SXSW Cancels Panels On Harassment Due To Harassment (sxsw.com)
New submitter rMortyH writes: Two panels on online harassment in gaming scheduled for the upcoming South by Southwest festival have been cancelled due to online harassment and threats. According to a statement from SXSW Director Hugh Forrest, "... in the seven days since announcing these two sessions, SXSW has received numerous threats of on-site violence related to this programming. ... If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
Was run by someone who passes around blacklists and tells people to set themselves on fire. Tells you everything you need to know about these "harassment" accusations.
http://www.ship2block20.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/
Meanwhile Savepoint had a journalist and a game dev on board.
Bullshit.
The feminists like Anita Sarkesian and Zoe Quinn always play the victim card but never back up what they say.
If Gamergate taught me anything, it was to start looking really critically at wikipedia, because I was surprised at how their article on GG has nothing to do with reality. Since I followed this from the beginning. Of course, they only cite as "truth" the very journals and journalists that were directly involved in the scandals to begin with.
And here is this feminist shit again. In another victim ruse. Basement dwelling losers don't give a shit about these too. Threats wouldn't be followed up on, not because they're losers, it's because I don't think the threats exist in the first place.
What I don't get is why SXSW didn't just provide them both some security, instead of this reaction. SXSW is a big organization and can afford it, and the amount of security needed is realistically probably not huge. This isn't like hosting a Mohammed Cartoons talk or American Nazi Party talk or something, where you might worry that you'd have a large number of possibly militant people show up to disrupt it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Thinking of just a recent example, some feminist (Laughing Witch) started and participated in a letter-writing campaign in order to get a particular anti-feminist (Thunderf00t) fired from his job. This letter contained several falsehoods and embellishments, and sought to leverage laws that could potentially lead to an unwarranted arrest. Pretty damn low.
In response to this, Thunderf00t found out where Laughing Witch worked and initiated a campaign to leave negative reviews of that business, since she was one of the company's officers. Answering the call with cult-like obedience, several of Thunderf00t's followers left fake, negative reviews of the business, and also tried writing letters of their own to get the woman fired. They reasoned that anyone else who happened to work for the business simply should have known better than to work alongside such a woman. Just as low.
Out of curiosity, I tried to point out how unethical the actions of both Laughing Witch and Thunderf00t were. Talk about bonkers. On the SJW side, Laughing Witch was of course justified, and any criticism of her tactic was somehow victim blaming. On the MRA side, any employees who would be harmed were just acceptable collateral damage in a round of karmic justice. On both sides, reasoned argument was something no longer considered of any use; instead, silencing the opponent (somewhat viciously) was considered the only option.
Both sides of this thing now view the debate as a war, and both sides are resorting to ever more despicable tactics.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
Curiously when Christina Hoff Sommers get threat from SJW, to the point where she need police protection, it doesn't make it to /. ...
(with sword in hand) "You may not draw me!"
(with pen in hand) "That's why I do."
Skills is irrelevant, only the victory is. Even in real life. Those who succeed are more often than not those who perverted the system to fit their gain...
The review does not exist. If it does, I'm sure you can post a link to the review or a reputable archive such as the wayback machine. Two things to note, in order to pre-empt a bunch of non-review links I've been given before:
a) two words is not a review.
b) A mere mention along the lines of "Zoe Quinn (who you may remember from such games as Depression Quest) is doing something else which I'm now talking about" is also not a review of the game.
Now as I'm sure you're an honest, upstanding chap, I'm sure you will have no trouble providing me the evidence for what has essentially been the rallying cry.
I also fully expected to get modded down for this because it seems nothing is quite so trollish as actually demanding hard evidence. I've got Karma to burn so bring it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There's also Milo Yiannopolous, who calls gamers "overgrown manchildren" and "terminally beta".
Yet he's been quite the thorn in the 'social justice' crowd. If anyone's terminally "beta", it's the social justice warriors that rely on pandering to diversity as well as media gatekeeping to exist. Without both of those, the social justice crowd would be sitting next to Jack Thompson.
It was still two words, as the GP pointed out, in an article providing favorable coverage to 49 other games. But at least you admit it wasn't a review.
Still doesn't excuse Chelsea van Valkerberg's harassment of her ex (and in turn, anyone that dared question her) through the unquestioning media and the courts. Oh, and she still lost her court case despite the money.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.