrelevant. Whether Gjoni was the victim here or not, don't take sides in a personal squabble that you have no fucking clue about .

      Whatever the claims about Zoe Quinn's infidelity, it has absolutely nothing to do with ethics in video games journalism. She didn't have sex in exchange for exposure. The journalists wrote bout her games because they were friends with her. Which means that the guilty parties here are the journalists. Not Quinn!

    46. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And the fact that you seem to buy into what a bunch of foul mouthed tinfoil hatters on the internet says is also precisely why we can't have a grown up conversation.

      I'd generally take her word over these guys:

      http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    47. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has a fairly complete, if rather long article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Of course GamerGaters will claim it is all biased because it makes them look bad, but you can do your own research. It's accurate and explains the events factually. The ethics angle is just a cover, and a very clever one at that. It's actually a symbiotic relationship between the misogynists and some useful idiots who do actually care about the ethics side.

      Misogynists: GamerGate isn't about harassment, it's about ethics! Look at all these people who care about ethics using the hashtag!

      Useful idiots: Those misogynists aren't the real GamerGate, we are! We aren't going to make any effort to clean up our "organization" though, it's just a Twitter hashtag after all, and we hate people who suggest there might be something wrong with our games anyway. Not enough to harass them, but enough not to do anything when we see harassment happening.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      The harassment of Quinn was a long running "game" to GamerGate, as evidenced by their own IRC logs that they published themselves: http://archive.today/Ler4O

      The "censorship" you talk about was the deletion of threads on 4chan that were encouraging people to harass her, or contained doxxing and the like. Eventually it go so bad that even 4chan had to ban it. In fact even 8chan does delete some threads about it, because they violate US law.

      As for the Zoe Post, it's worth noting that the author now has a restraining order against him that prevents him posting further such material. Before that blog went up he posted it to a few other places that deleted it, because it was basically impossible to verify and only posted for the sole purpose of harassing Quinn. The ethics in journalism angle is one or two sentences, the rest is just about slandering Quinn. It has zero credibility, and no, a few easily faked or taken out of context screenshots are not "proof". In fact, the specific claims made about ethics in journalism turned out to be demonstrably false.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Linkreincarnate · · Score: 1

      Wait a second here So they comissioned a study where they asked about tweets to a group of people found the vast majority were nuetral and then declared anyway that gamers were about harassment? That's your proof? They never looked for say events or topics that we were discussing. Which seems far more relevant to what gamergate was about. They are even myopic about their own data in that article. "But an analysis by Newsweek found that Twitter users tweeting the hashtag #GamerGate direct negative tweets at critics of the gaming world more than they do at the journalists whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." See how they conveniently ignore that many of the said critics of the gaming world ARE the game journalists being tweeted at. Also lets not miss the most obvious point that is magicked away. That mere tweets to or about someone regardless of tone or content were considered harassment. By that standard everyone on twitter is a harasser and we should just shut it down. That data actually kinda proves that we are not about harassment. Funny huh.

    50. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Linkreincarnate · · Score: 1

      At cries of sour grapes it's good to ask. "but what if the grape ARE sour?"

    51. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Imagine walking up to someone who just got suckerpunched and saying you're neutral on the whole punching-in-the-face thing.

      No, imagine talking to somebody who *claims* to have been punched in the face, and saying 'I'm neutral on this, as I don't have enough evidence.'

      Or is she expecting the 'privilege' of having her word taken at face value simply because she's a woman? See how pernicious that line of thinking is?

      When you take the 'victim's' word at face value, you wind up with this and people even tangentially associated with the accused being fired, harassed and otherwise unfairly treated.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    52. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nathan Grayson was promoting her game while having some sort of relationship with her. He was also covering/promoting games of a developer room mate.

      Patricia Hernandez also covered/promoted the games of one of her room mates. And she used a Zoe Quinn photograph on an article at fake geek girl stickers at some convention.

      This is in addition to all the stupid stuff Kotaku does about spreading rumors about developers or complaining about alleged sexism in Dragon's Crown.

      The second Kotaku did something people could nail them for they did.

      And history is repeating itself with Gawker.

    53. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, do your own research. Go look at the talk page, and the talk page archives. Go find the arbcom rulings, where many of the 'contributors' to the article were penalized for their edits. Go to the rational wiki, and ask ryulong how his accurate and factual edits got him site-banned from wikipedia. Go read anything that Bernstein wrote.
      Wikipedia's GamerGate article isn't worth reading. But it's worth reading about, as it's the epitome of what's wrong with wikipedia.

    54. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is supposed to be a reply to the below comment by Dixie_Flatline. Oops.

    55. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Zoe did not "rape" Gjoni, either really, or according to some definition Zoe believes.

      We know that neither happened, because if the first had happened, Gjoni would have claimed that.

      We know the second didn't happen, because (1) we know Zoe and Gjoni weren't in a relationship of the type Zoe was talking about, and (2) because we know it's almost certain that Gjoni was lying about Zoe "defining rape" as that bullshit in the first place.

      We do know one thing: well, we know one of two possible scenarios is true.

      The first is you're a gullible, and probably misogynist (I'll get to that in a moment, hold your horses), moron. We know this because you've looked at a supposed tell-all from a jilted boyfriend of a depression sufferer, and you've said "Yes, this looks perfectly normal to me. It's completely usual for an angry boyfriend to share his feelings with the entire internet about how a relationship went bad. He's not showing any signs that he's actually a psychopath at all by doing this, knowing (as he himself has admitted) it will result in an angry mob harassing a vulnerable depression sufferer. This man explored the possibility of a relationship with a woman, and that woman had the temerity to not actually want to make that a full relationship (not that Gjoni ever apparently asked) and well that's just not on. She deserves to die. Yes, die. For you have believed every bit of bullshit he's written, including a rather strange tortured logic that implies she's a rapist because logic, and therefore YOU WILL HOUND HER TO DEATH.

      And you believe that bullshit because... well, that's where the misogyny thing comes from. 'cos Gjoni knew what he was doing. Crazy girlfriend, right? Cray. Zee. Women. Can't trust them. Sluts. YOU FELL FOR A FUCKING STEREOTYPE. You stupid, misogynist, fool. Gjoni played you like a fiddle.

      And right now you're not seething at him. You're seething at me. Because what I'm saying can't be true, because... because you've convinced yourself that Gjoni is telling the truth. And if I'm telling the truth, that means you've done something absolutely terrible.

      What's the other possible scenario?

      Well, it's that you're a deeply unpleasant anti-social person who doesn't really give a shit whether Eron's post is true or not. But you are going to hang your hat on it. Did she piss you off by wandering to /r/wizards and expressing her offense at the fact so many there believed that women somehow owed it to men to have sex, and were bitches and whores for not doing so? Or was it that you just didn't like that "SJW" thing and wanted some lulz?

      Or were you just looking for an opportunity to hound someone to suicide?

      Maybe it's #1. I kinda hope for your sake it's the second one. Because, if it is the first, when it hits you what you sided with, what propaganda you promoted, how you tried to hound a woman to death because you thought the wrong person was the psycho in a bad relationship, you're going to fucking hate yourself.

    56. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Brianna Wu who repeatedly and persistently called some guy's work to get him fired for daring to disagree with her on the Internet? How is that any better than what she accuses others of doing to her?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    57. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but I haven't seen much of any GG people harassing. I have seen numerous pieces of evidence of harassment, but never anything that actually said "I am a gamergater and Brianna Wu is a meanyhead". The harassment I have seen her complain about was from a few twitter handles that had nothing to do with GG, but yet they MUST have been GG people.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    58. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Do you even read what you posted?

      1) In all my time around GG, I've never even heard of that site.

      2) That site is against MRA/MGTOW/PUA, and heavily against GamerGate.

      Or did I completely miss something in your first post and you are actually ProGG?

    59. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a flaming moron you are. The guy links to an article describing some people he's pointing out are despicable - not to the front page of a website, but to a specific article about something, and you think he's talking about the website, not the people the article describes.

    60. Re:No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us. by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Yeah, okay, I can buy this as a position. This is a much better explanation of why to be neutral than the comment I responded to.

  14. Re:yeah that's about what I expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She always did insist that Rev 60's writing made up for it's shocking lack of game-play, originality or post 1995 shaders.

    Maybe she had a point.

  15. Feminist vs egalitarian by myrdos2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are you a feminist instead of a egalitarian?

    Brianna: Egalitarianism is about equal rights for all people, but this is assuming that everyone starts in an equal situation, which is not the case.Feminism is advocating equal social, political, legal, and economic rights for women - and we are at a huge deficit with those rights.

    I don't understand this answer; how is advocating for equal rights for women not egalitarian?

    1. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I don't understand this answer; how is advocating for equal rights for women not egalitarian?

      Because she doesn't care about anything but women's rights, nor what rights might be lost by everyone in the process of securing them. Which I totally understand, because she's a woman, and because she's clearly very self-focused. Which I totally understand as well, because most of us are.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is understandable, but the rest of the society should draw the line at equal rights. Otherwise it will be just the same wrong.

    3. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just want to be special snowflakes. That is all. They want exceptional rights for them and "the same" (aka, with respect to now) rights for men.
      They don't actually care about equality.

      Actual feminists care about real issues, like repressive countries slaving out, owning and downright beating and bullying woman.
      These "feminists" only care about girls not doing what THEY want them to do.

      There is no gender issue outside of a small number of actual sexist cases.
      People hire based on portfolio, references and qualifications, in that order. They couldn't give less a shit about your sex.
      Ageism is more of an issue than sexism in most industries.
      These people just do not want to admit that most gender-related issues relating to choice are in fact simply that, CHOICE.
      You can go interview any school, no matter where it is, any school, and see this.

      I dunno, I think the beauty industry are pretty fucking sexist to me since I can't get hired unless I am gay or a supermodel.
      What's the deal with that, eh Wu? Where is your answer to that one?
      There are about a hundred other industries just like it that straight up do selectively pick male people for their job roles.
      I was in hospital and met a male nurse and was asking him how he got on with his job, and he was fine with it. In fact, several nurses I've noticed over the years are male. One of them was even interested in games as well, managed to find an old working Spectrum as well.

      You people make up so many fake issues as much as Tumblr makes up fake sexes and genders every other week.
      STOP IT ALREADY.

    4. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by preaction · · Score: 1

      If infinite money exists, but right now I have $50 and you have $30, egalitarianism says you should get $20 more.

      Infinite money does not exist. So if I have $50, and you have $30, I would have to give you $10. Which isn't equal for me, because you get $10, and I lose $10. I lose. Why should I have to lose?

      Of course, civil rights aren't money. Which is why the idea of egalitarianism seems sound. But when the exercise of equality influences the course of zero-sum decisions (like money decisions), the idea of egalitarianism doesn't work. Whoever already has more wins.

    5. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, it is understandable, but the rest of the society should draw the line at equal rights. Otherwise it will be just the same wrong.

      While I agree, I think it's highly unlikely to swing that far. It will be the same kind of wrong, but less of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that feminists want gain more civil rights while removing some of men's civil rights? What civil rights do men have that women don't?

    7. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't understand this answer; how is advocating for equal rights for women not egalitarian?

      The goal isn't to gain equal rights, but to advance women's rights. There's always been inequality in the past, so it needs to favor women now to make up for the past injustices. Simply helping everyone who is underprivileged equally, without regard to status, won't advance women's rights.

      Check your privilege!

    8. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      she says she's not an egalitarian because she's only interesting in advocating rights for females.
      Why? Because they start out with less rights than men (in her view).
      Personally i believe she just doesn't like the word egalitarian and wants to identify as a feminist without realizing it's the same thing logically.

    9. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by phizi0n · · Score: 1

      If infinite money exists, but right now I have $50 and you have $30, egalitarianism says you should get $20 more.

      Infinite money does not exist. So if I have $50, and you have $30, I would have to give you $10. Which isn't equal for me, because you get $10, and I lose $10. I lose. Why should I have to lose?

      Of course, civil rights aren't money. Which is why the idea of egalitarianism seems sound. But when the exercise of equality influences the course of zero-sum decisions (like money decisions), the idea of egalitarianism doesn't work. Whoever already has more wins.

      Last time I checked, infinite money has existed ever since we stopped backing it with finite resources (gold, silver, etc.). Now we have governments printing as much as they like and banks that are "too big to fail" that are allowed to gamble with our 1's and 0's however they choose all the while knowing that there will be no repercussions for failure.

    10. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they feel some people are more equal than others.

    11. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      While it's impractical to build a system of government that redistributes wealth constantly so that everyone has the same amount, there is something to be said for creating a system that ensures everyone, no matter how rich or poor, the same quality of education, medical care, and other opportunities in early life so that they can become the best person that they possibly can. There comes a certain point where a person has to become responsible for their own self and situation in life, but it's a lot more difficult to blame someone for being a homeless drug addict when they grew up in a broken home and what little education they received was in a defective school system.

      Give everyone a good opportunity to be successful, and even though many will fall short, society will likely be better off collectively. When you look at the amount of money that it takes to imprison one individual per year or deal with the other societal consequences (burglary, etc.) that must be handled, it seems a lot more worthwhile to invest in solving those issues before they become expensive problems, especially when you consider the potential value that everyone committing crime and floating through life in some kind of drug induced haze could be adding to society instead.

      Some people are going to do better in life than others. That can't be helped and trying to stop it is even worse. However, what can be done is to ensure that everyone has a reasonably good chance to make something of themselves. While it's still possible to go from rags to riches in the U.S., it's certainly the exception and we could be doing a lot better as a society to move towards that point.

    12. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      The idea is that because classification X didn't have certain rights for as long as classification Y did, classification X deserves additional compensation to make up for it.

      The classic example is 'two people are in a 100 meter race. One is wearing running shoes, one is wearing iron balls and shackles. At the 50 meter point, you allow the second person to take off the iron balls and shackles. Are they now 'equal?'

      I honestly don't know where I fall on that question.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    13. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What civil rights do men have that women don't?

      They have peepees.

    14. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bla bla bla.
      If slashdot wasn't a broken mess that doesn't allow me to post from my account even though I'm logged in I would post this from my actual account, but whatever.
      Such a system cannot exist in the real world.
      You would have to make it illegal for people to send their kids to private school.
      Every school would have to teach exactly the same.
      How else are you going to make sure everyone has the exact same education?
      Obviously, parents with money are going to spend that money to give their kids better chances.
      Whether by private school, extra tutoring, homeschooling, or what have you.
      Can we do better? Sure we can. But this idyllic world where everyone is absolutely equal is some kind of communist pipe dream.

    15. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Because she's using confusing terminology. She wants everybody to have equal opportunities, and in fact men tend to have more and better opportunities than women in this culture. It's tremendously better than it was when I was young, but there's still problems. As far as I can tell, the legal rights are pretty well even, and the remaining problems are social rather than legal. Conservative religions, for example, tend to treat women worse than they treat men.

      So, I'm going to say that I agree with her partly, but that I think she's not expressing herself well.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you a feminist instead of a egalitarian?

      Brianna: Egalitarianism is about equal rights for all people, but this is assuming that everyone starts in an equal situation, which is not the case.Feminism is advocating equal social, political, legal, and economic rights for women - and we are at a huge deficit with those rights.

      I don't understand this answer; how is advocating for equal rights for women not egalitarian?

      Are you and the people who modded you up fucking morons????

    17. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      because she doesn't care a shitsnack what obtaining her endgame costs in actual gender equality. Her endgame being, frankly, more equality if your genitals are on the inside and fuck you if your ovaries are on the outside.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    18. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      the right to die in another man's desert.

      You bitches want equal rights? Start by lobbying the army for front line, grunt work. When you get that, we'll talk.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    19. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Obviously you can't get it exactly the same unless it were a system where everyone learned via video tutorials prepared in advance. Anyone who's been through any amount of schooling had some teachers that were really great and some that were plain shit.

      100% perfect isn't going to exist and realistically if you get to 95% it's likely good enough because the remaining 5% is so expensive that it's no longer feasible to try as there's something else that the money could be better spent on.

      The Finnish school system is regularly lauded as one of the best and it's done away with much of the pointless crap that the U.S. system indulges, such as constant standardized testing. Obviously it's not as simple as adopting their system exactly as it is without accounting for cultural, geographical, or other differences that might cause issues or skew the results in their favor, but what we're doing now isn't working.

      Also, I realize that not everyone is equal and that you can't realistically give everyone an equal start. As you point out, some parents will devote more resources to their children's success than others. The government can't practically enforce mommy and daddy reading a set amount of time to their children every night nor can it control for individuals who have been more successful passing that on to their children, either genetically or in terms of physical assets.

      My argument is that it's better to spend the extra money on improving education and the situations of the least fortunate that it is to jail them or deal with the consequences of having an underclass. A few people can still rise from that, and to some degree that'a s great part of the U.S., but most will just be a net drain on society when there's an opportunity for them to be valuable contributors. Just because it's impossible to get everyone to be a net positive, doesn't mean that there isn't a point along the cost-benefit scale where investing more into education and the poor doesn't yield a better outcome for the country as a whole.

    20. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If infinite money exists, but right now I have $50 and you have $30, egalitarianism says you should get $20 more.

      Infinite money does not exist. So if I have $50, and you have $30, I would have to give you $10.

      Fortunately, there is not some finite supply of rights and respect. If I respect you, it doesn't cost you any of that respect in order for you to respect me. In fact, when we respect each other, we are adding to the overall supply of respect without taking anything away from anyone.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      There's a stable solution for that: help everyone who is disadvantaged, regardless of what they were born as. This will fix the bias over time without creating new victims.

      Somehow it never gets put forth as an option, because enough people are more interested in their self-interest than in equality for everyone.

    22. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by preaction · · Score: 1

      You stopped reading. Rights and respect can be used to make decisions about who gets money and who does not. And then it becomes a zero-sum game: My win is your loss.

    23. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A relay race would be more appropriate, as those at a disadvantage in the past are not the ones being compensated today.

    24. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by preaction · · Score: 1

      As I said: Rights are not money. Rights are not zero-sum. My gain in rights is not your loss of rights.

      But, my gain in rights can mean that I gain more of a limited resource (rank hath its privileges). As I gain more of a limited resource, I can use my gains to get even more, or to ensure that only the people I want get more.

      And that's where we are right now, still, even as those institutions have been slowly eroding away (the world has become generally more egalitarian as time goes on), but mostly for white, land-owning males (though the "land-owning" part has been relaxed).

      Now, women want the same thing, and that's called feminism.

    25. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by preaction · · Score: 1

      Economies work on scarcity, indeed without scarcity there is no need for economics. "Money" is a metaphor, and as you point out, has been for quite some time.

    26. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by preaction · · Score: 1

      It's also a lot less expensive to treat drug addicts than it is to imprison them. And to treat mentally-ill people (but we got rid of our federal mental health system and use prisons instead). And it's even cheaper to house the homeless than it is to let them sleep on the streets (or imprison them).

    27. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by KGIII · · Score: 1

      How about, "It's not a race?"

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      For example, only women can get pregnant. Therefore they need extra protections and rights that men do not. In a purely egalitarian world they would be treated equally, so pregnancy would be like a man demanding special treatment and extended time off for some elective medical procedure.

      There is also the argument that even though men and women have the same rights, that doesn't result in them being equal. For example, women tend to be paid less for equal work. I know some MRAs will argue that this isn't the case, but most feminists think it is so the argument they make is that as well as having the right to equal pay there needs to be an actual effort to ensure it really happens. Companies often obfuscate their pay structure to avoid both men and women directly comparing their pay to others within the organization, so it can be difficult.

      Unfortunately she didn't phrase it very well, or explain it, but that's unfortunately a tendency of many feminists who are used to talking to other feminists who already understand all this stuff. Their comments often need some additional context.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Calling advocation of equal rights "feminism" is absolutely unacceptable to me. Either you end up looking advocating woman supremacy instead which is equally bad since 50% of humanity is still shafted. Or you're using chauvinist terminology which assumes that equal rights benefit women because they're inherently inferior.

      Mind you it IS more than possible for a woman to be chauvinist, because lack of rights is always complemented by lack of responsibilities and some of them would prefer it to stay so.

    30. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Continued use of "us vs them" frames will just lead to moving goalposts, no matter how much Change happens.

    31. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a woman, not a female. (*cough*, *cough*)

    32. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were to create more currency to increase women's pay rates to match men's, you would create inflation. The end result would be roughly the same as the non-infinite money example. Sure, you would both have $50, but you would only have $40 worth of purchasing power as compared to the original $50.

      -Rick

    33. Re:Feminist vs egalitarian by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      In some cases, the rights issues already favor women. Ever gotten divorced? When was the last time you heard about paternity leave? Did you know that if your wife beats the shit out of you, and you never lift a hand, you are the one who goes to jail? Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove you were raped as a man? Any idea how hard it is to prove innocence if a woman accuses you of (even as little as) saying something she didn't like? How about pregnancy, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to get an abortion, but a guy who doesn't want the kid still has to pay for it even if they said they wanted nothing to do with it. There have even been cases where sperm donors had to pay child support, even though they had nothing to do with the woman.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  16. Non-answers abound by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Q: "I'm interested in what development languages you excel in and how you mastered them"

    A: "My track record of success speaks for itself."

    Hmmm...

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    1. Re:Non-answers abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

      Original Question: "Prove to us that you are a real developer, we don't believe you."
      Wu: "No. And fuck you for asking."
      You: "SHE DIDN'T PROVE IT"

    2. Re:Non-answers abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well she didn't. She goes around calling herself "Head Developer" and "Software Engineer" when Revolution 60 looks like something completely made within the tools of Unreal Engine and not even doing a good job of that when it looks and plays far worse than the original Unreal. I think it's reasonable to ask about how much involvement she had in the extensive software development that she claims was necessary to make the game.

    3. Re:Non-answers abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Original Question: "Prove to us that you are a real developer, we don't believe you." Wu: "No. And fuck you for asking." You: "SHE DIDN'T PROVE IT"

      Read the actual question, retard - the question and answer were verbatim quoted from the interview. She was asked "I'm interested in what development languages you excel in and how you mastered them" and she answered "My track record of success speaks for itself." GP didn't paraphrase her answer, he quoted both question and answer.

    4. Re:Non-answers abound by narcc · · Score: 1

      A rather selective quote.

      Did you know that you can quote someone exactly and make it look like they've said something completely different?

    5. Re:Non-answers abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She made it pretty fucking clear that she is not and never was a programmer. "Developer" is a vacuous generality.

      I've had many jobs over the course of my life. I've worked in politics and well as media. Both have been very helpful backgrounds for me in running a studio, which is a very political job. One of my greatest frustrations as a developer is that I don't get to spend as much time doing gamedev as I used to. The truth is, I can hire another engineer - but I can't hire someone to replace me.

      She hires engineers. She is a figurehead.

    6. Re:Non-answers abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wouldn't you want your code "torn to pieces"? If your code is bad, wouldn't you want someone to tell you?

      Also, "cout" and "endl" is "pseudocode, written to be readable for non-developers"?

  17. Feminism 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "First of all, if you are “neutral” on the horrific abuse many women have suffered at the hands of Gamergate, you are a part of the problem"

    If you don't agree with everything we say then you're the problem and have issues. Modern feminism is such a fucking tragedy. How could such a once noble forward thinking movement be so co-opted by so many fucking mentalists

    1. Re:Feminism 101 by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I have a hobby of spending time observing the courts. I have not been to every court but I have been to many. I have yet to see any feminist's equality group advocating for equal penalties in domestic violence (or any criminal conduct) cases. I have yet to see them protesting for the right to be drafted either though I recall someone mentioning that she felt they should be subjected to the same rules. She, too, was a Marine (we called 'em Lady Marines) so she may be a bit different or outright insane. She was actually an MCT trainer, I would not like to be subjected to her abuse as a domestic partner or otherwise. In the real world she had been an Olympic "second" (she did not compete) for the U.S. Ladies Judo Team. She was the MCT at Quantico, she taught Occifers how to do battle and stuff and wasn't afeared of nuttin' nohow.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  18. Okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Learned a bit more about Brianna today, cool (I guess).

    Unfortunately, her logic:
    (Neutral in the Gamergate argument) == (You Support Rape and Death Threats etc..)

    Doesn't sit well for my respect of her and became a bit of a stigma.

    1. Re:Okay. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, that isn't her logic. She said that you had a character defect if you are neutral on rape and death threats, which is true. There was a lot of stuff going on in GG, and some of it was bad in a moral sense. It's very possible to be neutral about a conflict and deplore some of the stuff actually done.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Okay. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Learned a bit more about Brianna today, cool (I guess).

      Unfortunately, her logic:
      (Neutral in the Gamergate argument) == (You Support Rape and Death Threats etc..)

      Doesn't sit well for my respect of her and became a bit of a stigma.

      There is nothing an extremist hates more than a moderate.

  19. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Seconded.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  20. Re:Did you just say you're against equal rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see you didn't get the memo.

    Feminism WAS about equal rights, then when they got them they realized some things actually require hard work and talent. Thus feminism is now about equal outcome, regardless of merit or ability.

  21. I don't see my post... by fbk_jlenoc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember when Brianna Wu did this: http://i.imgur.com/zlEkMPQ.png She's only known because of GamerGate, despite what she says.

    1. Re:I don't see my post... by fbk_jlenoc · · Score: 1

      I see the post now. This woman's lies and deceit needs to be exposed. I like the question where she demonizes all Gamergaters and calls them harassers etc. Classy. She's knows this isn't the case, but if she wants to continue the victim narrative so people pay attention to her and her game, she needs to do this.

    2. Re:I don't see my post... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Remember when Brianna Wu did this:

      http://i.imgur.com/zlEkMPQ.png

      She's only known because of GamerGate, despite what she says.

      She's still doing it:

      https://archive.is/RHWfR

      At least she knows what she's doing. She makes over $3000 a month trolling people on twitter then crying when people point out that she's an idiot.

  22. Re:Did you just say you're against equal rights? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't make sense of that sentence. If it assumes everyone starts in an equal situation, then equal rights are already obtained.

  23. Well, that's a wrap folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I quit my job when I married my husband, and followed him to Boston. I was trying to figure out what to do with my life. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to pursue a graduate degree or start my own company.

    Ms. Wu, right there you already have vastly more privilege than many trans women I know and a lot of guys I know, too. How dare you speak of privilege? How dare you take these things for granted?

    I do hope you gender lunatics one day learn how to think critically. How many trans women are unable to get bottom surgery? How many trans women are uncertain how they'll afford their next prescription refill? How many trans women are unable to work as their mental gender? Switching gears, how many men are out of work and about to lose their homes? How many men with degrees are homeless or working 2 shit service jobs 80 hours a week with no hope to even save more than $500 before the next disaster saps their savings entirely?

    Do you even know one single thing about privilege? No, it appears that you've never had those problems. You would never understand what it's like to have nothing in the world and to lose even what you have when you come out. You have the privilege of being unaware of your privilege!

    How many trans women get married and rely on a man for income? Hell, how many people who aren't cisgendered women get those advantages and privileges?

    You've made your choices, Ms. Wu, as have a good number of gender lunatics. I will never understand your worldviews. I will never understand why you rely on men to provide for you and then ask for pity under the delusion that somebody's denied you some ephemeral privilege instead of following the way of the Amazon feminist/woman.

    "It is a man's world, not because it should be, but because we let them have it. The man's world is based on a woman's weakness. The Amazon world is based on truth and a woman's individual strength."

    Fare thee well, Slashdot. I'm afraid it's time to uncomment your line in my hosts file one final time. If anybody wants to debate me on these points, look me up over on Soylent.

    -- kurenai.tsubasa

    Captcha: discord

    1. Re:Well, that's a wrap folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the bit where her parents bunged her $200,000 to start a business....

    2. Re:Well, that's a wrap folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's the bit that says "So, I can’t talk specifically about all of our funding."

      Then there is also "A family relative offered us the chance to live in Frank’s grandmother’s house for free if we renovated it.", which translates to "We mooched off of relatives and they let us stay at the inlaw house if we agreed to clean it."

      Seriously, everybody should read this and check all of the linked content too. These are moments when Wu exposes herself as a perpetual victim who needs constant funding, not to put toward a game, but to fight her internet trolls.

      I have spoken about Wu and her views with both my girlfriend and my sister and they say Wu doesn't have a place to speak about women's rights. Being a trans-woman, especially being a recent convert at that, does not entitle Wu to speak for women. They also agree with my assessment that Wu is just playing a victim for attention and money.

      Wu is a scammer.

    3. Re:Well, that's a wrap folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus. I have given my parents more money than they ever spent on me by the time I was her age. Talk about privilege.

    4. Re:Well, that's a wrap folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post contains a faulty assumption that all trans women want to have "bottom surgery."

    5. Re:Well, that's a wrap folks by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      I quit my job when I married my husband, and followed him to Boston. I was trying to figure out what to do with my life. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to pursue a graduate degree or start my own company.

      Ms. Wu, right there you already have vastly more privilege than many trans women I know and a lot of guys I know, too. How dare you speak of privilege? How dare you take these things for granted?

      Sadly, that is one of my questions for her (or at least, reasonably close) which one of Wu's supporters troll rated into oblivion after most of the discussion ended.

      Wu and her ilk will NEVER accept class privilege as being real, or at least give it the weight it deserves -- Because the vast majority of these Social Justice Warrior trolls like Wu are coming from extremely entitled backgrounds and have no freaking clue about the realities of what they're spouting off.

      She got $200k to start -- and run into the ground -- an Animation studio by her "millionaire entrepreneurs" parents. But she wants you to believe her experiences dealing with evil "cis privilege" or whatever made up identity politics bullshit she's spouting this week is far more important.

      Unhinged fools who need to get off of Twitter and Tumblr once in a while, the lot of them.

  24. Oh Boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Online harassment happens both more frequently to men and more severely. Presenting this as a woman's problem and addressing only women victims is not just dishonest but grossly sexist. But she admits she is a feminist, not egalitarian, so she is not after equal anything, just more and just for women.

  25. That's great. Can we cover real game news now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's great. So glad we gave "Ms." Wu a platform to spout his bullshit.

    Can we start posting real gaming news now? Like the new Linux and OS X release for KOTOR 2? Or the Star Citizen updates? Terraria? E3 2015? Anything that isn't SJW nonsense?

    1. Re:That's great. Can we cover real game news now? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      last news I heard related to Star Citizen is that there's some type of petty fight between the developers and Derek smart, and E3 was about a month ago

    2. Re: That's great. Can we cover real game news now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E3 being over a month ago is my entire point. Biggest gaming news of the year, and Slashdot doesn't cover it. The latest stuff with Star Citizen involves Chris Roberts defending the progress and scope of the game.

      But while actual major gaming news isn't covered, we get bullshit like this "interview" of softball questions with someone who's never done any real dev work and is only "famous" for whining about being trolled.

      There's real gaming news that Slashdot could be covering, but this isn't it.

  26. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    as opposed to being a stalker, like yourself. i haven't been to that cesspool kuro5hin in a decade. but it's nice to know there's a creepy socially inept douchebag out there keeping tabs on me

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  27. she's just another man hater. by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This line shows it all for me:

    "The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own."

    Why is she making this a gender-specific issue?
    Does anyone else see the inherent sexism and wrongness of her thinking here?

    Unfortunately this is just another perfect example of a massive problem in society now from many women and most PeeCee media outlets blatantly promoting the idea that a politically correct society just automatically understands that a women's life and rights are somehow intrinsically more valuable/important than a man's, so women should get extra special protection just because vagina.

    1. Re:she's just another man hater. by Grog6 · · Score: 0

      Wu doesn't even have that; She's a Man, baby!

      wtf has /. become?

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    2. Re:she's just another man hater. by narcc · · Score: 1

      There are a number of ways to interpret the "if you're a woman" clause.

        You found the one way to interpret it that fits your preconceptions, and lets you attack someone who thinks differently than you do about various social issues.

      Attacking her personally and whatever imaginary beliefs you've attributed to her isn't going to convince anyone to see your side of the issues. Why? Because you're clearly avoiding the real issues. I can only assume it's because you have nothing to say. Is it because you don't think there's a problem because you're not personally affected? Do you know there's a problem, but benefit from the status quo and want to maintain it?

      Is it denial? Puerile self-interest? Delusion? Vengeance? What motivates you here? Why not just address the issues directly? Why bother with personal attacks? Why beat the stuffing out of those strawmen? Why imagine shadowing PC Media villains out to ... do some unknown nefarious deed? What is it?

    3. Re:she's just another man hater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that she has made a business out of responding to trolls.

    4. Re:she's just another man hater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because you're clearly avoiding the real issues. "

      You can't address the REAL ISSUE, because there aren't any real issues. Just made up ones. So all that is left is it attack the statements.

      ""The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own."

      The point that the OP made is that why include "if you are a woman" at all? If you were a man, would the statement be any different? No, it wouldn't. If you are a woman OR a man and someone threatens you, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own. It makes no difference if you are a man or a woman.

      Why do you try to deflect people who are asking relevant questions about the responses? What is your motivation? Puerile self-interest?

    5. Re:she's just another man hater. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd think a woman would be more likely to get help, in much the same sense that I'm more likely to win the lottery if I buy five tickets rather than just one. It may well be that women are more likely to get hateful and violent threats, and so it may be more of a problem for them, but Wu's statement would be just as true if she dropped the "if you are a woman" phrase.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:she's just another man hater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have noticed thinly veiled name-calling and a prevalence of loaded questions are a mark of an undeveloped mind that does not understand nor use reason. Instead they choose large levels of passive-aggression, thus the battering questioning, and cult levels of group worship over any sane pursuit. It is akin to Klan members when they try to pretend to be decent human-beings to get something they want.

    7. Re:she's just another man hater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, how do you interpret "if you're a woman"? It seems to me that she is claiming women are especially likely to be "on their own" when they're threatened online. Which is bullshit. Nobody cares about online threats, regardless of gender.

    8. Re:she's just another man hater. by brgj · · Score: 1

      What do you lose by using someone's preferred pronouns? I don't like her either, but being petty and immature about pronouns makes you look stupid.

    9. Re:she's just another man hater. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It looks like a pretty good job if you can get it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:she's just another man hater. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own."

      Why is she making this a gender-specific issue?

      She didn't, you did.

      She didn't say anything about how men are treated if they are threatened online, you just assumed she did. Was was simply speaking about the experiences of the mostly female victims of GamerGate, nothing more.

      Part of the problem for people like Wu are that people just assume they must hate men (despite the fact that she is married to one, and has men working for her etc.) and read that into everything she says.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:she's just another man hater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I only deal with facts. What one prefers is irrelevant when it goes against those facts.

    12. Re:she's just another man hater. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      You've also got 5 tickets. Its just that someone else with 5 tickets is telling you that you only have 1 ticket and you're allowing yourself to believe them.

    13. Re:she's just another man hater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are REALLY stretching on this one. Some of your other posts had better logic.

    14. Re:she's just another man hater. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nobody told me that; it was my own evaluation. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the police aren't more likely to help me against internet death threats because I've got a penis. Wu's statement did suggest that the police were more likely to help me, since she said "If you are a woman", and I don't think that's true.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:she's just another man hater. by brgj · · Score: 1

      The "facts" are that they have a choice in their gender identity and to not respect that in any conversation not pertinent to her sex is bigotry. You could say that a trans person was previously a man, or that they have a y chromosome making them technically male, but still, unless you are discussing medical or biological differences there is no reason to double down on something so pointless. She is a man legally to the same extent as someone's name is legally changed after a legal name change. What is the point of refusing to acknowledge one of these when (I assume) you wouldn't contest the other?

    16. Re:she's just another man hater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "facts" are that they have a choice in their gender identity and to not respect that in any conversation not pertinent to her sex is bigotry.

      An opinion. Do you know what a "fact" is?

    17. Re:she's just another man hater. by brgj · · Score: 1

      I do actually, and someone still has the choice to identify as any gender they please whether you like it or not. It is a fact that they can decide their gender identity just like it is a fact that you can choose to be frightened of the trannys gettin' rights n' junk.

    18. Re:she's just another man hater. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I completely agree.
      Actually yours is a better summary of exactly the point I was trying to make.

  28. Start the adult conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Educate us. What rights, in practice, do men as a gender have that women as a gender do not? If you are a woman, what rights have you been personally denied specifically because of gender? Let's start this conversation. Don't turn to negative rhetoric and non answers. "Research it yourself" is a non answer in this context.

    Whenever I speak to women about these issues I get responses similar to this one in this story. No one, including women, who have actually done any research takes this narrative seriously. Use this opportunity to explain to us, like an adult, how we got it wrong.

    1. Re:Start the adult conversation by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I would love to have this conversation, but everywhere I try either bans me for asking or gives the "educate yourself!" cop-out answer.

      So, the topic is social, political, legal, and economic rights.

      Now, a quick google search gives this as the definition of social rights:

      "Social rights include at least the right to education and the right to found and maintain a family but also many of the rights often regarded as civil’ rights: for example, the rights to recreation, health care, privacy and freedom from discrimination."

      As far as I can tell, woman (In the United States) have all of these rights. They can go to public schools, have a family, get a job, have health care and it is illegal to discriminate against them in any of these areas.

      Political rights:

      "Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations and private individuals, and which ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression."

      Again, seems like woman have all of these rights. You could argue that private individuals can discriminate as they are entitled to their own opinion, but in this definition their freedom is not being restricted by that.

      Legal rights:

      "Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system."

      I can't think of any laws that discriminate against woman. In fact, if anything I believe I could make an argument that the law favors woman, but that isn't the topic at hand.

      Economic rights:

      "Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to health and the right to science and culture."

      Can't think of anything discriminatory here either. Everyone in the United States has the right to education and housing. Adequate standards of living is debatable but doesn't discriminate.

      What am I missing here? Are we using different definitions?

    2. Re:Start the adult conversation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I think your definition of right and Wu's aren't the same, and I generally agree with you.

      There are real sexism problems out there, but in the US they have nothing to do with rights. Women have all the political rights of men, but the top levels of government are male-dominated. Women and men have the same rights to health care (pretty dismal, in this country), but as far as I can tell women's health issues tend to be taken less seriously than men's in several ways.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Start the adult conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because like all feminists, they can't make up they don't discern rights and privileges. Then they complain their rights are being violated, because they don't have the same privileges as men (hint: because they didn't earn them).

      From her own mouth:

      There is an unconscious bias that men are assumed competent until proven otherwise, and women are assumed incompetent until proven otherwise.

      She believes men have automatic privilege, and somehow women should get this too. Now every man knows, that they are dirt when they start a new job or career until they work their ass off proving themselves, something precious few women in any field are prepared to do. Instead every slacker feminist wants to be treated automatically like the hardest working men, just because they have a vagina.

      As far as women's health issues: A) that ought to be a thing between a person and their doctor. B) Bullshit, "Breast cancer awareness" is one of the worlds biggest charities even though *everyone* is already aware of breast cancer.

    4. Re:Start the adult conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having laws against discrimination, is totally not the same as there being no discrimination. The statement "There is an unconscious bias that men are assumed competent until proven otherwise, and women are assumed incompetent until proven otherwise." is shamefully true.

    5. Re:Start the adult conversation by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, we have at least 2 presidential candidates that are female, perhaps there is an issue where not many women want to make the sacrifices needed for positions like this?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Start the adult conversation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I think that things are getting better, but I don't think they're all the way there yet. A few more decades and I think women will have caught up politically. We've made tremendous advances in sexual equality in my lifetime, but we're not quite there yet.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:Start the adult conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The barriers are not organisational barriers but society, not hard ones 'you may not code' but soft 'why are you coding? you are a girl'.

      Of course, this makes it hard to prove. Hard to even prove the effect is there, and how much. And this hard to prove thing is even more pronounced if you think about how a societies value of things tends to shift over time. The system you grow up in, will not be the system of your children. So some research will be out of date.

      A cynic might even remark that it is hard to even prove when the problem is solved. A cynical hacker might even remark that this social shaming/pressure system can be used for fun and profit. *Set up patreon account* *mention problem* *accuse people asking you for proof as trolls/sealions* *use other shady things* *get cash* (I'm not saying this, it is just what people are blaming others of (Including reporters who get paid to write this (I think you can see a blame game developing here. It could just as well be *Be journalist* *blame others of system above* *get cash*)).

  29. Given she asked Twitter to dogpile the thread... by edgedmurasame · · Score: 0

    I am not surprised that this thread went full SJW. They wouldn't have asked without the explicit assurance that softball non-answers would be published.

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  30. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree, the amount of sexism from the interview was amazing. Wu really should clean up that attitude, it hurts her cause far more than helps.

    Oh...you meant the comments asking valid questions about Wu's harassment and doxing of others and the questions of what sex Wu was born, as that relates pretty heavily on her positions. Sorry, continue on.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  31. Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some more by LaurenCates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ms. Wu, you don't know me, but I'm a woman in tech.

    I admit that I have been harassed in my career. Sexually, by men. But by women also, where the weapon of choice was rumor and innuendo.

    So you see, men and women are equal, in that they are perfectly capable of cruelty towards others.

    All that having been said, you will not, during the course of a normal workday, ever hear me talk about being a woman.

    Know why?

    Because my job is not dependent upon being a woman. It depends upon me being able to do my job, and last I checked, being able to communicate, use a computer, or design a test does not automatically somehow reject me from the process of doing my job or make it harder.

    Yes, there is sexism, I will not deny this, but it isn't pervasive, it isn't everywhere, and you'll never find me pointing at shadows demanding everyone within the sound of my voice do something about some formless terror that in the course of damn near a year hasn't become as corporeal as, say, Ferguson, or Charleston, or the Bill Cosby controversy.

    Because it doesn't help anyone.

    YOU are the one creating a hostile environment by stirring up this imagined "terror" of Gamergate, and demanding this wild snipe hunt be enacted to purge no one in particular, and scare everyone to varying degrees.

    YOU are the one saying that the environment hates women so much that you need to create a "safe space" for women around you to the exclusion of men, and yet somehow find yourself "qualified" to decry sexism.

    YOU are the one reacting defensively to questions by even the most neutral of submitters.

    People actually like me because I'm not all about gender politics, at least not until women like YOU show up and demand to be taken seriously and I have to tread carefully, so people don't think I want to be part of your crusade...because, fuck, I just want to do my job and get along with my coworkers.

    So, here's a proposition for you: if you want it to stop being about sexism, how about you stop talking about sexism?

    If you want people to take you seriously, don't sidetrack the discussion into other subjects.

    If you want people not to question your credibility, avoid questions about the things you don't want to talk about and answer questions about the things you do, and DO NOT WAVER. Give people the impression that the only subjects you'll entertain are the ones that make you credible in the field. Make sure they know you don't have time for the bullshit that ISN'T about game development.

    That is how I am successful, Ms. Wu, and Slashdot. That is how many women I know, peers and mentors, have been successful. Not by being a woman first and a developer/engineer/career whatever second.

    I'll not be cynical for the moment and ask you to emulate those women. Not the ones whose valuable time is spent glossing over the few individuals who have wronged you because I guarantee, there weren't that many.

    I hope you take this advice, Ms. Wu, because I think that's what a good feminist would do.

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  32. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a shame she didn't address a single one of the posts (with evidence) that she is making threats and insults against herself. Some posts were vitriolic, sure, but those were pretty straightforward. Or were those "low iq" too?

  33. What a great satire by Zelucifer · · Score: 1

    Will the real Brianna Wu ever show up and actually answer questions? I did thoroughly enjoy reading these obviously fake, asinine question/answer pairs though, so thanks for the laugh!

    --
    The corner of a round room
  34. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you were such a notably aggressive asshole that I recognize your name. "Stalker" lol, I take that back. You and Wu should get along just fine, you're both sociopaths that have figured out how to exploit social justice.

  35. Re:Given she asked Twitter to dogpile the thread.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And "she"'s doing it again so don't be surprised to see this thread go all SJW-nonsense too.

  36. Older Apple Devices by khr · · Score: 2

    ..to run on older Apple devices. You start out with 512 megs of RAM...

    Yikes... Must be an age difference... When I think of "older Apple devices" I'm thinking of like 64 KB... And I know people with older ones still...

  37. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> obviously, the tech world has a problem with sexism.

    Sorry but its very not obvious to me.
    I've worked as a software developer for 35 years, for many different employers in several different fields and countries, and haven't yet seen anything other than environments that encourage women developers, treat and pay them equally, and mostly actually cut them more slack than the guys get.
    The girls were obviously getting an easier time than guys during my CS degree at university too.

  38. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as opposed to being a stalker, like yourself. i haven't been to that cesspool kuro5hin in a decade. but it's nice to know there's a creepy socially inept douchebag out there keeping tabs on me

    and drag the morons kicking and screaming into reality and make workplaces and online experiences welcoming rather than igorant and cruel

  39. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    so you find it important to find me and characterize my behavior according to details about my past behavior (but that's not stalking apparently) which isn't even accurate, but i'm the aggressive one and the sociopath. ok, got it

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  40. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i don't see the problem

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  41. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by fbk_jlenoc · · Score: 1

    Thank you for this.

  42. So you support Brianna Wu, a known harasser? by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

    Not if reasonable, SJW resistant, individuals (Cernovich comes to mind) have the financial clout to reclaim ground lost to harassers such as her, Chelsea van Valkenberg, and their enablers. It'd be interesting to wake up and see them lose editorial control of places, courtesy new owners firing them for harassment. That is, harassment of the kind that they accuse of others but commit themselves.

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
    1. Re:So you support Brianna Wu, a known harasser? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      show me an example of the harassment you claim

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:So you support Brianna Wu, a known harasser? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/07...

      Any and everything on Gawker work for you ?

    3. Re:So you support Brianna Wu, a known harasser? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You are aware that Brianna Wu has nothing whatsoever to do with Gawker, right?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:So you support Brianna Wu, a known harasser? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You did read the subthread I was commenting in ?

  43. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brilliant, thank you for posting that. It looks like the coordinated troll moderations by the Wu followers is subsiding. Hopefully if they're getting low on mod points your post doesn't get buried.

  44. Oh do fuck off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christ almighty. Why is this talentless nonentity getting ANY eyeball-time on slashdot?

    Fucking moronic.

  45. mod this up... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Well said!

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  46. Internet/Basement Feminism vs Egalitarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, there are 2 angles to this thing:

    1. The angle of fulfilling narcissism, egoism, self-validation, and messiah complex (savior complex).
    Basically, rather than tackle real tangible problems that actually require willpower, education, and effort; like tackling the economy, war, poverty, infrastructure repair, and development; you instead tackle perpetual issues that require no effort beyond vocal diarrhea. They are perpetual because human individualism constantly creates them, and human individualism is a core part of human nature. More importantly, those "issues" are relative and subjective. Meaning that the core cause of those "issues" is dynamic and constantly changing due to the variables of human individualism, and you can't solve them without generalizing people, creating slippery slope arguments, and inconveniencing innocent people in the name of a minority justifying a higher ideal (like saying sexualization of video game characters inherently leads to objectification in real life, or that the media has an absolute mind control coverage over society). In order to "fix" these intangible social "issues", you need to destroy human individualism. For instance: You can't eliminate homosexuality or heterosexuality due to the fact that human individualism, as a core component of human nature, demands that all babies grow up differently. Some babies cry at birth, some don't; some will continue crying as they grow up, some will grow a steady personality; some will be bad, some good, some inbetween in a complex web; some engineers, some artists, some athletes, some will prefer books over boxing, some stone sculpting over painting; some attracted to asian people more than blacks and vice versa etc. etc. etc. etc. This unique set of preferences,

    It's a way to feel accomplished as an individual, without actually accomplishing anything, and getting that ego feed and backpats from it.

    2. Reduction and/or elimination of standards and self-responsibility. There are those individuals who wish to create an environment where they can easily go up the ladder, and achieve, without having to go through the physical and mental effort.
    When you study and come to face a barrier, you push through it. When you train and come to face a barrier, you push through it. This requires willpower and INDIVIDUAL ACTION TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONES OWN GOALS/IDEALS/AMBITIONS WITH ONES OWN HANDS, and pushing through proves that you have the ambition and personal strength for the job.
    A group is only as strong as the people consisting it are on a personal individual level. Like a bunch of wooden arrows grouped are harder to break than 1 arrow, the equal group of metal arrows are harder to break than the wooden ones (or even half that group and more). If you can't push through a barrier; be it a written test, job risks, physical limitation; and easily give up, you pose a liability and risk.

    All in all, it is quite a sight to see an increase in women like Hirsi Ali denouncing feminism as a collective that has gone down the crapper, including that giant Twitter debacle with Women Against Feminism. Mind you, we are talking both the Hirsi Ali who once stated all men should be castrated, and who still despite that is actually accomplished as an individual and whose worth is backed up by tangible accomplishments affecting the real world and saving lives, unlike feminists like Anita.
    To finish with a popular sentence and retort to Wu's answer on Feminism over Egalitarianism: Feminism is to Egalitarianism what Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity, and Al-Qaeda is to Islam.

  47. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, we all know what a racist asshole you are. You can pretend to be the "good guy" here, but we know what you've said and you're a phony.

    You don't care about equality or anything else, you're just another selfish asshole looking out for yourself while pretending to care about things and you're not fooling anyone.

  48. Re:Did you just say you're against equal rights? by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 1

    It made perfect sense. If you have a set of scales, and one side has 6kg on it and the other has only 500 grams on it, which course of actions results in both sides measuring equal amounts: (1) Adding 5.5kg to both sides, or (2) adding 5.5kg to only the disadvantaged side?

  49. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you have the social observational abilities of a clod of earth if you don't see the language that guys engage in about and around women

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  50. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    how am i suddenly a racist asshole?

    can i call you a pedophile if we're just going to smear people without any proof or purpose now?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  51. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because like a typical armchair social justice "warrior", you're a sociopath who lacks self-awareness. Congrats.

  52. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i think my description of people who engage in sexism is pretty objectively accurate. stupidity is actually something that exists in this world and actually forms the source of some people's low grade opinions. this is objectively true. someone who doesn't believe in climate change, for example, is a low information person fed propaganda rather than proof. they are therefore, objectively, low iq, stupid people. these are opinions and people you do not respect. not because i am disrespectful by default, but because such people have earned disrespect by having ignorance as their primary motivation. we don't live in a world where you don't get judged by having ignorant and stupid opinions. if you say something ignorant and stupid, is that really the same thing as ignorance and hate itself? if you say some thing stupid, i will call you stupid. you don't have to like that, but it doesn't make me the same as a stupid person

    meanwhile, you seem pretty angry at me, a warrior almost, out to seek justice against me on this social network. and who lacks self awareness?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  53. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you! I wish I had more coworkers like you!

  54. Re:Did you just say you're against equal rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember, the term "meritocracy" is a BAD word according to the armchair social justice "warriors" now.

  55. Re:Did you just say you're against equal rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's the trick, isn't it?
    Pretend that there's one big scale measuring one thing, "rights", that you can simply take from one side, add to the other, BAM, equality!

    The problem is that this is completely wrong. There are dozens, hundreds of different scales, all measuring different things. Some tipped one way, some tipped another way, many already in balance. The extremely hamfisted approach of simply removing from one side and adding to the other simply will not result in equality... which is understandable if your goal isn't ACTUALLY equality.

  56. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >so you find it important to find me and characterize my behavior according to details about my past behavior

    That's called "holding you responsible for your behavior", something SJWs love to do.

    >(but that's not stalking apparently)

    Nope. It's not. Did I track you down and engage in sustained harassment? No. It's "noticing" and "remembering".

    I am noting that you're a jerk, and that an awful lot of people now aggressively pushing "tech is sexist" used to be giant assholes in other contexts. It's not a coincidence. You just figured out a new cover for being an asshole.

  57. Re:Did you just say you're against equal rights? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    This assumes that, in all areas, one is greater than the other. It isn't as black and white as that. There are many issues at hand, it isn't as simple as taking away from one side and adding to the other.

  58. Brianna Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a parent who worked for Big Blue during the 70s-90s, I've had access to tech and been a gamer/geek my entire life. Funny I have never heard of her before Gamergate, and don't ever care to again. Most of her answers were disgustingly self serving or just plain spiteful and left me with little insight about women in the tech/gaming industry other than she feels a sense of entitlement to be treated special based on her gender rather than her talent.

  59. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i don't know who you are, you came and found me and sought me out here. you hide your identity, a coward. you accuse me based on a supposed longstanding awareness of my past (really just smearmongering insults). so are clearly a bully and a stalker

    you are the warpath against me, a *warrior*, out to seek *justice* against my behavior on this *social* network

    you're such a blind loser

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  60. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "i haven't been to that cesspool kuro5hin in a decade."
    "creepy socially inept douchebag"

    Yet you're still posting to THIS cesspool almost two decades later. You sure showed us you're not one of those "creepy socially inept douchebags".

  61. Radical Feminism by coldsalmon · · Score: 0

    Much of the acrimony regarding feminism in the tech industry seems to stem from the inherent contradictions in Liberal Feminism, as opposed to Radical Feminism. Radical Feminism holds that gender categories should be abolished, and that the male/female distinction conceals inherent domination and marginalization of women. It is impossible to move beyond the inequalities of the male/female distinction as long as this gender distinction exists. Radical feminists are not "essentialists" -- they think there is no inherent or natural difference between men and women, but rather that men and women are made, not born (in terms of gender categories, rather than biological sex).

    Liberal Feminism, by contrast, seeks to preserve the distinct categories of male and female, but to work toward equality between the sexes through reform. In theory, it seems that Liberal Feminism is a reasonable position: men and women can be "separate but equal" as long as we have the right laws. But in practice, the inherent contradictions of this theory become apparent quickly. The first and most obvious problem is, if men and women are different, who decides what "equality" means? There are essentialists who claim that women have different needs from men, and that our concept of equality must take those needs into account. In order to make sense of this claim, we need to have a clear definition of what a woman is, what women want and need, and how these wants and needs differ from men. But who has the authority to answer these questions? Not men certainly, and not individual women talking about their own personal needs and wants. What we end up with is a frenzy of people, all claiming to represent "women" as a universal category, and denouncing everyone else as unqualified to speak for "women" universally. It is impossible to resolve this situation; the debate quickly spirals into incoherence. Radical Feminism, by contrast, offers us a way out by rejecting the very categories which give rise to these irresolvable contradictions.

    TL;DR: Radical Feminism says to gender what we all want to say to everyone involved in gamergate: JUST FUCKING GO AWAY.

    1. Re:Radical Feminism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But who has the authority to answer these questions?"

      Biology does. And just because you refuse to accept it will not lessen its influence.

  62. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The proof is in your own Slashdot comment history if one goes far back enough.

    Of course, you don't consider it racism because you don't appear to believe in equality any more than Wu does, just as you see no harm in stalking people and yet call out that other AC for pointing out that you have a history of harassing people online.

    We all recognize your username. You post in every story like this, many times over. I don't go looking for your comments, but I find you constantly advocating positions where some races and sexes should have more rights than others just by reading Slashdot.

    It's at the point where I wish someone would give you a triangle so you could become a PS3 controller and at least do something useful with your life rather than acting as the local racist and sexist version of e.e. cummings, seeing as how your keyboard does not appear to have a shift key.

  63. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /bravo /roses /encore!

  64. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

    I've seen far more hostility on slashdot than in my workplace

  65. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of that shit matters. Your entire posting history is online for all to peruse. Call that "stalking" if you want. The fact of the matter is that anybody can verify what I said, because you chose to engage in shitty behavior in a way that is completely documented publicly.

    "warpath"

    I showed up THIS ONE TIME, to note your hypocrisy. Or are you admitting that your being an asshole has led to other people calling you out? I can assure you I personally have only done this once. Maybe a lot more people than just me have noticed your abrasive and aggressive demeanor.

  66. That needs a stable solution, not a chaotic one. by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    In that case, you add x kg to the lighter side. But that's not at all what gets advocated. They advocate adding x kg to the X group or the Y group or whatever, rather than helping all disadvantaged people equally. If we always help those who are disadvantaged equally--regardless of whatever traits they were born with--the scales will tend towards balancing and the group interests will tend to be more aligned, as we're not deciding which groups are worthy or not worthy of society's support.

    If we're always trying to figure out which group is or isn't disadvantaged based simply on group membership, rather than any observable facts, we trend towards a world where the group interests are in perpetual conflict. This is why equality cannot be achieved by perpetuating inequality against future generations. As shown, there's a way to address past inequality without creating new injustices that's stable over time.

    I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where society decides that you have less rights than someone else because of how you were born. Anyone who advocates treating others as lesser due to how they were born is some kind of KKK-level scumbag in my book.

  67. Re:A short primer on autogynephilia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, read this review (by a woman) on Revolution 60. The reviewer specifically mentions that as one of the reasons the "game" sucks.

  68. Why should anyone help you? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own.

    First, it's not because you're a woman. If you're a man, woman, or other and someone threatens to murder you online, it is overwhemingly likely that no help is coming because no one is actually coming to murder you. There is no actual threat. Some 14 year old is saying nasty things to you to get a rise out of you.

    And yet you claim this is a serious threat and somebody needs to come protect you. You were not "driven from your home" by angry gamergate neckbeards. You'd have a point if you left because an actual crowd of cheeto dust-encrusted blobs had their mothers drop them off at your house so they could come do horrible things to you. But there was no one there. You chose to leave.

    And since, clearly, there is no actual threat (no one is really going to hurt you), and you chose to leave anyway, there are two possibilities:

    1) You fell for the ploys of 14-year-old online trolls.

    2) You knew there was no serious threat, but figured "if I pretend like I'm scared everybody will pay attention to me and I milk this!"

    So, are you simply dim-witted, or sociopathic? You don't seem dumb.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Why should anyone help you? by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see you've had access to all the threats that she's received? I'm 'neutral' - as it's the phrase of the day - on Wu, but this just seems like an asinine argument to make when we don't know the details of the threats.

      Yes, I bet 95+% were generic "I'm coming to kills youuuu" threats, but what if some were specific "meta-monkey I'm going to kill you while you sleep in your paul frank pajamas in your queen sized pink velour sheets" type stuff? Assuming you actually have pink velour sheets and paul frank pajamas of course.

      I don't think anyone on the receiving end of this GG drama (on either side) has claimed to be kept out of their homes for weeks on end, so I get a feeling it was pretty specific threats that caused it, no?

    2. Re:Why should anyone help you? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Has she ever said that? That no, it wasn't the publicly visible threats that did it, but private ones that have not been disclosed, and are of a different nature?

      If so, perhaps there is more than meets the eye.

      But as is, I don't see how anyone could conclude these are true threats.

      The things said to Brianna are horrid and despicable. No human should ever say those things to another.

      However, for it to actually be a crime, there has to be a "true threat." The nature of a true threat is inexact, and varies by jurisdiction. But a general test is that it must make an objectively reasonable person fear for their physical safety.

      It's an objective test, not a subjective test. So it does not matter if the person receiving the threat perceived it to be genuine, or was afraid. To do so would make the standard that of an "eggshell observer," and speech would be beholden to the most timidly sensitive of us. "Would a reasonable person believe this threat is genuine?"

      I do not see how any reasonable person can genuinely believe that, because of your opinions on gender issues in video games, an anonymous person you don't know so strongly disagrees with you that they're going to drive to your house and commit amongst the most heinous crimes there are against you, which carries with it sentences that range from life imprisonment to death depending on your state. Can a reasonable person possibly believe such a thing would happen?

      No. Clearly not. It's somebody who's saying nasty hurtful things at you, either because they 1) actually hate you and your ideas or 2) is an asshole trolling you because you react. The things they're saying are awful, and offensive, and nobody should say them. But only a complete fool could possibly believe they are genuine threats. Laugh at them, block them, ignore them. But to tell me you take them seriously...you're either a completely naive fool or you're lying for attention. And in the meantime, you're just feeding the trolls. They will never stop doing this while it gets a rise out of you.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Why should anyone help you? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      It's the same kind of "Mommy fix!" crying kids do now because they've been taught that hyperprotective parents will save them from anyone saying mean things, and kiss their boo-boo for them and give them lots of attention every time they cry.

      So now we're expected to all be these professional victims' hyperprotective online parents. Boo-hoo, mommy fix!! and give 'em milk and cookies while we're at it.

      I was a lot more sympathetic before I read Wu's own words on the subject, and followed the little arrows to where she was doing what when. And... you're absolutely right.

       

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  69. Hahaha oh wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brianna Wu is a joke. Everything she's ever created is a joke. And not a particularly funny one.

  70. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you accuse me of racism which is completely random and unfounded. i am not a racist and i never said a racist thing. show me where i ever said anything racist

    should i just go around now calling you a pedophile? same thing

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  71. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you know this has been an awesome review of my character and my behavior by a random stalking nutcase using this social network to seek justice against me. you are truly a brave warrior

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  72. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    slashdot does have problems. such an anonymous stalking cowards

    You sure showed us you're not one of those "creepy socially inept douchebags".

    and who here is hiding and hating on whom?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  73. Sadly she won't by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because it is good advice for actual progress. Wu isn't a feminist, she's a professional victim. I mean that literally: She makes her money by whining about being victimized and guilting people in to donating to her pateron to fund her life. She's a developer in only the most basic sense. She has one product ever, a mobile game that is very poor quality. She has no track record for actually working to advance women's rights or gender equality. Her profession is literally being a victim.

    So she has no interest in advice from actual successful women developers because she's not. Her issue isn't having lots of skill but being kept down because of gender, it is having minimal skills and then playing pretend about the source of her problems.

    That's why she agreed to the Ask Slashdot. She wanted the "mean" questions she refused to answer because she can point to those as examples of "harassment" to further her cause. She's not stupid, she knew what she was doing.

    However while she won't take your advice, hopefully other women will, because it is excellent.

    1. Re:Sadly she won't by KGIII · · Score: 1

      But... But! She got a TROPHY for her game! Look Ma! I got a trophy!!1!eleven1

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  74. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Wu can never give up the whole sexism racket because that is the key to her sympathy funding. She worked on the first game, which qualifies as one of the worst games ever made, then found out it's a lot more difficult and time consuming to make a game than she thought it would be so she decided to be a full time victim making $3000 per month for going around and stirring the pity pot.

  75. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I am in agreement with the AC on this one. You are way over-aggressive. Plus you need to learn to use caps.

  76. If you're... well actually anyone by phorm · · Score: 1

    "The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own."

    And as a woman, that's her view, but in reality if you're anyone (who isn't rich and famous, but even then) getting threatened online... it's going to take a *lot* before the police step in. There are many reasons for this, including
    a) People say stupid shit online, there's lots of noise, and it's not easy to decipher intent. Similarly, if somebody threats you on the street it may not get much action, unless it's a public action with something backing it.
    b) If your neighbour threatens you, the police can go over to his/her house and deal with it. When it's online, that person isn't likely using a real-name, and may not be anywhere in your jurisdiction or even country/continent
    c) There's often a prevaling lack of understanding of technology in the justice system
    d) Laziness or resourcing... due to (c) and (b)... it's work and resources to actually catch somebody and then sometimes even harder to convict. Again, hard to condone, but unless we want to wiretap everyone (well, they tried) or spend a month of work of three officers in order to track it down... sometimes things need a critical mass before they'll dedicate the effort.

    None of the above are excusing the aholes that post terrible crap online, especially death threats, but saying that it's exclusively a problem of a certain group - whether it be based on gender, ethnicity, or other - is not particular accurate.

    Of course, society is wonderfully unbalanced about such things. Sometimes nailing somebody for what is obviously a joke, particularly if the target is a rich scientologist like Tom Cruise

  77. Very interesting questions by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And answers.

    Since I know what comments tend to be, I'm not going to read the rest of the responses however.

    But having had an ex-wife who was in IT and a roommate who was a female gamer and programmer, and working with a lot of women at a professional level in STEM fields, I know it's sadly true how poisonous things are.

    Some days I miss when USE*NET was real people's accounts, before we let you trolls in. The good old days of the flame wars.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  78. I'm leaving you, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I've been reading Slashdot pretty much every day for at least 12 years. But now it's all gone gender-obsessive, I find myself less and less interested in what it has to say.

    And now there's this interview with Brianna Wu. I read the 'call for questions' - and the highly upvoted questions were from people who wanted her to justify her behaviour. And yet these questions have not been put forward to Brianna.

    So I'm no longer going to stay here - I'm going to Soylent News. https://soylentnews.org/

    Thanks for all the great comments on articles here on Slashdot everyone. Maybe see you at Soylent?

  79. Re: No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Informative

    Being neutral that people (mostly women) are being repeatedly doxed is definitely a character flaw... There is definitely one side to the GG controversy that is intolerant and childish, but it isn't the women game developers.

    I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Briana Wu, along with other "SJWs," is accused of doxxing and harassing GGers... Exactly what she accuses them of doing. She's also accused of posting threats to herself under "anonymous" screen names, then claiming that the treats came from GGers. I'm sure if I look hard enough, I can find SJWs accusing GG of false flag harassment too.

    Obviously, real harassment is bad. False flag harassment is bad for a different readon. But to a dispassionate observer, both "sides" are doing the exact same thing. It's ridiculous to claim that one side is the side of the angels. That's why "neutral on gamergate" is a reasonable position.

    It's a shame that your criticism is targeted at GG exclusively, because both sides could stand to follow your advice.

  80. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    You haven't actually rebutted anything he said. Matter of fact your whole defense is an ad hominem attack.

  81. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a long time developer too and I agree with GP. You know what my work environments have been like? Yes, guys BSing each other, making vaguely sexist comments in jest, but guess what? The women did the same as the guys and we all laughed together a lot. That's because we weren't and aren't overly sensitive crybabies. There are legitimate instances of actual sexual harassment, but men being men and women being women isn't one of them. Contrary to what you seem to believe, not all men are perverted psychopaths.

  82. what an utter joke by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    ...which might even be halfway to funny if it wasn't for Dice sucking up to this fucking victim-all-its-life, self-obsessed dillbag. Where were the hard questions? Why won't s/he answer why she doesn't consider actual talent rather than the location of the genitals?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:what an utter joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...which might even be halfway to funny if it wasn't for Dice sucking up to this fucking victim-all-its-life, self-obsessed dillbag. Where were the hard questions? Why won't s/he answer why she doesn't consider actual talent rather than the location of the genitals?

      "Why won't s/he ..."

      As a conspiracy, theory the interview is deliberately tanked. This stirs up on vitriol which feed into her thesis and the cult of victimhood.

      I believe an honest interview would acknowledge some of the obviously proven failings in her character and/or movement (e.g., when her or their own accounts are used to post the hatred and these are not - AFAIK - compromised accounts).

      An honest interview might also paint her more as a promoter (of self or others), rabblerouser, journalist, and less of a "developer".

      Both these aspects of honesty would destroy her credibility as a victim and as a developer. She could still have credibility in other areas like leadership, promotion, journalism (good or bad). Of course, these things usually have at least a veil of honesty.

  83. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    You are rather rife with logical fallacies aren't you.

    Why didn't you just simplify that comment to

    If you don't agree with me you're an idiot

  84. Re:That needs a stable solution, not a chaotic one by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The problem is, how do you determine who's disadvantaged? In some cases it looks easy. In my school district, if a student's family is below a certain income level, said student gets lunch for a reduced price or for free. This theoretically equalizes the availability of lunch, but when you start to look at it carefully there's all sorts of possible issues. Some families are better at budgeting than others, so a family with lower income might have more money available for the kids than a family with higher income (it's not normally the kids who do the budgeting, but it's the kids who can get too hungry to learn). Having sharp demarcations means that it's better to have the family income slightly below the demarcation line than slightly above it.

    It's a lot easier to tell if somebody is from X or Y group than to determine their level of disadvantage and what's necessary to help equalize their opportunities.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  85. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    this imagined "terror" of Gamergate,

    Basically what you're saying is:

    "I don't like what you have to say so I'm going to claim you imagined it all".

    You are literally claiming that none of the threats she got were real.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  86. Brianna Wu is what an SJW troll looks like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look no further.

  87. Egalitarian....redefined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Egalitarianism is about equal rights for all people, but this is assuming that everyone starts in an equal situation"

    No. You're adding to the definition or understanding of Egalitarianism. Here's some *sigh* wikipedia information that anyone would first read....when understanding the term:

    "Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2] or equalism[3]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people.[4] Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[5] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[6] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[7] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.[8][9][10]"

    Nowhere that I can find, other than feminism dogma, indicates that it implies some equal footing to begin with. Just....straight up.....made up.

  88. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead, mansplain sexism some more.

  89. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Khashishi · · Score: 1
  90. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure Wu would PROBABLY say you have Internalized misogyny, and your brain was warped by the patriarchy to believe these lies.
    And in doing so, she would be stereotyping you as a helpless, dimwitted woman who cannot think for herself even with all your experience and education.
    They don't want you to be able to handle yourself, they want you to submit. They want you to be oppressed, like most of them think/pretend they are.

    And most of all, they want you to please donate to their Patreon :)

  91. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    It's "noticing" and "remembering".
    ...with some help from the Internet Archive.

    FTFY.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  92. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes of course. Because your limited observations override his, thus justifying your insults in the name of a cause you have no responsibility for.

  93. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by nyet · · Score: 1

    Are you saying if a I'm on "BUS" and it comes to "STOP" I'm riding a bus stop?

  94. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad some people agree with me. I wasn't brave enough to post not anonymously like you, but I just wanted to say that I agree. It's terrible that slashdot has turned into a cesspool of vitriol against women and the bullshit moderators that are modding you down as a troll. I'm getting meta-modded into oblivion for modding you up...

  95. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll say it again: threats to life and limb are criminal offences, even on the internet. WHY has nobody been prosecuted over these alleged threats? Could it be because she sent them to herself, if they even exist? And if they do exist, records should exists on a server log somewhere. Why aren't those servers being examined?

    I think it's because Ms. Wu isn't being entirely truthful.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  96. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Well said. I also completely agree that in order to be a good engineer/developer/scientist, you need to be that first (at least when you work) and anything else second. You cannot claim to be "good" or "experienced" in order to make that happen, you have to be these things. Nothing can substitute.

    The problem Ms. Wu has is that she claims these things, but does not deliver on the claims. That produces an understandable counter-reaction. There is also a hate-reaction by some people that attack anything they do not like, but that does not cover the majority to the reaction to the claims Ms. Wu has made. It is a side issue. Of course she tries to focus on that, because she cannot actually deliver on her claims. This is merely classical misdirection.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  97. Message to Ms. Wu.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be an idiot.

    "First of all, if you are “neutral” on the horrific abuse many women have suffered at the hands of Gamergate, you are a part of the problem."

    Calling people a part of the problem? Waaaaay to go. Way to earn yourself allies. No, you are playing up the crowd you perceive as yours.

    Fuck you, you arrogant witch.

  98. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by gweihir · · Score: 1

    If you claim anything on the Internet today with high enough visibility, you are going to get threats. There is a small sub-species of the human rage that cannot abide others getting attention. Hence these threats do not mean anything, except that she had visibility. Making these threats the core of the discussion is exceptionally unprofessional and misses the point of the discussion entirely. It is a tried-and-true strategy for styling oneself as a victim though, because these threats will always come.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  99. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    I've seen far more hostility on slashdot than in my workplace.

    That's because you read Slashdot all day while you're at work.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  100. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Different AC here. Just wanted to point out that being recognised when you keep turning up in the same places is not even related to being stalked. It's just something that happens when you live in a city or use the internet, and when your behaviour has recognisable patterns.

    If you're occasionally being recognised as that jerk from that other time it's most likely because you've been a jerk at other times. If you think that counts as 'stalking', and you automatically assume it's someone else's fault, it has to call into question your definitions of all the other injustices that you feel have been perpetrated against you. This is not how you gain or retain credibility.

  101. Gamergate didn't know about Wu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until she started making mean-spirited image macros about them with photos of an autistic kid.

    Then burner accounts send her death threats and this is apparently proof of what she's been saying, and how the people she was trolling had it coming, and not a nasty troll faking things for attention. She sure doesn't care about how her hateful attitude towards Gamergate creates an attitude where are meetups get answered with bomb threats, or the death threats pro-gamergate men and women get sent by righteous tumblrinas.

    Shame on Slashdot for running this trash.

  102. The SJW harassers of a feather flock together..... by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1
    In reply to an accusation against her, here are some of her SJW compatriots:

    Janelle Asselin @gimpnelly: @Spacekatgal @slashdot do you have your bingo card ready?

    Marcy-Not a Vampire @marcyjcook: @gimpnelly @Spacekatgal @slashdot That would take 30 secs to complete! It's going to be a mess. I think I need lunch before reading /.

    Carfolio.com @Carfolio: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Is there an equivalent term to SJW for these privileged white male offence dispensers?

    Kirby Carav @MumaKirby: @Carfolio @Spacekatgal @Slashdot Jackasses?

    Carfolio.com @Carfolio: @MumaKirby @Spacekatgal @slashdot Nothing catchier? We need branding here ;-)

    LaurieC @MsLaurieC 3h3 hours ago: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Yeah, because you know, there's nothing worse than hearing about how badly people who aren't me are treated!

    Laura Genn @Reason2Write: @Spacekatgal @slashdot That word. Ugh. -_- Nazis were real and horrible. Their legacy remains. Don't call things that aren't Nazis "Nazis"!

    Devyn Rodriguez @DevynRodriguez: @Spacekatgal @slashdot That comment section is a depressing example of people not getting it.

    Swift Studies @Swift_Studies: @Spacekatgal well I think you are awesome

    Ryan Robinson @Ryan_LR: @Spacekatgal It's a tough life being a man in a nanny state that won't even allow rape and murder whenever I feel like it.

    Jens Scholz @jensscholz: @Spacekatgal @slashdot When i'm Godwined i'm usually pretend to argue a bit forth and after some time post this. "No, You hang up first"

    Lindsay Felt @ArayaNexus: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Whelp. That didn't take long. You don't happen to have an estimated time it took to get to feminazi, do you?

    Steve Paulo @StevePaulo: @Spacekatgal Gotta love the "I'll give you something to complain about!"-style threat at the end.

    ToxicAudri @ToxicAudri: @Spacekatgal https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Many see you have an internal problem with your group and supporters.

    Erik Montoya @emontoya42: @Spacekatgal @slashdot does the feminazi party provide awesome boots with the uniform? Cause really they should. #hottakes

    Greg Downing @MightyGregDoge: @Spacekatgal @slashdot "I'm sorry, what? I stopped reading after you said feminazi. You kept writing, so I assume you apologized."

    Jarred @smilingmerle: @Spacekatgal Does Frank know you treat him like the enemy?

    Norah Williams @LikeIronLies: @Spacekatgal Feminazi stole my ice cream! https://vimeo.com/64941331

    THE LORD HUMUNGUS @ChristopherRasa Brooklyn, NY: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Not being allowed to threaten to kill people every day: A forced nanny state.

    Phoebe Washington @Feministphoebe: @Spacekatgal @slashdot just ignore the haters. You're an incredible woman.

    Consider these people defenders of harassment, especially given that they've threatened more than they've actually been threatened (aside from staged incidents, nil). Such defense is not maintaining civility, but to defend a logically indefensible narrative from criticism. Shutting it up or blocking it won't make the painful truth any less true.

    Archived at: https://archive.is/bBvN7

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  103. A PSA for incoming SJW's from social media by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

    About the only message worth sending: Harden The Fuck Up (his words, not mine). They're from another well-known Australian that had more guts as a criminal than the entirety of the SJW population.
    One could probably add the following:

    Chopper: ..and this is Brianna Wu, a professional victim!
    [Imitation Wu]: I'm transgender and that makes me special. Facts don't matter, since I can have my friends on Twitter call you a bigot!
    Chopper: Here's a reply from the Abuse Department: Harden the fuck up.

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  104. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

    You're gleaning a lot.

    Basically, what I'm saying is not that she imagined the threats; in fact I believe that she has received them - part and parcel for being a public figure, you see.

    No, what I am saying is that she used the few threats she got and "inflated" it into what she characterizes as a "terror movement" for which she can call out a snipe hunt.

    And think what you want of Gamergate*, but I have zero belief that it is an organized threat aimed at hounding women out of videogames. It's been around nearly a year, and if it truly were a movement that intended to carry out such awful plans, it's either extremely terrible at it, or (and this is more likely) isn't even doing that in the first place.

    The media's in the tank for women. If women were being hounded out in droves, the media would make no hesitation to blow it up into a newsworthy thread. As it stands, no credible threat has surfaced on any supposed Gamergate "targets". I wonder why that is.

    As for Ms. Wu herself, had she any compunction towards personal responsibility, she wouldn't be blaming Gamergate. She'd be looking for the precise people who were sending the threats. Not blaming a whole (leaderless and shapeless, might I add) group, which doubtlessly only a few of the really, really socially disordered ones are sending threats in the first place.

    So no, I'm not saying that she's faking anything. Though her tack in combatting it is a trifle too optimistic for my tastes, particularly as she claims she's a feminist, and is thus a member of a group that's all too quick to lay blame on a different shapeless and leaderless group ("The Patriarchy"**).

    *Point of order: Gamergate is a strange entity that isn't terribly honest with itself, but isn't as bad as people like Ms. Wu would make it out to be. That's why I take neither side of that particular skirmish.

    **If you're going to ask me to believe in "The Patriarchy", you may just as well ask me to believe in pink bunnies on the moon.

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  105. Re:That needs a stable solution, not a chaotic one by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    > The problem is, how do you determine who's disadvantaged?

    Money, as it can be used to obtain pretty much all other advantages.

    > but when you start to look at it carefully there's all sorts of possible issues. Some families are better at budgeting than others, so a family with lower income might have more money available for the kids than a family with higher income

    This is not an inequality that we can (or should) correct for. People who work harder have a natural advantage. It's not right to take that away, as doing so hurts everyone. It was by gaining enough advantages to live lives where people could spend their time studying things like science that we obtained what we have now. We would all be worse off without this.

    > It's a lot easier to tell if somebody is from X or Y group than to determine their level of disadvantage and what's necessary to help equalize their opportunities.

    I disagree both with the idea that it's easier and the idea that it advances any sort of good for society.

  106. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

    Sorry, not "optimistic" but "opportunistic".

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  107. "Women-in-tech issues" should become irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am so sick of "women-in-tech issues." They should become as irrelevant as "brown-haired-people-in-tech issues," but the SJWs will never let that happen.

  108. That's the problem with being an entrepreneur by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If you're an entrepreneur of any sort, you find that you've got to be a manager, and a CFO, and an HR department, and the Engineering VP, and the engineer, and the janitor, and the dishwasher, and the sales rep, and the marketing department, and hunt for funding, and a dozen other roles until your company's big enough to hire other people to do them. Every techie I know who's started a company, either by themselves or with a small group of other people, complains about this, but it's the reality of running a business - you're responsible for all the work getting done, not just the fun engineering you started the company to do. If you get big enough to get VC money, sometimes you can hire a CEO to do some of those things for you, but basically it's not your company once you've done that.

    Some games can be done by one person, some are much larger projects needing lots of workers. (I'm not a gamer, so I don't know the scale of Wu's games, but it sounds like they're a lot bigger than Depression Quest and probably smaller than EA's FIFA-thing-2015.)

    Authors have to deal with similar issues - they also have to put up with people saying "Why don't you self-publish? I'm sure you'll make LOTS more money than working with an old-style dead-tree publishing house!" (The usual answer from successful writers like Charlie Stross is that publishing books is a lot of work, and it's much more productive for him to spend 100% of his time writing, which he's good at, instead of 30% of his time writing and 70% of his time doing marketing and sales and typesetting and financial management and negotiating with Amazon and Apple, none of which he enjoys nor is especially good at, even though he'd get a bigger fraction of the cash, plus the way you get to be a good writer is to do a lot of writing, and the way you build a stable audience is to put out books as often as you can do it well, and being a publisher takes time away from both of those.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  109. But her games have Girl Cooties ALL OVER THEM! by billstewart · · Score: 0

    Discrediting women's technical work is what people like that do in between making rape threats and SWATing them and editing them out of Wikipedia and it's totally disgusting and way too common.

    And Microsoft has been complaining lately that the pipeline of potential technical employees doesn't have enough women in it, so that's why they don't hire many women. Why do they think women leave the pipeline? Most women in tech don't get quite the level of abuse that the Gamergaters have been giving their big-name targets, but Wu's hardly the only woman I've heard say they used a gender-neutral username on Github or Slashdot or in academia, because otherwise they get a constant overflow of shit, and that's after putting up with lower levels of sexism and obnoxiousness from nearly the beginning.

    This kind of thing especially pisses me off because I'm old enough to remember the business environment of the late 70s and early 80s when things were getting better and the fraction of women in computer fields was a lot higher than in most of engineering. (That wasn't necessarily CS degrees; colleges didn't all have those yet for undergrads, so my wife and the other people she studied with tended to have interdisciplinary engineering degrees or EE degrees with CS concentrations.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re: But her games have Girl Cooties ALL OVER THEM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well enjoy being pissed off because women won't ever stop being professional victims.

      Not when it pays better and offers more power for no reason other than not being born without a penis.

      I won't say I hope you or anyone is raped or murdered, because you can just "interpret" that as a threat, and just cry wolf more. Instead I'll just say, I hope you get hit by a bus, or die of cancer.

  110. Mod Parent Troll, please! by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I'm not a moderator this week.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Mod Parent Troll, please! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I am glad to see you have a logical and well reasoned response.

  111. You've never talked with women in tech, right? by billstewart · · Score: 0

    Or at least you've never listened to what they were saying? Try it some time. And if you're working somewhere that there aren't any women to talk to, try asking your managers why that's the case. And grow the fuck up, ok?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:You've never talked with women in tech, right? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried making an argument without using an ad hominem?

      Saying "talk to women" and "lol grow up" isn't a valid answer to a question, it's nothing but a meme to avoid the issue.

      Still awaiting an answer. What social, political, legal, and economic rights do men have that women do not?

  112. Re: No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's interesting that you can recall things that didn't happen. Parallel universe?

  113. Men worry that women are laughing at them by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Women worry that men are going to rape and kill them. It's not a neutral Fair-and-Balanced(tm) thing.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Men worry that women are laughing at them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they are delusionally paranoid, or they think they have it coming.

    2. Re:Men worry that women are laughing at them by billstewart · · Score: 1

      The men? Absolutely.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  114. Mod Parent Up, Please by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Narcc is right on point.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  115. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Pubstar · · Score: 1
    I hate it when I have to actually read a post and have it end like this:

    you seem pretty angry at me

    Do us a favor next time and just put "u mad bro?" so I know to glance over your comments and know when you don't have a valid point to make.

  116. The GG movement long predated that by billstewart · · Score: 0

    It was originally about harassing Anita Sarkissian, for pointing out the level of sexism in gaming. The trollboys didn't like ethics in video game journalism, because she was pointing out that they were clearly on the wrong side of it, and Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend deliberately threw his screed into their shark pond because he knew he'd get a reaction there.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  117. Re: No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    I would like to say that majority of both sides are not even arguing the same topics here. GG is mostly about ethics in journalism and fighting the SJW plague that has taken over games journalism (that has been acting extremely anti-consumer lately). aGG is more about pushing for more diversity at the expense of everything in the industry. Both sides have people harassing eachother, but they are outliers, not the core group... the only thing is that there are a few high profile people on the aGG side that have publically doxxed people, where as its all been just random nobodies that have published doxx on the GG side.

  118. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming these threats were made over the internet it would be trivial for someone to hide their identity through a proxy server hosted in another country or Tor. Sure maybe some government agencies have enough resources to still trace the perpetrator but I doubt they'd get involved in a case like this.

  119. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    I used to think that too. Things that made me realize it wasn't really pro-women, although we're certainly not the worst industry out there:

    1. I kept concentrating on how my employers generally employed a small number of really talented female software engineers. Of course, this is the wrong way to look at it: the question is how many women equal in incompetence to our worst male engineers were we employing? If we're only employing the most talented women, and an average bunch of men, then we're requiring women adhere to higher standards than men, and raising the bar accordingly.

    I've actually met a grand total of one godawful would-rather-write-the-same-stupid-code-ten-times-than-use-a-loop type female developer in my entire career. Every female dev I've known other than her was far, far, above average for the team male and female as a whole. I've lost count of the number of male developers who are that abysmal.

    2. Developers rarely think in terms of management, so it's easy to forget such career paths exist, but men generally were having an easier time of getting into management at every place I've worked compared to women. Women could get to low level positions, but would be immediately labeled "difficult" even if they did exactly the same thing as male equivalents. Rarely would they rise any further. This may afflict other fields, but it's definitely a major problem in tech for some reason, and I'm not seeing it so much in non-tech departments.

    3. Sexism, when it happens, tends to get... not ignored, so much as not dealt with. It's assumed that if the woman victimized by it is smiling, dealing with it, and getting her work done, that it's being handled. I've seen a very talented female Oracle specialist treated abusively by her team leader who seemed - in both his work and personal life - to have real problems with women. I noticed. Friends of his that were friends of mine noticed. Our boss noticed. Was anything done? Well, y'know, she's great, look at how she doesn't take shit from him (like we'd know), and that guy's unfireable, he's the only one who knows how the MAJOR_CLIENT database works...

    4. You never notice systematic discrimination, frequently because it's entirely unintentional and done for the best reasons. I've interviewed normally for precisely one job in my life, my first. Word of mouth got me my other jobs. The word of mouth circuit seems harmless and perhaps even positive, after all, education and experience written on paper is rarely as informative as an actual "Yeah, I've worked with this guy, he's a miracle worker", "Nah, this one writes spaghetti you'll be maintaining for years afterwards."

    The problem is the word-of-mouth network is actually a negative to any group that isn't part of the dominant social group in a particular industry. People recommend the people they know who'll do a good job, but they think first of people in that category that are friends, that they've had a chance to get to know on every level.

    In conclusion, TL;DR and all that, determining whether an industry is women friendly or not takes rather more than a general feeling about the general attitude. Oh I know you don't personally intend to harm the career of any woman simply because she is one. But the system you're a part of might mean her career faces more hurdles than yours anyway.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  120. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They also need to be credible threats.

  121. Re: No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? I thought peoples voices and diversity are important. Why are you working to silence people.

  122. want GamerGate's side with evidence? by Kishin · · Score: 1

    I was a neutral party, too, who couldn't make sense of it. Most published evidence supported the claims of the feminists but strangely didn't mention much about the other side. Not objective at all. Least that was some kind of evidence. So, I challenged a bunch of pro-GamerGate people with that evidence and demanded they do more than troll or ask for us to take it on faith. One sent me this vid that shows feminist hypocrisy with evidence from her own game, points out these are entertainment products based on demand (which includes women!), and has other rational points supporting GamerGate's position:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXZY6D2hFdo&app=desktop
    (Really makes the feminists opposing look like BS pushers esp as a commenter here pointed out Brianna also breaks their own rules in games.)

    Another link I received was from the "Factual Feminist:"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w
    (She actually backed her claims with evidence that contradicts the claims of the feminists opposing gamergate. She also showed that their own studies cooked the books a bit.)

    On top of it, out of millions of gamers, they've only got a relatively tiny number of people making threats. That means vast majority of gamers are *not* making threats. Yet, they talk like rape and death threats over right to abuse females is the only thing going on here. If anything, what I see here is a group of people (i.e. Brianna & co) calling out a whole segment of society (including women!) as evil, claiming to eliminate their market, making provably false statements, and being hated as a result. Who wouldn't have seen that response coming.... Ignoring the claims I see here like faking stuff, the basic analysis of anti-GamerGate's own claims and games *they* make show these women are deceitful, hypocritical pricks who deserve whatever *verbal* hate they get. It's called Internet Justice. Best to just not do the crime and especially against what's allegedly your own customers/demographic.

  123. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    For something to be a true threat, an objectively reasonable person would need to believe the threat would seriously be carried out.

    No objectively reasonable person can possibly believe a death threat from an anonymous stranger on the Internet in any discussion about video games is genuine.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  124. a horrible tranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wu is a shit looking man, never had to work hard for money since his parents are filthy rich, and should be violently tortured and killed but while recording HD video of everything, then put it on some gore site. Fuck brianna wu and everyone supporting this subhuman shit tranny

  125. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    this imagined "terror" of Gamergate,

    Basically what you're saying is:

    "I don't like what you have to say so I'm going to claim you imagined it all".

    You are literally claiming that none of the threats she got were real.

    Or perhaps she's claiming that the threats were so non-credible that no cause for investigation could be found. Cops *wanted* to investigate but apparently there wasn't anything of substance *to* investigate. It's easier to investigate when there is, you know, actual evidence of a credible threat.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  126. Slashdot jumped the shark by bangular · · Score: 1

    Let's pool our money and buy slashdot so it can return to its former glory.

    1. Re: Slashdot jumped the shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooo, let's buy a house together! And one room will just be like, the chill out room. I've got three black lights.

  127. Re:FROST PIST by KGIII · · Score: 1

    That is not Brianna Wu and not funny!

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  128. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I have read enough of your posts. You and I are getting married in my imagination. Then we are going to set the world on fire and giggle as it burns.

    Sorry, I could not help myself. Well spoken. As a mixed-race person I find it really disturbing when people try to give me a "leg up." No thanks... That is just telling me that you think I can not do it on my own. There will always be bigots. No legislation, cultural changes, or anything is going to fix that. Hell, I am bigoted, I just acknowledge it and work around it by forcing myself to remember my biases. However, all you can do is work to minimize it or, maybe - just maybe, do your "job" (it is not always work related) well enough so that it is exceptional and change the minds of a single bigot. Even if you do not then you have the satisfaction of being excellent.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  129. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Your entire argument is based on the premise that law enforcement is both swift and effective!

    Out of interest which panet do you live on and how do I emmigrate there?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  130. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    So you a are literally claiming that she's flat-out telling lies about the FBI investigating right now?

    Be plain. Vague insinuations are a scoundrel's game.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  131. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1


    Basically, what I'm saying is not that she imagined the threats; in fact I believe that she has received them - part and parcel for being a public figure, you see.

    I don't even know where to begin to go with that. She wasn't public figure otuside the game-dev community. She only time she's been a fublic figure is when she got in the corsshairs of the internet hate machine.


    No, what I am saying is that she used the few threats she got and "inflated" it into what she characterizes as a "terror movement" for which she can call out a snipe hunt.

    The "few" threats: your choice of words, not mine. On what do you base that claim?

    And think what you want of Gamergate*, but I have zero belief that it is an organized threat aimed at hounding women out of videogames.

    Say what *you* want about gamergate, but here's how it got started:

    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

    http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/...

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  132. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    And you know the details of the cases reported to the police and being currently invistegated by the FBI how exactly?

    Out of interest if the current FBI investigation bears fruit and leads to prosecutions are you going to recant your position?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  133. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    So you a are literally claiming that she's flat-out telling lies about the FBI investigating right now?

    Yes. She is *literally* lying now, like she *literally* *lied* all those other times. This is the official response from law enforcement

    A police report or investigation as to Brianna Wu has not been filed or referred to this office. That is the normal method to report a crime, cause an investigation or seek a prosecution. Brianna Wu has had no contact with anyone in this office or the cyber stalking unit of the city prosecutors office. Brianna Wu has not provided any evidence to this office, including any tapes of phone calls allegedly received.

    ... from the same link ...

    Wu claims the latest anonymous phone call also came from from #GamerGate, but the voice recording she uploaded contains no mention of the gamers’ movement. Archived threads from the 8ch.net discussion forum reveal that Wu’s phone number had in fact been targeted by /baphomet/, a community that is explicitly hostile to #GamerGate. As well as revealing the personal information of high-profile supporters of #GamerGate, baphomet posters have also been known known to pose as ‘members’ of the movement in order to discredit it. In further evidence that the latest ‘threat’ is an online hoax in the vein of Jace Connors, the recording also makes reference to “you laugh you lose threads” being “f**king retarded”, a reference to a popular in-joke on the anonymous imageboards frequented by web pranksters.

    ... and yet, it seems the only credible danger was *to* GG *from* anti-GG ...

    So far, the only threat deemed “credible” by the authorities has been an anonymous bomb threat made against a gathering of #GamerGate supporters in Washington D.C. earlier this month.

    Be plain. Vague insinuations are a scoundrel's game.

    Plainly? The only credible aggression is from the ideological crusade side. Hell, even on /. the only non-AC aggression is from SJW who are the first to post aggressive, name-calling, verbal abuse and (in cases involving poperatso) actual threats. Not that I find the threats credible, but that's *your* side that needs to learn how to communicate like adults. Maybe you should deal with the aggression coming from your ideological partners before asking the rest of the world to do so first.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  134. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Wow that breitbart article. It's like Fox news in print.

    I like the smooth moving between different views to make it seem like various things are conflated.

    I like how you selectively snipped to ignore the bit that the police report is, in fact filed. Sound like she filed it and the police fouled up (something which seems to happen a lot) then did nothing, then got caught on the back foot by a media storm.

    IOW you managed to post an incredibly biased article that upon careful reading completely goes against your point.

    *high five*

    At this point your precious feels will be seeting over. The world doesn't care by the way.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  135. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    Wow that breitbart article. It's like Fox news in print.

    I like the smooth moving between different views to make it seem like various things are conflated.

    I like how you selectively snipped to ignore the bit that the police report is, in fact filed. Sound like she filed it and the police fouled up (something which seems to happen a lot) then did nothing, then got caught on the back foot by a media storm.

    You can interpret it that way, certainly - the fact is that the official line from LEO is that she made no report. We can't really blame LEO for not investigating if she refused to make a report, now can we?

    IOW you managed to post an incredibly biased article that upon careful reading completely goes against your point.

    You asked if I claimed that she was lying. I posted the actual law enforcements report on the matter which indicate that yes, she is lying.

    *high five*

    At this point your precious feels will be seeting over. The world doesn't care by the way.

    How my feels sit, sith, or seet (whatever the hell your mangled spelling was supposed to mean) is irrelevant because this is not my ideology nor my faith. The world is not supposed to care how I feel, just like it doesn't care how you feel. What eventually matters are the facts, and the facts are that Ms Wu did not report the "horrific harrassment" she supposedly endured, and then she lied about reporting it.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  136. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    You seem to have malformedyour formatting.

    For someone who claims it isn't his ideology or religion, you argue very tirelessly and in great volume. With emotion loaded writing too. Nonetheless, I'll allow you your little self deceptions and ignore that.

    Sounds like from the article that something went wrong with the report and it is now in fact with the police.

    Are you now going to claim that the police never foul up and "lose" hard to prosecute crimes that take a lot of work and ruin the department statistics?

    It's hilarious. Whenever something related to law enforcement comes up, the prevailing opinion is all over their incompetence especially with regard to tech. But now everyone's insisting that she must be lying because law enforcement could never do a bad job.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  137. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    You seem to have malformedyour formatting.

    For someone who claims it isn't his ideology or religion, you argue very tirelessly and in great volume.

    Well, that just it, isn't it? Absence of an ideology is the same as absence of a religion - just because I contradict your ideologically-driven claims doesn't mean that I have an ideology of my own, in much the same way that just because I contradict claims of a god doesn't mean I have a god-based claim of my own - "baldness is not a hair colour".

    With emotion loaded writing too.

    Nope. You send your little insults my way and, like the way I deal with all theists, I stick to what facts are known.

    Nonetheless, I'll allow you your little self deceptions and ignore that.

    Sounds like from the article that something went wrong with the report and it is now in fact with the police.

    Doesn't sound like that at all - there is no ambiguity from LEO's statement - no report was filed. They did not say a report was *lost*, or *miscommunicated*, or anything. Not only did they say that no report was filed, they go further and say that there was no contact from Ms Wu either. She neither contacted them nor filed a report. By her own accounts, she never had a case number either (meaning, it was never filed with the police).

    Are you now going to claim that the police never foul up and "lose" hard to prosecute crimes that take a lot of work and ruin the department statistics?

    That's a god-of-the-gaps argument if I ever saw one - "If there is no evidence connecting $X and $Z, then it *MUST* be this thing-that-can't-be-proven $Y. Our evidence exists in the gaps between the steps." Face it - if she at least had a case number, or the name of the officer who took down the report, hell... even the *date* she claims she made the report she might be believable. She has no record of ever approaching the police, no case number nor a name or description of the officer who helped her. The LEO's are standing firm on this as well - they have no record.

    It's hilarious. Whenever something related to law enforcement comes up, the prevailing opinion is all over their incompetence especially with regard to tech. But now everyone's insisting that she must be lying because law enforcement could never do a bad job.

    Where did we claim that? I personally claimed that, according to all the evidence that we have, there is no record of her approaching the police - none that she can provide and certainly none that the police can provide. If she wanted her claim to be taken seriously she should have at least kept the case number you get for filing an incident with the cops.

    In this case at least, there is little doubt that she lied.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  138. Re: No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    But to a dispassionate observer, both "sides" are doing the exact same thing.

    No, that's a lazy observer. Anyone can make any accusation they like, but it won't be credible unless they provide some credible evidence. If you believe every random accusation you hear, or assign equal weight to every random accusation without bothering to investigate the evidence (or at least go to a trusted source for an opinion, and you will find that all mainstream media and websites come down on one side of this) then the problem is with you.

    You might as well argue that to a dispassionate observer both sides of the holocaust were equally bad, because the Nazi propaganda about Jews was pretty damning too and you are applying equal weight to both sides. Sorry, ignorance is no excuse if you want to as questions about the effect of GamerGate on one of its most high profile victims.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  139. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by LaurenCates · · Score: 2

    You already lose credibility by citing "We Hunted the Mammoth", a hatefully biased source in and of itself.

    And yes, I did my research. As far as I can tell, the whole Zoe Post thing was just a breaking point in a long drawn-out consumer unrest that should have begun and ended with "we're not clicking your pages anymore, sorry".

    As for Brianna Wu, I'd never heard of her before Gamergate. The first I'd ever heard of her was that she'd been harassed. That was it. Her game was nothing special. And I follow gaming enough to not be totally ignorant about what goes on in the community, even though I'm not a big gamer anymore.

    And I cannot condone the idea of blaming many for the actions of a few. Threats happened, sure, but by a stark minority. They should be singled out and punished accordingly, but to blame a group using a hashtag? That's nonsense and antithetical to true justice.

    My point still stands, though. She wants to be taken seriously as a developer before a feminist champion, then that's the face she should show to the community. If she wants to be a pundit, that's fine, but she can't whine and pout that she's not being taken seriously as a developer when in her public persona it takes a back seat to being a victim of a movement whose crimes can barely be addressed by little more than stereotypes.

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  140. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    Born on Mars where everybody is equal and lives to 203. I heard there was good beer here, so I sold up and moved to Earth.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  141. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

    Thank you. I am also mixed race and I feel the same as you do, in that, I don't need extra help, and I don't need to point out that I am a woman every time I goof up at things (I goof up because I'm not perfect).

    It's nice to know I have a fantasy-world husband now. Our babies will be steampunk parkour ninjas. No baby-sized fedoras for our little sprouts!

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  142. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    YOU are the one creating a hostile environment by stirring up this imagined "terror" of Gamergate, and demanding this wild snipe hunt be enacted to purge no one in particular, and scare everyone to varying degrees.

    So she imagined the death and rape threats? And the people behind those accounts are "no in particular", they are just communal accounts or something?

    There is an on-going FBI investigation. As she pointed out, they don't really have the resources or skill, but it seems like on hell of a dangerous game to play if she really did send the threats to herself.

    The more interesting question is why you are so desperate to believe that it's all lies.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  143. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evidence in your face and you still make excuses.

    Some people are beyond reasoning or help. You are one of them.

  144. Re:The SJW harassers of a feather flock together.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most pathetically sad part is that those Twitters users actually think they have any chance of going head to head with Slashdotters on a technical topic. Talk about small man complex.

    Even the most raging Slashdot trolls would have no problem shutting them down. Hell, even APK could put them in their place.

  145. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you call the worthless piece of flesh around a vagina?

    A woman.

  146. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Wow, arguing with you is like dealing "debating" with creationists and denialists. You are so wrapped up in your religion that you can't even tell that it is your ideology that is guiding your entire thought process and not rational thought.

    Nope. You send your little insults my way and, like the way I deal with all theists, I stick to what facts are known.

    facts

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Doesn't sound like that at all - there is no ambiguity from LEO's statement - no report was filed.

    How would he know? All he really knows is there was nothing on record. Good job police are super compenent and never mess things up!

    That's a god-of-the-gaps argument if I ever saw one

    Except the news is full of reports of police incompetence.

    Where did we claim that?

    Try popping on to slashdot whenever a police-in-tech article comes up. It's easy to get an impression of the prevailing feeling.

    And "we"?

    Ooooh I see it's because you are self-identifying with some grand cause as part of your belief system.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  147. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Well, the threats were made publicly over twitter. Brianna screen shotted them and tweeted them. Is there any claim that "no, there are other, privately delivered threats that are of a different nature than these?"

    So, we've seen the threats. "I, anonymous person on the internet likely several states away from you am going to drop everything, drive to your house and commit murder because I hate feminist opinions on video games!"

    Really? Because that happens? People do that?

    There is a difference between protected free speech (even though vile and repugnant as this) and a "true threat," which is actually a crime. There is no hard and fast formula for what a true threat is, and it varies by jurisdiction. It's a "preponderance of circumstances" kind of thing. Lots of little boxes you can check off that, taken together, can add up to a true threat.

    Are the speaker and the victim acquainted in any way? I'll take a threat from a jilted ex or a business partner far more seriously than a random stranger.

    How serious is the nature of their dispute? Personal grievances, like a messy divorce, or political power issues, like threats against a politician or judge I'll take more seriously than those against a random person with no power or authority over a general and nebulous issue like "gender politics in video games."

    Does the threatener have any ability to carry out the threat? In what proximity to the victim are they? While we don't know the location of the threatener, given that the vast majority of people on the internet are nowhere near you, it's unlikely the threatener had any ability to carry out the threat.

    Does the threatener have any kind of history of violence? I'd take a threat from ISIS over depictions of Muhammad seriously, or threats by skinheads against federal judges trying a racially sensitive case. People in or associated with their groups have actually done these things in the past. But gamers? They do nothing. I mean, literally, they do nothing. They sit on the couch and mash buttons and do nothing constructive or destructive at all. They are inert masses. But they sure do talk! If .00001% of the threats of rape and murder communicated over XBox Live were carried out, the streets would be ankle deep in blood.

    So, here you've got a random stranger, unknown to Wu, not personally jilted but politically motivated, who is likely states away from her and completely unable to act, publicly announcing that they are going to commit rape and murder over gender politics in video games, as a representative of a group of people who say 12 horrific things to strangers every day before breakfast and never actually do a damn thing.

    On what planet would any reasonable person take that seriously?

    In investigating, you also have to ask "cui bono?" Who benefits? Making such a threat advances exactly whose agenda? The FBI is doing nothing because they believe in all likelihood she made the thing up herself, creating a throwaway twitter account that did nothing but spew a single scripted set of death threats. But they can't prove it was her so they're not going to prosecute her for making a false claim, but can't say "we think it was her" and embarrass somebody, discouraging actual victims from reporting crimes, without proof. They'll find "the real threatener" right about the time O.J. finds "the real killers." Why would she do that? Well, she has a history of histrionics on a transgender forum, so she's not exactly the most stable of people, and sure has benefited monetarily from the attention.

    And absolutely no one, not a single person, is coming to hurt her.

    If when the entire facade completely collapses (they always do eventually...I've seen this same kind of manufactured persona and outrage in another industry), will you recant your position?

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  148. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    I note that you aren't addressing the fact that Ms Wu herself has no record of filing a case. You can claim police incompetent all you want, but you have no actual fact to back up the claim of police incompetence. Rather than claim a grand conspiracy, I'd prefer to stick with the known facts instead of who claims what. The only fact that remains is that Ms Wu has no record associated with filing a case.

    FWIW, now that the case presumably *is* filed, there is apparently not enough credibility in her claims to pursue, which makes you whole argument about whether she is lying moot.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  149. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Molehills aren't "imaginary".

  150. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right. If I see a male developer that is incompetent, I usually hear language such as "You're fired" or "We're going to have to let you go"
    When I see a female developer that is incompetent, I usually hear language such as "Hmm... well, we need a project manager. It will actually come with an increase in pay."

  151. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Reziac · · Score: 1

    As far as I've paid attention (I read gamergate.community articles occasionally), one thing I've noticed is that GamerGate itself is very much about self-policing, and harrassment of *anyone* is roundly discouraged.

    BTW great post up above (the one that got the +5, I'd give it +10).

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  152. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    ...or maybe you're just mixing with the wrong guys.

  153. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Interesting. I haven't seen quite the same in terms of female developers usually being better than average, but I've definitely seen that female developers are very rarely average. I worked as a contractor for a while so saw a lot of different cube farms and the pattern of female developers I kept seeing almost exclusively, is either "good to very good" (but never the best) or more often "very bad but the boss has a blind spot and/or keeps giving her free passes apparently just because she's female".

  154. Re: No nuance allowed. You're for us or against us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not my fault you're too lazy to google the events. The bomb threat's been linked elsewhere this thread for goodness sake - hardly a parallel universe.

  155. Re:That needs a stable solution, not a chaotic one by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I'm talking here about the educational opportunities for the child, which are significantly affected by whether the child gets a decent lunch. If the parents suffer because they're bad at budgeting, well, that's unfortunate, and I hope they can get help learning to budget, but it isn't really my responsibility. It isn't the child's, either, but the child is getting a worse education because of it.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  156. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I am thinking they might like to wear a fez... They should also drive a motorcycle and attract lots of people from their sexual preference. They should be able to do all of that while wearing the fez - as well as steampunk, parkour, and ninja-ing.

    They would probably just be geeks and end up living in your basement after a horrible divorce warped them mentally. Then again, we'd produce the next generation of /.ers in good fashion.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  157. irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the funniest comment I've read in this entire cesspool of a thread.

  158. The truth is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own."

    Guess what. When I receive the same death threats... no help is coming. Guys get them too, and in the grand scheme of not hearing of any arrests, you haven't heard guy's harassers getting arrested either.

    It's not to say there isn't a gender component to her particular harassment, but once again, she takes what's a good point too far, making it impossible for me to sympathize with her because she's over stating her position and playing it up for publicity. There's pelnty of shitty reasons people have to do shitty things. Let's not invent more so that you can be famous.

  159. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go back to kuro5hin, loser.

  160. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignore the jackass circle. My best guess is this is a NYS thing - if you criticize GG for being sexist and racist, then according to the logic of NYS, which states that if a group contains a member of a particular group, it cannot possibly be victimizing that group, you are racist or sexist because logic checkmate SJWs.

    It's mindbogglingly stupid - but GG's origins as a group of trolls trying to drive a female indie gamedev to suicide (literally) should tell you that these aren't people who are coming up with arguments intended to persuade you of anything, they're just trying to upset you.

    Because you have views about women that are more progressive than Bill Cosby. And your views on minorities are similarly more progressive than Dylann Roof's.

  161. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by paradox11 · · Score: 1

    Here Here, Commenting because you can't get modded up any higher. But this a million times this

  162. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

    Read my responses to serviscope_minor above, in which I state in no uncertain terms that I believe she did receive threats.

    And my post hardly reads as "desperate". Your characterization as such is projection, since I have at no time presented a case that seems tenuous.

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  163. Re:Ah yes, let's talk about gender politics some m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing you fail to realize is that Wu wasn't even harassed, or reported on, until she started tweeting at the hashtag mocking and insulting them. Hell one of the things she did was created a sock puppet account to fake being a "dudebro". That is when the "threats" started to begin.

    Using We Hunted The Mammoth as a source is showing you're lack of understanding regarding GamerGate. And Casey Johnston showed indifference in correcting the vast inaccuracies in her article. This is one of the reasons people are neutral in regards to GamerGate because you have source that is not bias. The IRC logs posted in the Casey Johnston article have been debunked repeatedly but they seemingly keep come back up due to ignorance of some.

  164. Re:credit to slashdot and brianna for doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let me provide you a situation I was involved with somewhat recently. I'm keeping things vague to prevent any retaliation coming back to myself. I worked in one group and there were two people who worked in a different group. I will refer to them as gender since that is important to this story. I was helping both a man and a woman with their projects.

    The man was working on a project that was very small and I was very familiar with because I did a similar role at one of my previous companies, and I was helping him during my lunch time. The amount of time I spent helping him per day was maybe 10 minutes and then we would talk about different things like our hobbies and also news. I would say no more than two hours at most per week was used to help him. His project centered around an established open source project with volumes of documentation, howtos, and etc.

    The woman was working on a huge project that I had no experience with at all. I was also told to provide assistance to her with the project by my manager, who was requested by her manager to have someone on my team to assist her. I would spend a few hours per day helping her. I would over extend myself and start to fall behind on my other projects. This project also was centered around an open source project that was still being developed, had little to no documentation on installation and operations, and was buggy as hell.

    One day she gets upset that we're not making progress and I had to work on a project within my group because it had fallen that far behind. She goes to her manager, her manager goes to my manager. I get called into his office to have a "talk" and I found out that she accused me of not helping her because she was a woman. The reasoning behind it was because her co-worker was making vast progress on his project from the help I provided, which time and experience were never factored into why that was, and she wanted to make a complaint to HR about me for sexual discrimination.

    I was lucky I was able to explain my position to my manager, who then talked to her manager, and HR was not needed to be called in because in most cases that I've seen at other companies, if there is a belief of sexual harassment or discrimination it usually ends with the accused being let go right away. I also explained my unwillingness to work with someone who would jump to that conclusion without understanding the situation for fear that they would take another situation completely the wrong way like that.

    I still talk to her where we talk about work, joke around, etc but I am very careful on what I say around her for fear she can take something the wrong way because she has a chip on her shoulder. In my mind, that has created a more hostile work environment for me where I am uncomfortable talking in front of specific people.

  165. "How did you secure the capital to start GSK?" by frrrp · · Score: 1
    //Brianna: So, I can’t talk specifically about all of our funding. But I can say how we started Giant Spacekat and made our "minimal viable product." I quit my job when I married my husband, and followed him to Boston. I was trying to figure out what to do with my life. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to pursue a graduate degree or start my own company.
    A family relative offered us the chance to live in Frank’s grandmother’s house for free if we renovated it. That would free up capital for us, so I jumped at the chance. I spent half a year renovating the house. Then, we moved in - took our rent money, and used it to hire our first employee.//

    .
    What a crock. Wu even tweeted about this - mommy and daddy gave the thing $200,000.

    --
    smilies are for reetards