SXSW Reinstates Panels On Harassment, Adds All-Day Harassment Summit (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: On Tuesday, the South by Southwest Festival announced that it had canceled a pair of panels about online harassment after receiving threats involving them. The cancellation generated a massive outcry, including threats from media organizations to withdraw their support for the festival. Now, SXSW has announced that they're reinstating the panels as part of an all-day summit dedicated to talking about online harassment. They said, "By canceling two sessions we sent an unintended message that SXSW not only tolerates online harassment but condones it, and for that we are truly sorry. The resulting feedback from the individuals involved and the community-at-large resonated loud and clear. While we made the decision in the interest of safety for all of our attendees, canceling sessions was not an appropriate response." They've scheduled more than two dozen speakers for the event, and they plan to stream it live online. "Online harassment is a serious matter and we stand firmly against hate speech and cyber-bullying. It is a menace that has often resulted in real world violence; the spread of discrimination; increased mental health issues and self-inflicted physical harm."

Comments

SXSW are pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

I virtually kick their asses in cyberspace. I stuff their bits into lockers and turn all their 1s into 0s. Why are they hitting themselves?

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're an adult, you got over being called names. Expecting others to sanitize your environment wherever you go is insanity.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[penandpaper]

Oh no! Some one said mean things on the internet! Quick, get the UN on the phone.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[NoImNotNineVolt]

That is, uses a colloquial term for a female genitalia to describe something bad.

And for being unable to take a fucking joke, I call you a dick. That is, I use a colloquial term for a male genitalia to describe something bad. Am I a misandrist now?

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

I know right, what a dick.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Penguinisto]

I always hear this allegation that women are "less rational" than men, but notice that almost all preachers and religious leaders are men.

Unlike your implied stereotype, clergy are required to utilize a surprising amount of reason when it comes to matters of faith (both in persuasion and in tutelage). Failure to do so means failure to proselytize and/or retain a congregation. Cults obviously excluded of course, but otherwise your analogy is pretty false.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[schitso]

"There is no relation between a woman's genitals and a coward. The meaning of "coward" comes from something else."

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Darinbob]

If we're an adult, we should be in an environment more mature than the school playground. At school when we were immature asses, we called each other pussies and dicks. As an adult in my life, it does not happen anymore. We grew out of it. If someone things these are still appropriate terms to use after the age of 18 then they've got some stunted mental growth.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[jedidiah]

It depends on the clergy really. Some go out of their way to avoid reason.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I'm hopeful that one day this trope will be as unfashionable as the ones about women.

I'm hopeful that one day people will go back to a pre-1980 usage (or lack thereof) of the word "trope". Here's a helpful graph.

Seriously. The 2010s will be remembered as the decade of the war on tropes. Trope.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[tnk1]

There is nothing unreasonable about faith. Faith is the understanding that you will not be able to investigate the underlying mechanism of the thing you are dealing with. Most people have to exercise at least a little of that every day, when even when discussing scientific topics.

Generally, religions have been matters of revelation, and not investigation. This does not imply that they are unreasonable, just that they cannot be investigated scientifically. You can reasonably choose to discard items of faith, if you choose to limit yourself to that which you can investigate scientifically, but faith is not the opposite of reason.

Science and the scientific method was the outgrowth of quite a few people, particularly minor clerics, who eventually developed the concepts of Reason and the scientific method. Preachers and such may certainly be irrational, but their job description does not make it automatically so, nor does faith mean that they disable their "reason" to accept it. It is eminently reasonable to accept that there is something out there that you don't understand and can't investigate which, nevertheless, may be true. Certainly, the concept of things like atoms and smaller particles were an object of speculation without the ability to investigate for thousands of years before we could design experiments for them. I wouldn't have called those ancient philosophers "irrational".

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Whorhay]

I think rationality gets a lot of use in religion, just not all the way from the top to the bottom. It's just like any good con, you sell one lie that the sucker wants to believe and then use reasoning to lead them to their safe deposit box. In my mind the clergy isn't all that good an indicator of whether or not one sex is more rational than the other, the congregation though is an entirely different matter. And I've gotta say I don't think I've ever seen a church congregation with more men than women.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[TsuruchiBrian]

Many clergy have very reasonable approaches to convincing the faithful to give them their money. Cults included.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[lgw]

I'm hopeful that one day this trope will be as unfashionable as the ones about women.

I hope instead that no one will care about your bullshit. Worrying about what name people get called is a sign that civilization had brought us to a wonderful place where we have no real worries, and as a sort of auto-immune disorder, we obsess on this meaningless BS. Get over it, and become happier. Enjoy this wonderful civilization and its fruits. You live better than 99% of everyone who has ever lived, stop searching so hard for something to complain about.

 

Re:SXSW are pussies

[wisnoskij]

Pussy isn't feminine, anymore than it is feline. It is simply a word meaning soft.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is nothing unreasonable about faith. Faith is the understanding that you will not be able to investigate the underlying mechanism of the thing you are dealing with.

False. That's not faith. That's simply acknowledgement of agnosticism.

Faith is taking one more step and believing something without evidence. It's taking something you don't know and simply switching it to the category of something you do know without actually learning anything new.

Most people have to exercise at least a little of that every day, when even when discussing scientific topics.

Science involves a lot of guessing. I don't think any part of science involves believing something is true without evidence. There's a difference. Science is very clear about when things count as hypotheses/conjectures, and when they count as theories/facts/etc (hint: it's after the experiment).

but faith is not the opposite of reason.

No faith is not the opposite of reason, for the same reason that dogs are not the opposite of cats. That doesn't mean that they are not mutually exclusive.

Science and the scientific method was the outgrowth of quite a few people, particularly minor clerics, who eventually developed the concepts of Reason and the scientific method.

I find this claim to be rather dubious.

Preachers and such may certainly be irrational, but their job description does not make it automatically so, nor does faith mean that they disable their "reason" to accept it.

I think their job description does imply some irrationality. Maybe they are not being irrational, but their job certainly involves inculcating others to be irrational. I would not assume that every preacher practices what they preach. It's quite common for them to exposed as conmen, and conmen are certainly acting rationally.

It is eminently reasonable to accept that there is something out there that you don't understand and can't investigate which, nevertheless, may be true.

That is reasonable. To then go that next step from "Something can be true even if we can't prove it" to "Something *is* true even if we can't prove it" is not reasonable.

Certainly, the concept of things like atoms and smaller particles were an object of speculation without the ability to investigate for thousands of years before we could design experiments for them. I wouldn't have called those ancient philosophers "irrational".

It would have been irrational to say "Atoms must exist even though we have no evidence", even if it turned out to be true.

I can say "I know this next die roll will be a 6". That is irrational even if the next die roll is a 6.

But ancient philosophers were not basing their speculation purely on faith. They were using logic to come to those conclusions. They were evaluating the reasonableness of substances being infinitely divisible vs. there being some indivisible smallest unit.

Not all evidence is empirical. Other forms of theoretical evidence like logical and mathematical consistency, are also valid sources of evidence.

I would also like to point out that since discovering "the atom" we have discovered subatomic particles like protons and neutrons, and even smaller particles like quarks which compose them. We also potentially have yet another level deeper to go with string/M theory.

As logical as it may sound that there be a smallest indivisible particle, it may in fact be the case (as pointed out by Feynman and others) that there may not even be a bottom. It could be smaller and smaller sub-particles forever in an infinite regression.

My point is this: There is a big difference between saying
1. I don't have any evidence, but I think maybe X is true (agnosticism + hypothesis)
2. I don't have any evidence, but I know X is true (faith)

One of those is compatible with science and one is not.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[goose-incarnated]

Misandry us going a bit far,

Likewise, claiming misogyny for "pussy" is going a bit far.

but it is somewhat problematic. I'm sure you don't intend it to be, but it refers to men being led by their dicks, acting with little thought because they are horny. It's a lame trope that belittles guys, kinda like the one about bond women being dumb or women acting irrationally because they are menstruating.

So, in addition to claiming that women undergo no hormonal changes at different points in their cycle, you also want the world to stop using body parts as insults? Let us know how your crusade to stop people using the word arsehole...

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Grishnakh]

And I've gotta say I don't think I've ever seen a church congregation with more men than women.

I've heard that stereotype before too. I've even heard country songs with women saying something about how they need to "drag" their men to church. I've also heard of women in church having a hard time finding husbands, exacerbated by the preachers telling them they cannot date men who don't also go to church (that's being "unequally yoked"). So it does seem like women are more religious in general than men. However, I find it interesting that almost all religious leaders are men. Hmmm...

Re:SXSW are pussies

[reboot246]

You have to realize that most slashdotters have never seen a real pussy (the feminine kind), much less felt one.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[PopeRatzo]

And I've gotta say I don't think I've ever seen a church congregation with more men than women.

Orthodox Christian, Jewish and Muslim congregations don't even let the women pray in the same big room as the men. They have to hide out in an anteroom where they won't seduce the men into thinking impure thoughts.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Electricity Likes Me]

If you're an adult, you got over being called names. Expecting others to sanitize your environment wherever you go is insanity.

This exact same logic works right back at you.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[AmiMoJo]

So, in addition to claiming that women undergo no hormonal changes at different points in their cycle, you also want the world to stop using body parts as insults?

No and yes.

All human beings undergo hormonal changes during their life. It's just that women are often undermined by dismissing their complaints or assertiveness as being due to menstruation.

As for using body parts as insults, if you can try to understand the above sentences then maybe you can then comprehend what I mean about body parts. I mean, you realize that menstruation is a bodily function, right?

Re:SXSW are pussies

[kubajz]

Thanks for the detailed analysis. Unfortunately I have to work even on Saturdays so I don't have time to answer more of your points but I would like to address the last two numbered lines in your post. Are you sure there is a difference between agnosticism + hypothesis and faith? I actually see the only difference in the words we use (how do you understand the work "know", and how strong is the "faith"?

To make this more scientific (because without observable behaviour, how can you tell if what someone has in their head is faith or agnosticism + hypotheses): to what extent do people base their actions on their hypothesis/faith?

I have faith that once I finish typing this it will appear on the Slashdot website (do I know or hypothesize?). I have a hypothesis that there is an optical link that will transfer the request to Slashdot servers (or do I know this although I have not seen the cable, and if I have seen the cable it was not today?). I know the stairs outside my office will carry me (or is this just a hypothesis based on previous experience)? I hypothesize that the computer I am typing this on actually uses some electricity as I type (or do I really and for sure know this?).

Of course in religion these become more complicated, and I am willing to admit that I don't know if there is life after death but I act as if there is (or I act as if there is not). It does not even matter what I believe, it's how I act - some people say they believe in life after death but act as if that was not true, others say they are agnostics but act as if there was no life after death, without a provision that it may be untrue (if there's some probability of getting to hell shouldn't I go for a more careful approach if I really don't know, or do I have actual faith that there is nothing after death?).

So, thanks again for the post, and I can only hypothesize that it will be useful.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[orgelspieler]

women acting irrationally because they are menstruating.

This is not a "lame trope," it is a fairly reasonable generalization. If you are married, or have spent any length of time with women, you have witnessed it firsthand. Look, if your body was trying to destroy a part of itself from the inside, you probably would have a bad temper, too. I'll probably get modded as flamebait for this one, but most (like 90%) of my friends growing up were girls. Even the biggest brainiac nerdy chick would go completely apeshit for a few days. It's part of life. You just give them space, and be a grown up about it.

Also, the thing about men thinking with their dicks is true for most of us. That doesn't make it a bad thing. It's just how we evolved. Luckily, most of us have learned how to be polite and respectful of others, so we maintain a level of decorum in public (this post to the contrary).

Re:SXSW are pussies

[Hognoxious]

kinda like the one about bond women being dumb

Diana Rigg is quite smart.

She's in the one with George Lazenby.

Re:SXSW are pussies

[TsuruchiBrian]

I have faith that once I finish typing this it will appear on the Slashdot website (do I know or hypothesize?).

I wouldn't say this is faith. You have no doubt posted comments on slashdot in the past, and so you have formed an expectation of what will occur in the future based on this evidence. This is different than someone who has never used a computer having faith in how a particular website will work.

Someone who has never been to heaven having faith that they will go to heaven is different than having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Of course in religion these become more complicated, and I am willing to admit that I don't know if there is life after death but I act as if there is (or I act as if there is not). It does not even matter what I believe, it's how I act - some people say they believe in life after death but act as if that was not true, others say they are agnostics but act as if there was no life after death, without a provision that it may be untrue (if there's some probability of getting to hell shouldn't I go for a more careful approach if I really don't know, or do I have actual faith that there is nothing after death?).

I agree that how you behave is probably a more true representation of what you believe than what you say you believe (e.g. the preacher caught doing drugs with a hooker paid for by his parishioners).

I would say that you should absolutely take into account the >0 probability that heaven/hell exist. That said, acting as if heaven and hell exist is potentially costly in this life. Think of all the more fulfilling things you could be doing with your limited time on earth than studying some book of lies and wasting X hours every week listening to another person tell you about his interpretation of this book. This is what is known as opportunity cost to economists.

Secondly, you should also take into account that every religious claim from every religion has some >0 probability of being true, including any religious claims that you might imagine from yet invented religions. The possibilities are infinite.

The argument then becomes... Should you place more weight (i.e. have more faith) in one religion over another? And if so, what criteria should you use to base this decision on. Should you base this decision on evidence? (e.g. which religion has the most adherents, or which religion made the most correct predictions according to someone, etc), or are you going to base this decision on faith (e.g. having faith that the religion you were brought up in just happens to be the correct one, etc)?

I think there are objectively good reasons to believe things to some level of certainty and bad reasons to believe things to some level of certainty. If you don't have any good reasons to believe something to some level of certainty, but want to believe it anyway, you might be tempted to simply have faith.

For example, a gambler who has lost at roulette many times in a row may feel his chances are better now that his good luck is now "due". This is bad reasoning for estimating your chances to win the next game. You could show this gambler a history of all his previous bets and there would likely be good evidence to show that the law of independent assortment is a reality. He might decide your evidence is no good, and cite his own flawed evidence that he finds more convincing, or he may discount the value of logic and evidence altogether. The latter is what I consider to be faith.

Let me follow the logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Plan to have panels about online harassment. Harassed into canceling those plans. Then reinstate the plans?

I don't know what the lesson is here!

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Random Nobody]

Please cite anything you said

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like "But SJWs always project." then?

In that case, STOP PROJECTING YOUR PROJECTIONS!

Thanks in advance.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Random Nobody]

Please cite anything you said, the articles don't give evidence or anything. Quoting spurious accusations from known shit-people like Randi Harper or Leigh Alexander does not count as evidence. It's pretty clear you're too naive to be discussing these things.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some bad news for you. You're one of the foolish reactionaries who went nuts over women fighting back against harassment. You're what's wrong with the gaming and reactionary dork communities. Anyone who calls civilized people "SJWs" is a dead-ender who needs to grow up.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[ClickOnThis]

I have some bad news for you. You're one of the foolish reactionaries who went nuts over women fighting back against harassment. You're what's wrong with the gaming and reactionary dork communities. Anyone who calls civilized people "SJWs" is a dead-ender who needs to grow up.

When a story about online harassment shows up on Slashdot, it's inevitable that the harassers show up to the discussion. And their friends with mod-points.

And Dice gets the ad-clicks.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[AmiMoJo]

Criticism != harassment.

One of the most well known SJW traits is equating criticism and calls for change with harassment. Are we to conclude you are projecting?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Random Nobody]

So what part of this makes it okay to make false accusations and generalizations against groups of people without any evidence? Some people might call this... bigotry.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Mashiki]

There's nothing there that says gamergate was involved at all. Here's a question, why would gamergate want it's own panel shutdown? It's not any different than the tinfoilers who claimed that gamergate tried to shut down their own gathering at Local16(which is an on-going investigation still), or claiming that they shutdown the SPJ Airplay event with multiple bomb threats(also an on-going investigation), where the SPJ actually gave them a voice, instead of what the media was claiming it was.

In my book it falls into one of two camps, either exceptionally devout SJW's did it because they believed they're doing the right thing(there is an extremely long list of SJW's who have faked things to get attention or try to stop something--from fake racism to claiming non-existent rape while claiming it was "to create a dialog) or for the lulz, or trolls doing it for the lulz. You know, people like Joshua Goldberg who was a prolific writer for a pile of left-wing sites like The Guardian, Daily Kos, Feministing, and had dozens of articles published by them. But, he uses the gamergate hashtag(which anyone can use) 35 times, when there are 3.5m+ tweets in it, but that automatically makes him a member of gamergate says the SJW crowd.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[jedidiah]

I did. I call BS.

Austin may be a little Unionist but they aren't completely yellow. They are still Texans after all.

It's more likely that they just didn't want to bother and and the real screamers got their panties in a bunch.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[GameboyRMH]

Came here for Social Injustice Enthusiast butthurt; leaving satisfied.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[NotDrWho]

So you're accusing "SJWs" of bigger threats of actual violence than the ones that caused SXSW to cancel the panels in the first place?

Trolls have never once tried to pass legislation destroying the very foundation of free speech. They've never bullied a single university into kicking out students for daring to challenge the accepted liberal/feminist/race-hustling narrative. They've never threatened to alter the content of my videogames/movies/TV shows/etc. to portray some artificial liberal construct of "reality." AFAIK, they've rarely, if ever, drum-headed anyone out of their profession for saying the wrong thing.

They just occasionally shoot their virtual mouths off with hollow threats and juvenile insults.

So yes, SJW's are VERY MUCH so more of a threat to most us in our everyday lives than any trolls ever will be.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[epyT-R]

Yes. In fact, I'd argue that SJWs created the controversy in the first place. This is typically what happens:
1. Find some collection of attributes or institutions in the target cultural context to dominate. In this case, gaming/technology.
2. Feign offense and put on a victim routine, the louder the better. I believe they call it 'signal boosting'.
3. Use this victim status to garner sympathy and thus political power within the target organizations.
4. Use this power to 'reframe the narrative', ie dominate the discussion before it even begins.
5. Extract whatever cultural relevance this group has and use it to 'signal boost' up to the next target. When it inevitably dies, abandon the husk and move to the next target.

Yay for parasitical political philosophies!

Re:Let me follow the logic

[NotDrWho]

Calling someone an SJW isn't "harassment." If someone is so thin-skinned that they can't handle being labeled themselves (even as they themselves attempt to attach much more virulent labels to their critics), then they have no place in the debate.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[penandpaper]

Criticism != harassment.

According to Anita Sarkeesian it is.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[alvinrod]

I'd like to think they had the sense to realize that standing up to threats to stifle speech and open discussion are far worse in the long run than any incident that might occur.

For as many threats as get thrown around by internet trolls or idiot tough guys, most have no actual weight behind them any more than some crazed loon talking about killing the president. Giving in to those tactics shows that they work and it only encourages other people to continue to use them.

If you don't stand up to the threats, you give the people making them (who are often powerless and incapable of acting on those threats) reason to continue making more.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Pinky's Brain]

It's entirely up in the air where the threats came from. It could be a Jace, it could be mattress girl, it could be the Jew going around his neighbourhood painting Swastikas, it could be me, it could be you.

We have known cases of SJWs getting people fired, which is why for the moment the violence of SJWs is more effective than the alleged threats of violence from GG/MRAs. For the moment SJWs have the power to ruin arbitrary people's career and they aren't afraid to use it, while GG/MRAs have the power to troll people online who make a career out of getting trolled online for pity bucks.

At some point GG/MRAs might become more violent, but going on the past you have more to fear from the SJWs.

Re: Let me follow the logic

[cyber-vandal]

White males are always the enemy. Look what they did to Joss Whedon, despite his obvious feminist leanings.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[NotDrWho]

Well, it's certainly a lot funnier than the labels that SJW's apply to their critics.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[AmiMoJo]

GanerGate argues that "professional victims" harass themselves with fake threats to gain attention. Using that logic we can conclude that GamerGate is probably behind all threats made against GamerGate, since it profits from the drama.

More seriously, in my experience when people start accusing others of dishonest behaviour based on some dubious circumstantial evidence, it's because that's how they think and how they themselves act. The fact that we have IRC logs of GanerGate channels where people discuss doing this pretty much confirms it.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[epyT-R]

and yet here you are, doing the same kinds of things these supposed harassers do: calling people names.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SofiKadaj]

Anti-feminists seem to have trouble grasping this. Criticism: A: I think your ideas are wrong and here's why. B: I disagree for the following reasons. Harassment: A: I think your ideas are wrong. Everybody, look, her ideas are wrong. You are useless and stupid because I think your ideas are wrong. I'm going to call your friends and tell them to stop being your friend and post on your facebook to let everyone know how wrong your ideas are. B: Please get out of my house. Threats: A: I'm going to kill you if you talk about your ideas. B: ???

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Darinbob]

So you deny it all? No anti-SJW gamergate believer has ever promoted violence, never stalked anyone, never phoned in death threats, and that it's all about gaming journalism ethics and mass media has got it all wrong?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[epyT-R]

Interesting.. I'd say the same thing about feminists shouting 'rape apologist,' 'patriarchy',' and other such idiotic things at people for disagreeing. The part that makes it unfunny is that their shenanigans are backed by the state and mainstream institutions, which make them dangerous to liberty.

It's interesting how these people bitch about labels and generalizations, yet are the ones spending more time than most applying them to people. I believe they call it 'intersectionality.'

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Darinbob]

Yes it is. SJW has not been used on slashdot to mean anything other than ultra liberal male hating idiots. When has anyone here ever used it to mean someone who cares about other people and hopes to end racism and sexism? When has anyone here used that word to refer to anyone else without foaming at the mouth?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[jedidiah]

I don't care about your attempts to verbally bully me.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[epyT-R]

Appealing to laws lobbied for by SJWs is circular reasoning. Also, just because it's the law does not make it a fact.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[jedidiah]

Nope. You can get labeled a troll by engaging in A. All you have to do is express a contrary viewpoint.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Random Nobody]

More seriously, in my experience when people start accusing others of dishonest behaviour based on some dubious circumstantial evidence, it's because that's how they think and how they themselves act.

The fact that we have IRC logs of GanerGate channels where people discuss doing this pretty much confirms it.

Surprisingly both of these statements existed in the same paragraph.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Random Nobody]

It's weird how SJWs think anyone who disagrees with them is their personal hashtag boogieman. Why do SJWs find it objectionable to insisting that we shouldn't be making false accusations and generalizations against groups of people without evidence? I want fascists to leave.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[PopeRatzo]

Here's a question, why would gamergate want it's own panel shutdown?

I think I can answer that: because whenever GamerGate has participated in a public forum, it has only been embarrassed and seen public support drop. For example, the recent event with that Koretzky dude from the Society of Professional Journalists turned into a monkey-show of GG e-celebs and floor-crappers. Public exposure is not GamerGate's friend. Remember Aurini's big documentary? You think GG is gonna be helped by having Oliver Campbell explain how he's in deep cover for the FBI investigating the feminists? Or Ralph Retort talking about the ethics of doxxing bitches while cleaning out his ear with a toothpick? I repeat: public exposure is not GamerGate's friend. If the past year has taught us anything, it's that fact. Every event, every happening has just caused GamerGate's support to erode.

On the other hand, if you ask the question, "Why would the blue-haired SJWs want their own panel shutdown?" now you have something of a quandary. Every time they get their mugs in public, they have multinational companies throwing money at them (Intel) or they get invited to be on Colbert or to speak at the United Nations or they have their new non-profit anti-harassment organization funded. Their Patreons get more donors and they get to be social darlings. Public exposure is the SJW's friend. They suck that shit up, and having a panel at SXSW cancelled would be a disaster for them.

In summary, one party has nothing to gain and the other has nothing to lose.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[epyT-R]

No, that is not logical. Just because one group does it does not automatically mean an opposing group has. Both accusations are separate and require separate evidence.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SuiteSisterMary]

Criticism: When you harass somebody.

Harassment: When somebody criticizes you.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[AmiMoJo]

I've found a way to defeat the block modding by the SJW/MRA crowd. I get in early and post some replies. They waste all their mod points on me and then don't have enough left to attack all the others who disagree with them.

I've got karma to burn, and this is a good use of it.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Anonymous Coward]

People who call people "SJW" are the same people who think that only hippies and scumbags go to protests, or that women should just shut the fuck up and knit them a sweater.

Stereotype much, bro?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[pseudofrog]

Jesus Christ. Let's tackle a few of these.

Goldberg created alts that spouted ridiculous arguments he would later cite on his main account, the one he attached his name to, as "crazy SJWs". Those other accounts were to create strawmen for his real account, again, the one using his real name, to attack.

Your LMGTFY link points to one college student nobody's heard of making a false rape threat and links to articles claiming Anita Sarkeesian never reported threats to authorities. Here's a citation. Short story: Asshole MRAs (and GamerGate supports) call the SFPD, and the person who answered claimed to not know of any reports made by Sarkeesian. Turns out the SFPD immediately passed that info along to the FBI from the beginning. Even Milo, Gamergate's ""intellectual leader"", admits that.

But the narrative that Sarkeesian made up the threats is too useful to admit is wrong, so the original articles stay without noting that further investigation proved them wholly incorrect. Then people like you reference them, hoping that readers won't dig deeper.

Any time someone makes threats against one of the people Gamergate hates, they blame third-party trolls. Conveniently, these trolls magically disappear when threats are made against Gamergate events. Gamergaters love to ignore the fact that an infamous 8chan troll took credit for the threats. 8channers love going after "SJWs", but they fuck with Gamergaters on occasion as well. Because of lulz or whatever.

It's sad that Slashdot is taking these conspiracy whinings so seriously, but I'd encourage people to do some research. To date, Gamergate has accomplished nothing aside from calling their enemies whales and trannies while claiming the mainstream media is out to get them. Perhaps it's not surprising that they're hailing Breitbart Tech, yes, that Breitbart, as a savior of tech journalism.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Mashiki]

GanerGate argues that "professional victims" harass themselves with fake threats to gain attention. Using that logic we can conclude that GamerGate is probably behind all threats made against GamerGate, since it profits from the drama.

Well considering every time their patreon start dropping those professional victims re-inject themselves into it and start claiming this like "gamergate did a driveby shooting" and so on. Gamergate doesn't profit on drama, drama hurts it more than anything. There's an easy way to disprove what you're saying though, if gamergate did profit from the drama then all those articles calling use harassers, doxers, worse than isis, there'd be hundreds of thousands of subs on Kotakuinaction, and posts would be hitting the autosage limit on chans. But that's not happening is it?

More seriously, in my experience when people start accusing others of dishonest behaviour based on some dubious circumstantial evidence, it's because that's how they think and how they themselves act. The fact that we have IRC logs of GanerGate channels where people discuss doing this pretty much confirms it.

I'm sure you've got plenty of proof on that. Since the only channels gamergate actually uses is: /r/kotakuinaction and GGHQ and GGR on 8chan.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Mashiki]

I think I can answer that: because whenever GamerGate has participated in a public forum, it has only been embarrassed and seen public support drop. For example, the recent event with that Koretzky dude from the Society of Professional Journalists turned into a monkey-show of GG e-celebs and floor-crappers. Public exposure is not GamerGate's friend. Remember Aurini's big documentary? ou think GG is gonna be helped by having Oliver Campbell explain how he's in deep cover for the FBI investigating the feminists? Or Ralph Retort talking about the ethics of doxxing bitches while cleaning out his ear with a toothpick? I repeat: public exposure is not GamerGate's friend. If the past year has taught us anything, it's that fact. Every event, every happening has just caused GamerGate's support to erode.

Really? You mean the same thing from the SPJ which has a gaming-only related journalism reward that only goes to sits that show they have no conflict of interest? Or people like Lynn Walsh who are on the savepoint panel because of it? Strange I don't seem to remember Cambell ever saying that, link? But if you're right and all that has cause GG's support to erode, then why do subs continue to increase, and why do subs and sites continue to consistently draw more people?

On the other hand, if you ask the question, "Why would the blue-haired SJWs want their own panel shutdown?" now you have something of a quandary. Every time they get their mugs in public, they have multinational companies throwing money at them (Intel) or they get invited to be on Colbert or to speak at the United Nations or they have their new non-profit anti-harassment organization funded. Their Patreons get more donors and they get to be social darlings. Public exposure is the SJW's friend. They suck that shit up, and having a panel at SXSW cancelled would be a disaster for them.

In summary, one party has nothing to gain and the other has nothing to lose.

Really GG has nothing to lose anyway. Gamers themselves have been bullied, called mass murders, the cause of all of societies ills since the 1990's. You're basically looking at one of the most bullied sections of society who've already been beaten down, and saying "no fucks are given." But if they had nothing to gain, or provided nothing then all those gaming sites wouldn't have changed their disclosure and ethics policies, the FTC wouldn't have changed their native advertising rules, and the media wouldn't be so obsessed with us as the "new 4chan" that hacks, rapes, destroys, doxes, and takes candies from babies. You literally can't go a week without some new article claiming that GG is evil, or GG did this or that because they're GG. It's almost turned into a dank meme all because of their hard work.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[epyT-R]

Nah, it's usually the feminists who have that problem. They squawk at people who criticise and try to get them removed from whatever platforms are in play. Typical examples include fired from jobs, kicked out of schools (eg Duke, Dalhousie), and of course, nuisance sexual harassment law suits. It's not the anti-feminists who are building soviet show trial style 'tribunals' in every institution they can in order to intimidate and shout people down. Anti-feminists aren't also building coalitions to censor speech they don't like either.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[WillAffleckUW]

Appealing to laws lobbied for by SJWs is circular reasoning. Also, just because it's the law does not make it a fact.

Aww is baby upset that terrorism is called just that?

Maybe post as a non-AC sometime.

I'll be over here watching you cowering in the closet, railing against the mean nasty SJWs who are p0wning you.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[lgw]

There is solid evidence, including multiple police investigations (and at least one arrest) of SJW manufacturing fake harassment against themselves. (Protip: making a false police report is an actual crime.) This isn't just some passing fancy.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[AmiMoJo]

Those things are clearly not true. Trolls do things like vote stuffing to get stupid rules enacted or block people they don't like from having a platform. Also, only trolls claim that freedom of speech is absolute, and that there can be no such thing as verbal harassment.

I'd point out that as a feminist I'm committed to free speech, but recognise that if people are harassed and threatened into silence that is in itself a form of censorship and creates an echo chamber like /r/KotakuInAction or 8chan.

Presumably you also dislike all critics because they seek to change the content of your games/movies by pointing out things that suck about them. All criticism is an attack that is trying to ram ideology down your throat.

Face it, you actually hate freedom of speech when people say things you disagree with.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SofiKadaj]

Then stop engaging straw men.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SofiKadaj]

That's funny, because those "typical examples" you mention typically end up being on legitimate grounds with real evidence of discrimination and harassment. It's also funny you mention alleged discrimination of Dalhousie, a school that was just recently embattled in a huge scandal over men in their dentistry school discriminating heavily and taking and sharing voyeur pictures of women without their consent and sharing them When a random anti-feminist makes an ill-thought comments and complaints every time a feminist opens his/her mouth, people call it criticism, and everybody moves on. When a random woman (she doesn't need to be a feminist -- that is assumed just because she's a woman and she's talking) makes an ill-thought comment or complaint, he/she is hounded and the backlash is humongous, and people call it squawking or whining, and often resort to death threats. This is a double standard that is blatant and easily observed in modern society, and something even non-feminists have begun to seriously address and seriously consider. Also, please provide me an example of exactly one of these "coalitions" seeking to censor speech so I can eat my own shoes. Anti-feminists and feminists mutually use terrible arguments, straw-man fallacies, claims of squawking and whining on both sides -- but only anti-feminists seem to abandon the arguing and resort to hacks, blackmail, and death threats.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SofiKadaj]

On a completely unrelated note, how can I preserve spacing? That comment was beautifully tabbed and separated by line, and now it's a wall of text. ;~;

Re:Let me follow the logic

[AmiMoJo]

If you look at some of the main GanerGate supporters YouTube channels, you can see the spike in views when they do videos on the alleged attacks on GamerGate. Same with Patreon subscribers. They clearly do profit when GamerGate related drama happens.

As for GamerGate not using IRC, of course they don't now. They learned their lesson about using non anonymous real time chat.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[goose-incarnated]

GanerGate argues that "professional victims" harass themselves with fake threats to gain attention. Using that logic we can conclude that GamerGate is probably behind all threats made against GamerGate, since it profits from the drama.

More seriously, in my experience when people start accusing others of dishonest behaviour based on some dubious circumstantial evidence, it's because that's how they think and how they themselves act. The fact that we have IRC logs of GanerGate channels where people discuss doing this pretty much confirms it.

There's only one group profiting from the mud-slinging. Only one of the groups is making actual money from all of this.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[PopeRatzo]

Really GG has nothing to lose anyway. Gamers themselves have been bullied, called mass murders, the cause of all of societies ills since the 1990's.

I can see that you're hurting friend. Thoughts and prayers.

But there is still no reason that the SJWs would call in threats on their own panel. There's no possible upside and they're all about what's best for them.

It's either GG itself or some other channer garbage that called in the threats.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Cederic]

Sorry, is Beta Male meant to be some sort of juvenile insult?

Just that anybody that isn't a beta male is female, or Chuck Norris.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[riverat1]

Change your "Comment Post Mode" to post as "Plain Old Text" or use HTML tags to preserve the spacing. To make the change hover over your username in the upper right, select Account then select Posting. (This is on a PC, I'm not sure what it looks like if you're on a mobile device).

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Mashiki]

If you look at some of the main GanerGate supporters YouTube channels, you can see the spike in views when they do videos on the alleged attacks on GamerGate. Same with Patreon subscribers. They clearly do profit when GamerGate related drama happens.

Gamergate people watch things that may interest them, and have gamergate related stuff in them. WHO KNEW? Wait what gamergate supporters have patreons? It's not sargon of akkad, he's between neutral leaning and pro-leaning but that's it. It's sure not ralph who considers himself a muckracker and many people don't like him. Sure not thunderf00t, though he'll comment on or off. It's not mundanematt, he's pro-leaning. Not hotwheels, because SJW's got him kicked off patreon for no reason even though he falls within their rules.

As for GamerGate not using IRC, of course they don't now. They learned their lesson about using non anonymous real time chat.

You said you had proof, but like many aggros you've shown that your PoV only comes down to one thing. Bullshit, or in your terminology "Listen and Believe."

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Mashiki]

I can see that you're hurting friend. Thoughts and prayers.

But there is still no reason that the SJWs would call in threats on their own panel. There's no possible upside and they're all about what's best for them.

It's either GG itself or some other channer garbage that called in the threats.

Couldn't care really. Welcome to a group of people where no fucks are given, because their skin is already thick. Which is of course the opposite of the "safe spaces" crowd right?

Really? I'm guessing that's why the SJW crowd is all aflutter about the possibility of pro-GG individuals now being on the panel, and moaning about how "SXSW can't take care of their safety." You know what's funny? The anti-GG side has said we'll accept a dialog for the last year. You know what their actual response has been when people say okay, let's have a dialog? They claim harassment, block pro-GG people, yell that they're being harassed, and then when someone offers up large sums of money they're silent.

In the case of SPJ Airplay, the anti-GG side refused unless they were paid, the pro-side said "they were doing it for free." They then said, they wouldn't go unless SPJ paid they fares. Several pro-GG people offered to pay their fares, but then they said no. Then they claimed that they hadn't recived any offers at all. Michael Koretzky came out publicly saying that, the offers had been given and they either refused or ignored it.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[MechaStreisand]

If the anti-gamergate panel only got harassment and threats after the pro-gamergate panel was announced even though the anti panel was announced before that, why would anyone believe that it was the gamergaters who were doing the harassing? What, you think they want their own panel cancelled?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[PopeRatzo]

Welcome to a group of people where no fucks are given, because their skin is already thick. Which is of course the opposite of the "safe spaces" crowd right?

Thick skin? Is that why they let some unknown feminist freaks send them into a year-long tizzy? It sounds like you're saying that PTSD is what's making them call in the threats on their own panel.

We can add that to the list of reasons.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[KGIII]

You made me think. I'm not impressed. Don't do that again. However, it seems that creating outrage and then following up with, "Okay, we're going to do it anyhow." Would generate more publicity and the resultant benefits. Hmm...

Meh... I just like popcorn. Unbuttered, unsalted. Popcorn.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[KGIII]

I mentioned this yesterday. Ain't nobody got time for introspection and self-improvement. It's Friday, time for the SJW Showdown. The MRA group is in one corner, trying hard to not look at the other side and the SJWs are prattling on about being enlightened, tolerant, and CORRECT while actively showing everyone that they're the exact opposite of what they claim to be.

Who's going to win this week? The show continues.

"Welcome back my friend, to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside."

Re:Let me follow the logic

[PopeRatzo]

You made me think. I'm not impressed.

I understand. I'm seldom impressed when I think.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[KGIII]

I'm pretty sure that it's a wasted effort. :/ At least, it's highly overrated.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[narcc]

Don't be stupid. People are making money on both sides. GG made obscure folks like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian in to internationally-known celebrities. Over all, it's been good for their career and their message. On the other side, folks like Phil Mason make a living from manufacturing outrage. A pariah in atheist circles, he was barely staying afloat promoting bigotry. The new enemy he's found in the form of feminism has done wonders for his career as a video blogger.

Remember when creationism was the hot-topic? It made people on both sides millions. There were no losers, from a financial perspective. Why do you think Bill Nye and Ken Ham bothered with their silly debate? Ham wanted to keep that outrage money flowing, and Nye wanted his piece of the pie. Sadly for them, that ship had sailed.

  If there were no money to be made from the outrage, the "debate" would have ended long ago. Like the creation vs evolution before it, the results of the "debate" have already been decided by the media and society at large. We're just waiting for the money to dry up.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[narcc]

You're deeply confused.

From what I've seen, the criticism she offers has been derided as an unforgivable assault on video games and the people who play them. I don't know if it's just cowardice or ignorance, but they certainly feel threatened by her videos. She has not, to my knowledge, complained about legitimate criticism of her videos.

It's not Sarkeesian that considers criticism to be harassment, but her detractors.

I just wonder what they're afraid will happen if her views are allowed to be heard. Do they think video games will be banned or censured by the government? Video game players jailed? Internment camps run by Jack Thompson? What bizarre fantasy have they imagined?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Actually, criticism online in certain ways is in fact a Chargeable Offense in Canada and the EU, and if used against any EU or Canadian citizens in the US is a violation of their rights.

Really? Can you give examples of Americans being convicted of violating European restrictions on free speech?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Mashiki]

Thick skin? Is that why they let some unknown feminist freaks send them into a year-long tizzy? It sounds like you're saying that PTSD is what's making them call in the threats on their own panel.

We can add that to the list of reasons.

Nah, some unknown feminist freaks aren't sending them into a year-long tizzy. The BS the media is printing and the obvious collusion, coi and shilling for their buddies is what's sending gamers into a tizzy, one that's been 20 odd years in the making.

But if you want to add that to the list of reasons, I'm sure that works out well with you and makes you sleep well at night.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[Cytotoxic]

Presumably you also dislike all critics because they seek to change the content of your games/movies by pointing out things that suck about them. All criticism is an attack that is trying to ram ideology down your throat.

Face it, you actually hate freedom of speech when people say things you disagree with.

As a true feminist, let me see if I can point out the difference. Posting a takedown of Star Wars Episode 1 that rips it to shreds and belittles everything about it: legitimate exercise of free speech. Even if you love Jar-Jar and midichlorians. Even if they use obscene language and offensive humor.

Petitioning the government to pass new laws outlawing Star Wars or instituting Sci-fi review boards that will monitor and approve the content of such movies: not a legitimate exercise of free speech. Even if you use the language of academics and intellectuals while doing so. (legitimate in this case being a stand-in for "morally acceptable" or "compatible with freedom of speech", not a synonym for "speech that should be banned by the government")

Re:Let me follow the logic

[drinkypoo]

Stereotype much, bro?

Oh, so when it's pointed at you, you don't like it, but you can stereotype people as "SJW" all day and that's justified? Stick your hypocrisy up your stupid ass.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SofiKadaj]

Thank you.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[narcc]

She doesn't just "offer criticism", she pushes an ideological agenda

Okay ... What would that be?

She engages in bigotry and hate mongering.

Citation needed.

She has complained about Thunderf00t's videos, and they are certainly "legitimate" (and accurate) criticism of her videos.

You're kidding, right? Phil isn't exactly known for his honest and accurate criticism. He lies, outright, habitually to motivate his fanbase, who he knows won't bother to check his facts. Remember his 'real threat' video? The one where every single 'point' was an outright lie, trivial to prove false? As for his replies to Sarkeesian, they're on par with the rest of his backwards, fact-free, rants.

A second problem is self-censorship by industry. Companies want to avoid controversy and bad publicity, and it's easier to water down products a bit than to fight people like her.

Here's a clue: YOU already self-censor. It's true. So does everyone else. Industry, obviously, does so as well and has since time immemorial. Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences. You have to face real social consequences for your speech.

As for fighting people like Sarkeesian, why would you? To what, specifically, do you object? I certainly couldn't find anything objectionable. She points out harmful tropes, sure, but has never called for their removal. She's never advocated censorship, just pointed out why she believes those unsavory elements are harmful.

Oh, congratulations on making her famous. Your misdirected outrage has elevated her from obscure vlogger to international celebrity. You built her a giant platform for her message. Consequently, your views have been marginalized, relegated to a few dark corners of the internet. In short, you shot yourself in the foot.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[rochrist]

But 'SJW' isn't a stereotype? Right? Bro?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[AK Marc]

So the death threats and threats of rape and such are "criticism"?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[pseudofrog]

What was I wrong about?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SirLordGodfrey]

When did you stop supping from the poisoned chalice of SJW's?

Re:Let me follow the logic

[SirLordGodfrey]

There have been efforts, notably the gamergate anti-harassment patrol, to try to police the hashtag and certain forums, to report people that actually publish details of a person's address/phone number.

Those running counter to this have never called out their own, except when they step out of line for a moment (such as Brianna Wu when she dared to have coffee with Brad Wardell to chat in a friendly manner over some of the issues involved in this big debacle).

Randi Lee Harper is one of the biggest serial harassers online, having even doxxed and had people send death threats to the CEO of a debt collection agency because they had the gall to try to collect the money she owed. https://archive.is/3oTek

She's made at least one fake review of a book published by a male feminist, claiming all sorts of hateful things of him - he offered to send her a free copy of the book to amend her review as appropriate, she refused outright. https://archive.is/aOXu9 http://www.reaxxion.com/9311/r...

She's been doing this for over 10 years. She thrives on the attention, and people are too stupid to look her up and see that when she "fights" harassment, she's really just covering up her own bullshit.

Re:Let me follow the logic

[beastofburdon]

Well, we sincerely feel sorry for you since you are intellectually incapable of questioning what the phrase "social justice warrior" actually means instead of translating it to your infantile "a smelly poo-head".

great news

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad they changed their mind, few problems are solved by hiding from them

So they proved that bullying works!

[quietwalker]

First by cancelling the panels due to threats, then by reinstating them due to threats!

The lesson to learn here kids: threats works!

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying those who wanted them not cancelled were making threats equivalent to threats of actual violence?

I don't know about you but I think pulling out of participation of an event, or withdrawing an advertiser, is not actually quite the fucking same as making threats of on-site violence.

FML

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... threats of hyperbolic violent harm that couldn't POSSIBLY happen or

Threats of actual economic harm that was ABSOLUTELY going to happen.

Definitely not the same at all.

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Violent stalkers usually start with threats.

When you say "couldn't POSSIBLY happen', I think what you mean is, "It won't happen to ME so I don't care."

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[AmiMoJo]

Fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.

They owned up to their mistake, and listened to what people were telling them. They deserve some credit.

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[Kierthos]

It's amazing that you know that the threats of violence at SXSW couldn't possibly have happened.

O great Karnak, what are this week's lottery numbers? I mean, if you're already peering into the future....

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're about to learn the real lesson: you can never appease SJWs.

Think back to PAX and the crap they got about "dick wolves" (a rather lukewarm cartoon about how MMO protagonists are basically terrible people).

Even after they backed down and started throwing diversity tables and added a complete "diversity lounge" did the SJWs stop whining? Nope! They still boycott PAX, and now the regular attendees that just wanted to hang out with some fellow geeks and play video games aren't bothering to go either because they're sick and tired of hearing how evil they are for having a penis.

You can't please an SJW. They just move the goalposts. The best strategy is to ignore them entirely.

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[SeaFox]

Everyone already knows that. Look at how people but up with invasive security/safety procedures under the threat of being placed on a No-Fly list.

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[Darinbob]

They were cancelled due to threats, but the reinstatement was not because of threats but by others pointing out how it was counter productive and an inappropriate response to threats.

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[OhPlz]

How many times are bombs found after a bomb threat is called in? Has it ever happened? The people that are actually going to carry out acts of violence aren't going to advertise their plans ahead of time.

Re:So they proved that bullying works!

[Cederic]

SOP for the IRA in the 80s.

Only if they don't have control.

[sethstorm]

They don't hide from people if they have administrative control of the narrative. Take that away and they're completely powerless.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[DogDude]

Wah.

What happened to SXSW

[Sir_Eptishous]

SXSW used to be about puking your guts out at 9am after an all nighter, then killing it at shows later that night.

Panels about online harrasment?!?
That is on par with assigning an ip to your bidet, logging in to FB through it, then posting updates while using it.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[quietwalker]

You're thinking of SXSW Music. SXSW has split into 3 parts: Music, Film, and Interactive. This is SXSW Interactive. SXSW Music doesn't even start until SXSW is over.

There's also 7 different exhibitions: http://www.sxsw.com/marketing/...

Re:What happened to SXSW

[Austerity Empowers]

It is billed as a music and film festival. So I'm kind of curious what kind of music they play during the harassment panel. Harassment is a growing problem, do you go pop? Or do you use music to highlight the issues in society and go rap? Me, I say quit being a victim and stir up the masses to fight the problem: metal all the way baby.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[quietwalker]

Sorry, meant to type "Until SXSW Music is over".

Re:What happened to SXSW

[bluefoxlucid]

Harassment isn't a growing problem; it's getting media attention at this time.

Throughout all of history, even in the Victorian age, people have fucked other people's wives; why do you think mistresses are a long-time common theme of a man's life in old stories, or weddings end with something about reasons two people shouldn't be married? The priest isn't asking you if the bride is a lying bitch; he's asking if the bride's dad secretly fucked the groom's mom one drunken night and so the dude is marrying his sister. We have a huge narrative about how the moral fiber of society is degrading, how teenagers are starting to sexualize themselves, how you never had people fucking their teachers in the 1920s or 1950s, teen pregnancy is the new thing, etc; all of that's been a constant theme through history, and teachers kept on fucking 12-year-old schoolgirls right through the ages where we pushed marriage from 12 to 18.

The same narrative is happening with harassment. It's a problem, sure; it's not a new or growing problem, though. Harassment has been with us since man figured out how to call some other man an ignorant little shit in front of his friends in order to elevate his own social status. Now instead of being afraid to leave your house because the big kid from school is waiting around the corner to jump you and give you a wedgie, you're afraid to get on Facebook because the big kid from school is waiting to tell you your tits are too small. Same shit, different day.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[Kierthos]

But being able to harass someone while not even in the same city/county/state/country is relatively new.

Back in Victorian England, if you wanted to harass someone, you pretty much had to be where they were. I really don't see there having been a whole lot of harassment by telegraph. Maybe newspaper, sure. But that was about the limit.

Now? You don't even have to be in the same state to dox someone or SWAT them. So, the nature of harassment may not have changed a lot, the method of delivering it has.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[Sir_Eptishous]

Fucking Slayer.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[Sir_Eptishous]

SXSW has split into 3 parts: Music, Film, and Interactive. This is SXSW Interactive. SXSW Music doesn't even start until SXSW is over.

There's also 7 different exhibitions:

Oh, right, to go along with:
SXSW Floral Design
SXSW Crafting
and my favorite:
SXSW Power Walking

Re:What happened to SXSW

[SuiteSisterMary]

"Hey, you guys in the front, here? Keep an eye on each other, alright? If you see someone going down, help them out, alright? That's what you're here to do, help each other out. This is a song called WAAAAR ENSAMMMMMBLLLLEEEEE!"

Re:What happened to SXSW

[jedidiah]

Rap. Public Enemy and Rage Against the Machine.

I don't anything else modern comes close to being good protest music.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[XxtraLarGe]

I don't anything else modern comes close to being good protest music.

I think you a word.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[bluefoxlucid]

You could send them black spots and pay people in their area to harass them. This was uncommon; but so is harassing people on Facebook from another state.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The priest isn't asking you if the bride is a lying bitch; he's asking if the bride's dad secretly fucked the groom's mom one drunken night and so the dude is marrying his sister.

While this moment has been used for many things in movies, it's really for a previous spouse to stand up and state they are still married to one of the two. Even then its use as more than a formality (a marriage is a public statement of committment before God.. and witnesses) is long over.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[willworkforbeer]

That is on par with assigning an ip to your bidet, logging in to FB through it, then posting updates while using it.

Hey, it's my first attempt at a blog, ok?

Re:What happened to SXSW

[SuiteSisterMary]

Newspaper, broadsheet, simple social gossip.

'Social Media' in Victorian times consisted of going to the right parties and slagging the person off to the correct ears. It was slower than a facebook post, but not much.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[epyT-R]

What you describe is usually what happens to fun things after the political correction police have had their way with it.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[matfud]

It will still stop the marriage.

Remember that a marriage is a contract. The church stuff is not really relevant to it.

Re:What happened to SXSW

[cfalcon]

"or repipe it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:What happened to SXSW

[bluefoxlucid]

Movies usually do the "she's my wife" or "we're in love" thing. Human history legitimately had a long, long age of "anyone could secretly be your sister and everyone marries their cousin" going on. The whole gamut of original justification included bigamy, as well as incest, underaged marriages, forced marriage, marrying a priest or nun(!), and even being infertile (apparently, not being able to knock up your wife is illegal in this time period).

The point was people are under the impression that modern problems are new, and complain about the moral erosion of society. Drugs, sex, and disturbing imagery are seen as new things--never mind that Peyote, diviner's sage, and other hallucinogens were used in most of the spiritual vision quests through history (Salvia was used by people claiming to see the Virgin Mary; mistresses, brothels, teen pregnancy, and sex with your teachers has been common right up until the Internet turned it into a sensation; and classical art included rape, torture, lots of nudity, demons, sex with animals, and anything else you can imagine.

It seems like the Village Idiot has become today's primary occupation.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Sir_Eptishous]

Watch it or we'll banish you to MySpace.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the control they seem to have over multiple media services (e.g. Twitter, Reddit, Fark, Gawker, etc.), they sure look like professional victims.

How about having a discussion about how those services have been used to harass and silence individuals that have defied certain narratives?

Pray tell what control they have over multiple media services? You can block persistent harassers on Twitter if they're using one account but that doesn't mean you won't still have to deal with a barrage of hate in the first place (or every time a new story comes out). Twitter also tends to not find the vast majority of threats actionable. That's just explicit threats: nothing in the TOS at most of these places about hateful comments, ad hominems, etc., which are very much still harmful and harassment.

Also, how can you silence someone for "defying" a narrative? Wouldn't that imply that they haven't been silenced in the first place?

Did you really read "all-day summit about harassment" and jump straight to the "they're not going to talk about the real victims" card? You do realize you aren't victimized by other people speaking about the harassment they've faced or various ways of building systems to discourage harassment, right?

The metaphors around this are hilarious.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm laughing so hard. I might piss myself. Please, send help.
This is just too funny.
First they cancel a harassment panel due to harassment, now they reinstate it due to more harassment.

Their submissiveness is hilarious.
Grow a fucking spine. No wonder nobody takes you people seriously.
Back in the stupid ages, people like that died young, or became slaves to others.
Oh, wait, it still happens now. I repeat, grow a spine.

They'll still not be taken seriously. They already doomed their panels, this is just more salt in the wound.

Re:The metaphors around this are hilarious.

[Kierthos]

They cancelled the panels due to harassment and threats.

They reinstated the panels due to several organizations saying that if the panels weren't reinstated, the organizations wouldn't show up to the event.

There's a bit of a difference there.

Re:The metaphors around this are hilarious.

[Raseri]

They reinstated the panels due to several organizations saying that if the panels weren't reinstated, the organizations wouldn't show up to the event.

That's a threat, dude.

Re:The metaphors around this are hilarious.

[Kierthos]

It's a matter of scale.

"Cancel {X} or we'll do violence to you!" vs. "Reinstate {X} or we're not showing up."

There is no crime committed by the latter.

Re:The metaphors around this are hilarious.

[Raseri]

A declaring of one's intention to cause harm or loss to another's person or property or to limit one's freedom to act in a lawful voluntary manner

Strange, I'm not seeing the word "violence" anywhere in that definition. In fact, there's no specification of what type of harm can be intended or not, so one could assume that this could include financial or social harm.

Did you actually read and understand what you posted?

Re:The metaphors around this are hilarious.

[Kierthos]

There's a difference between a boycott and threats of violence.

One, a boycott is not inherently a crime. I could choose to boycott, oh, say, Wal-mart, and if I announce I am boycotting Wal-mart, it doesn't necessarily follow that this boycott is illegal (because it isn't), or that if I follow through on boycotting, that I have committed an illegal act.

Whereas, if someone threatens violence, depending on jurisdiction, it IS a crime. (In some states, threatening others with the intent to cause harm is considered assault. Actually harming them is a separate crime.)

Now, consider the following:

1) A statement by a group that if Wal-Mart is open on Thanksgiving Day, the group will boycott Wal-Mart for the duration of the Christmas season.

2) A statement by a group that if Wal-Mart is open on Thanksgiving Day, the group has threatened to attack Wal-Mart employees.

The first is a boycott. The second is a crime.

Class is dismissed.

Re:The metaphors around this are hilarious.

[theArtificial]

It's a threat in the primary definition of the word.

a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

The hostile action would be not paying and bad publicity for starters. The whole point of these gatherings is to make money, like trade shows they rent the space, the venue makes the majority of the money. Crime is not a prerequisite for a threat, nor does scale matter.

HEY, SLIMEBALLS! harassment starts now!

[swschrad]

welcome to the harassment panel, you damn wusses. thought you could get out of this one, eh? I'm Sarge, and you're nothing..........

Online text does what now?

[Raseri]

[text on a screen] is a menace that has often resulted in real world violence

Oh, really? And where can we view these spooky words with magical powers?

Re:Online text does what now?

[dskoll]

You don't believe that text (and videos and images) can incite real-world violence? How naive of you. How do you suppose ISIS gets its recruits if not via propaganda?

Yeah, that's an extreme example, but there are tons of other examples of people being incited to violence by mere words. Just watch any speeches made by genocidal megalomaniacs just prior to a genocide.

Freedom of speech is important. It needs protection for sure. But it's also no good to deny that speech can cause real harm.

Re:Online text does what now?

[truck_soccer]

If only all those kids that killed themselves because of being bullied online could have just seen this comment,you could have saved them! I suggest sharing this post all over the internet! More people need to see this great wisdom you've bestowed upon us! Rejoice! YOU HAVE SINGLE-HANDEDLY ENDED ALL HATRED AND EVIL JUST BY POINTING OUT THAT WORDS ARE NOT PHYSICAL THINGS

Re:Online text does what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is great to deny speech can cause real harm because it CAN'T. All of those examples are of people INFLUENCED by speech who committed undesirable acts. We are all responsible for how we present ourselves and our opinions, and it is absolutely ridiculous that we have begun to blame language instead of our own use of it. There are disturbing parallels to authoritarian government policies that have been used to keep populations in line in countries we have not always been on good terms with.

Re:Online text does what now?

[Raseri]

No, you're right. Everyone who ever read Mein Kampf or watched a video of Hitler giving a speech immediately went out and killed Jews. Because words have that much sway over mentally stable humans.

Re:Online text does what now?

[AmiMoJo]

Head over to google.com and look at the text ads. Turn on the TV, wait for the advert break. Read some paid articles in the newspaper.

If words were really powerless advertising wouldn't work. Like it or not, things people read clearly affect them.

Head over to /r/RedPill and tell me that the people there are not profoundly affected by the stuff they read. They just decided to act like that one day and post about it, up to and including violence.

Re:Online text does what now?

[Raseri]

Yes, I've noticed. In that case the mental instability is the problem, not the words. Why do you need this explained to you?

Re:Online text does what now?

[Kierthos]

No, but you apparently need this explained to you.

You are attempting to argue that because everyone who has ever read Mein Kampf hasn't gone out killing Jewish people, then it follows that no one is ever affected by words/speech to do something.

That's a logical fallacy.

Some people are more easily swayed by propaganda. Others aren't. Just because some people aren't swayed by a particular piece of propaganda doesn't invalidate the effectiveness of propaganda or nullify the psychology behind it

Re:Online text does what now?

[Raseri]

Straw man? You either don't know what that means, or you pay no attention at all to the words that drool out of your brain onto the screen of your iPhone.

Just watch any speeches made by genocidal megalomaniacs just prior to a genocide.

I'm going to guess it's some combination of the two.

Re:Online text does what now?

[Raseri]

You are attempting to argue that because everyone who has ever read Mein Kampf hasn't gone out killing Jewish people, then it follows that no one is ever affected by words/speech to do something.

You are attempting to put words in my mouth in a bid to bolster your argument. That is a logical fallacy (straw man, if I'm not mistaken). I said that mental instability is the problem, not words. Words will never affect a mentally stable human being to the point where they'd commit murder or suicide, no matter how desperately you want to believe otherwise. If it did, the sheer volume of shit being flung around on the Internet would have ensured 7 billion deaths by now.

For the record, and in case you missed it, the key phrase here is "mental instability".

Re:Online text does what now?

[Type44Q]

Oh, really? And where can we view these spooky words with magical powers?

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but nothing makes me want to lash out like Times New Roman..."

Re:Online text does what now?

[HalAtWork]

Not everyone has the mental capacity to brush off insults, especially when already bullied in meat space, being treated like shit and like an outcast. Mere statements alone cannot physically harm someone, but they can physically harm themselves because of how they interpret them. On top of everything else they can break the camel's proverbial back. Look at the Dolphin Emulator volunteer Rachel Bryk who committed suicide after focused trolling attempts.

Anyway. I'm sure nobody will end up banning online bullying, but making people aware of some of its potential ramifications might make them think twice about putting effort behind needless negative expressions. What's so bad about being considerate?

Re:Online text does what now?

[dskoll]

Your pointless hair-splitting fails to impress. The panel on harassment is designed to discuss harassment, not whether it's "people" or "words" that are the problem. And your "words can't incite any such thing" is clearly wrong. There have been any number of deaths that started because of "words" that someone took offense too.

Meh. Continue being stupid if you like; I'm done.

Re:Online text does what now?

[dskoll]

I'm totally offended that you would think I would use anything made by Apple. I mean really!

But hey, great rebuttal. Not just an ad hominem attack, but content-free too! Well done.

Re:Online text does what now?

[dskoll]

Words can affect anyone, not just the mentally instable. To use your Mein Kampf example, most Nazis were certainly not mentally unstable. They were just manipulated into believing evil things and doing evil acts.

And if you believe you're too smart to be manipulated that way, you're almost certainly wrong.

Please note that I'm not advocating censorship or banning of Mein Kampf or anything like that. But the reactionary outrage to a panel about online harassment is completely stupid and childish. Online harassment is a real issue, and if you get offended just by people discussing it, then you're worse than all the SJWs you put down.

Re:Online text does what now?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

But the reactionary outrage to a panel about online harassment is completely stupid and childish.

I haven't followed this, but would I assume the outrage is over the people on the panel (Caroline Sinders, Katherine Cross, Randi Harper), not the topic.

And if you believe you're too smart to be manipulated that way, you're almost certainly wrong.

Yet, you seem to be oblivious to how you are being manipulated.

Re:Online text does what now?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

If words were really powerless advertising wouldn't work. Like it or not, things people read clearly affect them.

Modern feminism is rooted in critical theory, aka neo-Marxism. Critical theory denies logical positivism, the idea that arguments in philosophy or social science need to be derived from empirical facts and logic. As a result, modern feminism (and other so-called "social justice" movements) don't bother with using rational arguments to convince people that social injustices exist and/or that their proposed solutions are effective; instead, they start with the assumption that their perception of social injustice is sufficient justification by itself for grievances and change, and they use language not as a tool for logical arguments, but to manipulate. It's like Soviet propaganda without even a pretense of facts. Take Anita Sarkeesians own words for it:

With the help of some amazing mentors and by reading a lot of feminist writing, especially the words of women of color and queer women from around the world, I learned to see through a sociological lens and understand the world as it really exists, as a series of intersecting social systems. Once you have a systemic and institutional framework, you see how oppression manifests in many subtle ways under the systems of what bell hooks calls “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy”.

Note that there is nothing about statistics, facts, policies, or rational arguments in her world view; it's all about what "lens" you see the world through. Her videos aren't about making rational arguments about objective facts, they are like advertising, intended to manipulate you into drinking her Coolaid and joining her clan.

So you are absolutely right that words have power. They have even more power today where social and political issues and policies are highly complex, where most people's choices are indeed easily influenced by perception, not facts. And that is exactly the reason why people get so upset by the manipulative and deceptive use of language by people like Sarkeesian.

Re:Online text does what now?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Anyway. I'm sure nobody will end up banning online bullying,

You obviously haven't been paying attention: http://www.stopbullying.gov/la...

What's so bad about being considerate?

It depends on who you are considerate towards. Being considerate towards a sick, suffering transgendered youngster is a good thing. Being considerate towards manipulative neo-Marxists is a bad thing.

Re:Online text does what now?

[AK Marc]

But the facts support the modern feminism. Women are paid less for the same work, by the statistics. And so many other of the statistics support the basics, rooted in fact, and proven empirically. But facts don't sway the True Believer MRAs, so to combat stupid, they had to move on to persuasive speech, because the facts don't work against the closed mind.

Re:Online text does what now?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

But the facts support the modern feminism.

How can "facts" support a philosophy that denies the existence of objective facts?

Women are paid less for the same work, by the statistics.

That's a statistical observation that by itself is meaningless. Immigrants from Germany used to be paid much less than other Americans, and these days are probably paid much more than other Americans, for no reason related to discrimination or government policy. And when you look at the data, when all is said and done, there is only a few percent difference between male and female pay that can't be accounted for by demographics, experience, and other obvious factors. It's actually surprising how equal male and female pay is.

Furthermore, these analyses are always rather one-sided. Sure, there are fewer female programmers, but there are also fewer women in dangerous, unhealthy, and dirty occupations. If you're applying government coercion to make women programmers, why not apply government coercion to make them sanitation workers and loggers?

But facts don't sway the True Believer MRAs, so to combat stupid, they had to move on to persuasive speech

Neo-Marxists and critical theorists didn't start of rationally and then move on to telling wild stories as rhetorical tool. In different words, your interpretation of their motivations and understanding is divorced from reality. I suggest you read up on the link I provided.

Furthermore, you misattribute motives to people who stand up to modern feminism. I really don't care about "men's rights" any more than I care about "women's rights". I simply think the government has no business interfering in these issues. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone whether I refuse service to a transsexual Catholic in a wheel chair because she is transsexual, a Catholic, disabled, or because I simply don't like her attitude or because of her body odor.

Finally, the policies that feminists advocate have not been shown to be effective. Personally, with the increasing pressures for political correctness and mandatory inclusion, I simply avoid contact with women, minorities, and homosexuals in a professional context altogether, since I don't want to have to walk on egg shells. And, mind you, I don't avoid such interactions because I don't want to have them (after all, I'm a gay immigrant myself), but because in the current legal and cultural climate, they are simply too risky. Do you think that's helpful for "equality and inclusion"?

Re:Online text does what now?

[AK Marc]

Neo-Marxists and critical theorists didn't start of rationally and then move on to telling wild stories as rhetorical tool. In different words, your interpretation of their motivations and understanding is divorced from reality. I suggest you read up on the link I provided.

I read it. That you assert feminists follow the same pattern isn't supported in your link. And you are asserting that if someone does anything similar to your assertion, that it proves the facts don't support them. That's a silly logical fallacy. You are so focused on winning the argument and playing rhetorical games that you are ignoring reality.

Re:Online text does what now?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

That you assert feminists follow the same pattern isn't supported in your link.

Well, I suggest you read Anita Sarkeesian's thesis.

And you are asserting that if someone does anything similar to your assertion, that it proves the facts don't support them.

No, I'm saying that using facts to argue with critical theorists is pointless because they reject the existence of objective facts, at least when it is convenient.

You are so focused on winning the argument and playing rhetorical games that you are ignoring reality.

There is no argument to win here.

Re:Online text does what now?

[AK Marc]

Well, I suggest you read Anita Sarkeesian's thesis.

Why? You imply she's not worth listening to, then implore me to read her. I don't like her. I read the other link, and it doesn't support what you say. And your opinion on the works of someone you hate isn't compelling

No, I'm saying that using facts to argue with critical theorists is pointless because they reject the existence of objective facts, at least when it is convenient.

I'm saying that facts don't work against anyone with a closed mind. You are living proof of that.

Re:Online text does what now?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You imply she's not worth listening to, then implore me to read her.

Her thesis is worthless as social science; it is useful for understanding her ideological origins. Kind of like Das Kapital is worthless as a book on economics but important for understanding Marxists.

I'm saying that facts don't work against anyone with a closed mind. You are living proof of that.

Well, we can talk about that as soon as you start providing actual facts.

Re:From most the comments I've seen here?

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem to think it's ok to give others shit for no good reason.

Like obsessively spamming someone on Slashdot because they dared to criticize the one marginally useful script you wrote decades after it became obsolete?

GamerGate

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for day when we all look back on this drama and realize how silly we were back end.

It's strange how people on the internet will get emotionally invested in something so menial and use it as a battleground for their political ideologies.

And before someone says "Well its because of the..", No. Both side are guilty of this and both sides are equally annoying.

Re:GamerGate

[Wain13001]

The reason this is still a thing is because there are people who are paid to be involved in it, and have made being on either 'side' their actual job.

Re:GamerGate

[truck_soccer]

The reason this is still a thing is because there are people who are paid to be involved in it, and have made being on either 'side' their actual job.

I think that is more a consequence of the actions of both sides, rather than the reason it perpetuates.

Re:GamerGate

[TooManyNames]

Careful now, there's real money to be had (by both sides) pandering to those overly sensitive to this menial stuff. Oh, and you just initiated a countdown for some butt-hurt keyboard warrior to come to the defense of their cause saying, "there is no moral equivalency" for whatever side they fall on.

Re:GamerGate

[Falos]

I'm thinking it's a result of sensationalism indirectly; more importantly, the human nature to draw towards it. Hype. Mob mentality. Scoops. Juicy scandals. The same reason we latch onto fads and celebrities and athletes and whatever the hell a Kardasian is. Talking heads aren't a new fascination. The changing portion is whatever subject they're icons; the time-honored constant is that they'll get air time and incite drama.

I guess what I'm saying is demagogues are eternal because zealots are eternal. Zealotry, rather. They're the ones who everyone hates, even for factions you belong to. Feel free to pipe up, vegan slashdotter.

Re:Most stuff aside, who really cares?

[dskoll]

So those people who aren't interested in the panels can skip them, and those who are interested can attend. Where's the problem?

A sterling example of SJW outrage/harassment

[Anonymous Coward]

After searching through a few pages of /r/games and /r/gamernews you don't see a blip about this event, but if you look on /r/girlgamers it's right on the first page. Below is a response to the original cancellations from one of the SxSW panelists. You should honestly read the whole thing in the link provided. It gets nasty. REAL nasty and paints a perfect picture of what happens when a SJW with an agenda doesn't get his or her way right down to threatening to publicly shaming the event during their own panel.

https://the-cauldron.com/sxsw-s-astounding-ideals-of-cowardice-871764d3eb45

"Your conference is the corrupt, decaying edifice of the status quo, no matter how much you pretend otherwise, because you lack the common decency to take a stand against those who would hurt others merely because they’ve always been able to do so. The women who presented this panel knew there would be risks. Threats of violence, of bitter hate, of crude and salacious intimidation tactics—these women, and many others, deal with those risks every day, simply because they dare exist. They wanted to have a conversation about those risks, discuss ways of mitigating, or perhaps even solving them, but thanks to your impotent leadership, they now will not have that opportunity.

So I say to you, SXSW, and every one of your toadies who failed to stand up for what was right, even though it might have been what was difficult, that your conference is garbage. You, collectively, are garbage, a sad accumulation of fears squirming inside the skins of what could have been human beings, and I hope that one day, all of you will take stock of your lives and determine whether or not you are the people you wish to be. Until that day, you have proven yourselves unfit to steward nothing more than the ferrying of waste through your own body.

Sincerely,

SXSW Panelist For ‘The Art of The Own: Internet Etiquette and Sports,’ And You Better Be Damn Certain This Is Going To Be In The Panel —

Chris Kluwe"

Re:A sterling example of SJW outrage/harassment

[Raseri]

Oh, that's rich coming from that guy. Search his name, this is the fifth result:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24628550/chris-kluwe-cant-be-moral-crusader-after-his-cruel-twitter-rant

I can't say I'm surprised. This is like those Moral Majority idiots that always end up having 50 mistresses and a stable of Thai fuckboys.

Re:A sterling example of SJW outrage/harassment

[Mashiki]

For those that haven't read that particular article, it basically says he didn't report on the statutory rape of a minor. Humor ensues when...

Re:A sterling example of SJW outrage/harassment

[ctid]

How is Kluwe's article harassment?

An all day HARRASSMENT seminar seem a bit much

[Thud457]

Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Mashiki]

An example would be Twitter who has banned people for claiming they posted doxs, or harassment like Leothepirate or Thunderf00t for example but allowed people like Quinn, Harper, Sarkeesian and Wu to run free, who've posted doxs, harassed people, or even sent their followers out to attack others. I think that's what they're talking about, the rules don't apply equally. If you're in the right kind of clique, you can do whatever you want.

good job AC!

[Thud457]

OH NO YOU DINNINT!
We haven't had a good ol' fashioned thermonuclear flamewar around here in ages.
Just what this thread needs!

Question....

[CaptnCrud]

Can anyone tell me what this has to do with music and beer....isn't that what SXSW was originally about?

Re:Question....

[Sir_Eptishous]

SXSW is now about Floral Design, Crafting and Power Walking.
Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[jedidiah]

Liberal journalists are all bending over backwards and tripping over themselves to prove how liberal they are. They're being played like a cheap crank activated organ.

Re:Most stuff aside, who really cares?

[jedidiah]

Yup. I am in favor of bullying?

Thought you could rhetorically bully me? Think again.

"Bullying" just comes along with the territory.

For genuine crimes, there's the FBI. For anything else, just grow a pair or use 80s grade filtering technology.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[CronoCloud]

or harassment like Leothepirate or Thunderf00t for example but allowed people like Quinn, Harper, Sarkeesian and Wu to run free

I want to point out something interesting. Those men are referred to by their by their adolescent-y pseudonyms, but the women are referred to by their real names.

The new era of of victimization

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I know this view is very unpopular with a large segment of the population, but I can't help but subscribe to it regardless.

There are people being tortured to death in Syria. There are people being tortured to death in Sudan. There are people being tortured [to death?] in American "detention centers". But American society today focuses on the injustice of virtual harassment online. Really?

I'm not suggesting that we can't worry about first world problems until we feed Africa or anything like that. I understand that different people have different priorities, and that's fine. I'm merely astounded by the level of offense some people can muster over relative nothings. Social justice warriors need to get some perspective.

Re:The new era of of victimization

[CaptnCrud]

I don't really understand it either, its sort of weird because I do spend a good amount online...reading and posting, and i've been trolled, I've even trolled back. But most of the time if I find something annoying, I do something else.

...I guess the matrix was right? Some people are so hopelessly plugged into a fictional world of opinions that it literally is their reality. I also get the feeling that 99% of the "issues" like this are hyperbole of the nth degree. Like people pretend its a systemic problem in the billions when in reality its like 50 people having an some issue.

Re:The new era of of victimization

[Darinbob]

Anti social justice warriors need to get perspective too. The SJWs were not the ones phoning in threats.

Re:The new era of of victimization

[Mashiki]

That's easy, because SJWism is slacktivism. And slacktivism is easy to do, and in turn it gives you e-cred and makes you feel better. It means you can whine, and cry about some great horror in your life...like manspreading, or how air conditioners are a sexist conspiracy of the patriarchy and feel good about yourself. Instead of having to go out into the world, and help the homeless or travel to an actual war torn hole in the ground and help setup medical and triage camps, to try to help people who are actual victims of war and get them back on their feet.

Re:The new era of of victimization

[PaulRivers10]

Anti social justice warriors need to get perspective too. The SJWs were not the ones phoning in threats.

Actually, while it's hard to prove sometimes, there have been several times where it's been proven that the SJW is the source of the threats sent to themselves. If your concept is "I'm being threatened", sending yourself threats is great marketing. You don't have increased danger because you're the source, but you get a lot of publicity and sympathy you can't get almost any other way. I know of 1 case where a police investigation traced the source back to the girl herself, a few where someone send nasty threats to themselves not realizing they were still logged in on the own admin account, and a number where there was just an obvious correlation where the person said they received threats then immediately got way more publicity and financial donations as a result (put 2 and 2 together). Not all threats are that way, but SJWs have often been the source of threats they sent to themselves.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Mashiki]

I want to point out something interesting. Those men are referred to by their by their adolescent-y pseudonyms, but the women are referred to by their real names.

Well I could post leothepirate or thunderf00t's real names, but those pseudonyms? Those are the names they are known by, much like how Quinn, Haprer, Sarkeesian and Wu are the names they're known by. It's pretty simple isn't it. If I said Phil and Leo would you know their real names and how they played into this? The answer would be no.

Besides, when everyone is anonymous and using a pseudonym you don't know who that other person is. You're not clouding your views based on who they might be, their race, sex, or anything else. You're basing the merit of their statements and ideas. And I know that many on the far left, especially in the social justice circles and modern feminism have a real problem with merit and meritocracies which they call sexist, sometimes racist, and I've even seen merit called homophobic.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually think professional victims are pretty clever. They bait a bunch of angry internet people into harassing them, and then get cash. Why not?

The beatings will continue until morale improves

[evilRhino]

There were two panels that were cancelled. The one anti-harassment and one media corruption. It seems like the media boycott got the anti-harassment panel reinstated, but they don't have any serious problem with nobody caring about media corruption for some reason. It must be because the only ones that care about media corruption are all serious harassers like Anne Rice, The David Pakman Show, or KFC.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[CronoCloud]

If I said Phil and Leo would you know their real names and how they played into this? The answer would be no.

Perhaps if they had put their money where their mouths are and promoted use of their real names when talking about RL issues.

You're not clouding your views based on who they might be, their race, sex, or anything else. You're basing the merit of their statements and ideas.

Come now, that's a disingenuous statement...because "Thunderfoot" was a Youtube personality!

And I know that many on the far left, especially in the social justice circles and modern feminism have a real problem with merit and meritocracies which they call sexist, sometimes racist, and I've even seen merit called homophobic.

It's easy for someone to claim something is a meritocracy, when it actually isn't in practice.

False equivelence

[friesofdoom]

Calling a guy a "pussy" is not making out that female genitalia or having female genitalia is a bad thing, it's making fun of the guy's lack of masculinity, which in the real world, for a male, isn't usually desired.

Its the same as when calling a women a "dog" - you're not saying that you think dogs are bad, but rather that the woman has taken on the visual features of a dug, ie. she's ugly.

Re:False equivelence

[lgw]

Lack of masculinity is not a bad thing, per se. To object so deliberately misses the point. Lack of masculinity in a man is. Or, if you want to be more modern about it, lack of masculinity in someone presenting a masculine-ish gender is - obviously.

Re:False equivelence

[goose-incarnated]

Calling a guy a "pussy" is not making out that female genitalia or having female genitalia is a bad thing, it's making fun of the guy's lack of masculinity, which in the real world,

...boils down to the same shit. Why is his lack of what you perceive to be masculinity a bad thing?

Surely you can't be this dense? Lack of masculinity in a man is something normal men are ashamed of in much the same way that lack of humanity in a human is something that normal humans are ashamed of.

Re: False equivelence

[drinkypoo]

Several millions of years of evolution versus... Your stupid fucking narrative.

Are you fucking kidding? Your kind doesn't even believe in evolution, obviously. You still think that cultural stereotypes from hundreds of years ago are central to your sense of masculinity. I am a big hairy motherfucker who likes to drink and cuss, nobody meeting me would confuse me with a woman. That doesn't mean I wholeheartedly endorse society's view of what being a man is. If you really were a man, you wouldn't be such a fucking sheep.

Re:False equivelence

[beastofburdon]

It is because masculinity is the only thing that makes a man important in society. Masculinity encompasses many things, but I will go over some of the most important ones for you.

1. courage - you must have courage in order fight for your country/family/group whenever there is danger, also so that you can do the most dangerous jobs that are needed to provide for the community and in turn your wife and kids.
2. strength - you have to be able to do those jobs and survive them, a man who can't survive his duties has no worth.
3. protector and provider - this is the willingness and capability to provide for your wife and children, often others as well.

Without these traits a man is entirely worthless to society. Any random loser can be a sperm donor, but that does not help society, it adds extra burden. It takes a real man to take a wife, provide for her every need, have children, and then provide for their every need. That is the essence of masculinity, to protect and provide for your wife, children, other family, village, and country. Society has these duties for men and only expects men to uphold their end on them. If you can't do your duties you are no longer masculine, you can't be called a man, your new title is pussy. Oh, and did I mention that you are shunned by both the men and women of society for being a pussy?

Re:About time they manned up

[Kierthos]

You know, thirty-mumble years ago, when I started playing console games and later on computer games, the only harassment I had to worry about were my brothers shit-talking about how terrible I was at Super Mario, or Kid Icarus. (Showing my age here.) And they had to be in the same room as me to really do that.

There's a lot of different kinds of gaming now that isn't just "two people playing on the same console". (Still showing my age here.)

But there still seems to be this odd belief, this persistence, that there's only certain kinds of gamers, and if you're not one of them, you have no business talking about games or game culture at all.

That belief, is, of course, so much fertilizer.

Glad To See It Back

[Thunderf00t]

The best way to counter these types is to let them speak for themselves. Nobody should try to silence them, especially when they'll give you the rope to hang them for free.

Re:Glad To See It Back

[narcc]

What's it like to be marginalized? A hero turned pariah? A self-described "champion of reason", abandoning those principles to garner a few more views on a content-free vlog? What's it like to spend your days manufacturing outrage, lying and laughably misrepresenting others just to keep the few idiots who still watch your channel engaged?

What's it like seeing someone far more popular than you elevated to celebrity status while you've stooped to posting on Slashdot?

The world has moved on. No one has time for your hate-mongering. Particularly the fact-free nonsense you've been posting for the past few years.

Sarkeesian has won both in the media and the public consciousness. You've lost your imaginary war on feminism, just like you lost your imaginary war on Islam.

It's pathetic, really.

GOML.

[Jahf]

Hey Gamer Gate -supporters-.

I'm a 44 year old white male gamer. And I do NOT support your mess. You don't just affect a couple of younger women when you act like asses. You affect entire groups. If all of the rest of this is TLDR; then so be it ... but understand that grown ups don't support your crap and you DIDN'T create this genre.

FWIW, I was downloading Doom on floppies before most of the "Gamer Gate" jerks were born. I was playing MUDs and MOOs before most of the people on /. in general had ever heard of the Internet (and I was on /. long before most of the people in this conversation). I was emailing co-workers via SMTP at other TV stations before Internet Service Providers existed (normally you'd insert email during college before ISPs but I mostly skipped college due to the nascent Internet allowing me to build a couple of careers with the knowledge I had self-taught before classes in such things existed).

I built many years of great income out of that self-knowledge and I still gamed. I was injured and ended up disabled. But ... I still play games.

However I rarely talk about gaming anymore. And I have to specifically avoid some games, or at least some servers, to avoid the worst of the worst. These days I am truly reluctant to even admit playing newer games due to Gamer Gate idiocy.

When I'm playing an MMO that has younger, usually male, voices on our raid server I use HEADPHONEs. Not because I care about not sending speaker feedback, my system is better than that, but because I get flat out embarrassed by some of the crap people say both jokingly (but with them often still agreeing with it and hiding it as humor) as well as matter-of-factly. I don't need my wife or our housemates hearing that crap.

Don't like SJWs? Well, as frustrating as it can be when someone fights microaggressions instead of getting to the core problem, the people supporting Gamer Gate (or who are part of the culture and support its basic morals by not disagreeing when someone who is vocally supporting them lashes out) CREATED many SJWs. Both sides have become so polarized that nothing good is getting done.

Good on SXSW for realizing that they allowed themselves to be bullied ... and by being bullied and canceling those events showed complacency towards a group who takes that as encouragement. But damnit SXSW ... this isn't new. It has been around for long enough that you should have known better to begin with. Had you stuck to your morals in the first place this would already be in a better place.

If there was a good way for an older gamer to show a younger gamer the reasons why they are wrong and how badly it is going to affect their own lives once they've fully grown up, I would. But there really isn't. Yeah, I can stop gaming with a few people and explain why (which I've done)... or if I'm leading the gaming group I can punt you when you refuse to shape up (also done) ... but that just forces those people to go play with people who are even worse about this. So these days online I just ignore it and casually bring up alternative views later on. Some people see it, some people don't. Some people improve, some people won't. But I'm not your father and gaming isn't the real world. You need to get out into the real world and start realizing how hateful and hurtful your actions are.

Get of my gaming lawn. Believe it or not you WEREN'T here first and the people who were are sick of this.

There was a time when the rest of the gaming population could stand geeky-proud about our gaming. Now we avoid even mentioning it because we DON'T want to be in the middle of this mess. If you don't like the way people are attacking you back then realizing they're reacting to you. If you get a kick out of it then you really are the problem. Cut it out. Grow up.

Re:GOML.

[Mashiki]

That's great. I'm a grey beard and I'm "in this mess." And going by your post, I've been here longer than you, especially since I remember writing out games that came in magazines to play them. I'm disabled, my back is broken in two places, and I do game as well. You know what happened when this all started up though? There was this tag called #notyourshield, where those SJW's started saying that a disabled minority like myself didn't exist. They told women that game they don't exist, they told other minorities they didn't exists. And to round it all up, when people proved that they did exist and didn't agree with them. They started calling people house niggers, uncle toms, and so on. Oh SJW's full of love and kindness right?

If you've been gaming as long as you have, then you'll remember the ye olde days when gaming magazines would shill out for corps, and people who were friends without disclosing it. You'll also remember when the internet started catching on, how everyone and their brother started launching their own site and become their own game reviewer. You'd have been in that bluesnews/voodoo3d/etc clique that existed at the time. You'll remember that those gaming magazines started dying, and were replaced by online sites.

And you jump a head, you'll remember the Dorito Pope among other instances of corruption, conflicts of interest, and collusion. You'll also remember saying fuck this, and a few years after that you'd start seeing the rise of Let's Plays and 'tube related reviews of games and being happy with them. And jumping to the present, unless you buried your head in the sand you'll have remember the number of authors on the big name sites getting caught shilling for their buddies indie games, authors shilling for xyz companies games and so on.

SJW's pushing 'diversity' or what they claim as diversity is only a small part. It's claiming to be the only voice that can speak for you, or me. If you don't want to be in this mess, that's fine. The game journo's and the vast majority of those who were in Game Journo Pro's created it. You're now seeing the fall out. Oh and a fun bit, look up people like Arthur Chu, Geordie Tait, or Randi Haper or Zoe Quinn. Who've either wanted to commit or openly support violence, or doxing people who don't follow their lines of belief.

Re:GOML.

[onkelonkel]

"I was downloading Doom on floppies"
 
BFD. I was playing SPACWR on a PDP-8 when you were in diapers.
 
signed - cranky old dude.

Re:GOML.

[AmiMoJo]

You are a bit confused about #notyourshield. If you review the GamerGate IRC logs, you can see that it was created by GamerGate and popularised through sock puppet accounts, using profile photos stolen from social media. The goal was to confuse people and make them think that there was a grass roots movement, and to smear opponents of GamerGate.

It's not really clear who you are calling SJWs here. GamerGate supporters? Can't be feminists since they clearly wouldn't deny that female gamers exist. The fact that they do exist is the whole point if Feminist Frequency's videos.

Re:GOML.

[Cederic]

It's perfectly fine to not support GG. It's more than reasonable to dislike the poisonous adolescent online chat that comes with certain games.

It's not reasonable to label all gamers as sexist or misogynistic. You haven't, so thank you.

You have however told the people responding to those that do make those claims that they're the problem. Sorry but I disagree. How about the gaming media and certain vocal professional victims stop demonising those of us that enjoy playing computer games, and also want to read about them without being stereotyped or harassed, and want those who make the games we enjoy to be able to do so without also being threatened and harassed.

Hopefully you support that much, at least?

Re:GOML.

[Mashiki]

You are a bit confused about #notyourshield. If you review the GamerGate IRC logs, you can see that it was created by GamerGate and popularised through sock puppet accounts, using profile photos stolen from social media. The goal was to confuse people and make them think that there was a grass roots movement, and to smear opponents of GamerGate.

It's not really clear who you are calling SJWs here. GamerGate supporters? Can't be feminists since they clearly wouldn't deny that female gamers exist. The fact that they do exist is the whole point if Feminist Frequency's videos.

Come on, where's these IRC logs you're claiming that exist. SJW's and anti-GG have been claiming this for over a year now and this the second post where you claim that GG has this mysterious IRC channel where we plot this stuff out. You're doing a bang up job of showing everyone why when a minority speaks out, and it's not "on the right side" you claim they don't exist. That, is straight up bigotry.

It's not really clear who you are calling SJWs here. GamerGate supporters? Can't be feminists since they clearly wouldn't deny that female gamers exist. The fact that they do exist is the whole point if Feminist Frequency's videos.

You're not making any sense, let's try again. SJW's have been yelling "but our diversity" when diversity already exists. That diversity is called a meritocracy. But, feminists and SJW's have claimed that female gamers don't exist, they've also tried claiming minority female gamers don't exist, and that minorities in general who refuse to side with them don't exist.

Remember "listen and believe?" Yeah, that's from FF too, which sure explains a lot.

Re:GOML.

[Yosho]

You are a bit confused about #notyourshield. If you review the GamerGate IRC logs, you can see that it was created by GamerGate and popularised through sock puppet accounts, using profile photos stolen from social media. The goal was to confuse people and make them think that there was a grass roots movement, and to smear opponents of GamerGate.

Have you actually seen these IRC logs? If so, where can the rest of us see them? Is there any way to verify their authenticity? I've seen this claim before, but never any evidence for it -- at this point it seems like anti-GG people just keep repeating it because they heard other anti-GG people say it... which describes a lot of the anti-GG rhetoric.

Re:GOML.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

and then GG released full logs in the hope that the vast amount of information would overload anyone looking at it.

Apparently, it is you who tries to manipulate people and hopes that people don't look at the logs. Here are the first "#notyourshield" mentions in your IRC logs:

Sep 02 23.40.59 #notyourshield is starting up
Sep 03 00.03.15 > SJW's, stop using gamers as your shield, we are black, too. https://twitter.com/hashtag/no...
Sep 03 00.03.43 if any of you are non-cis non-whites or non-males on twitter, please use #notyourshield

So, yes, you can verify quite easily that the origin of the tag is genuine and your charges of astroturfing are false.

If you scroll down a bit in either article there is a screenshot of where a 4chan anon invented #notyourshield to "deflect genuine criticism."

The quote is: [Use] "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism,"

What they are saying is that they invented "#notyourhsield" to stop SJWs from misusing minorities as a "shield" because SJWs are trying to "deflect" genuine criticism from themselves that way. Not only is that grammatically clear from the sentence, it also is obvious from the semantics of "shield/deflect".

You are misquoting and misrepresenting this obvious fact as if the proponents of "#notyourshield" wanted to deflect criticism from themselves. I don't know whether you are being deliberately deceptive or whether you are just a careless reader; either way, you are wrong.

I actually hadn't known about the origins of "#notyourshield" (as a minority, I just used it a few times). But thank you for digging this up because it demonstrates again how dishonest and manipulative SJWs are, while the origin of the "#notyourshield" tag is nothing more than what the tag purports to be.

Re:GOML.

[AmiMoJo]

You are missing the other piece of the puzzle. As described in the articles I linked to, the first uses of the hashtag on twitter were verified sock puppet accounts. As the articles show, a simple reverse image search reveals that the profile pictures were stolen from real social media accounts.

Astroturfing at its worst.

Re:GOML.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You are missing the other piece of the puzzle. As described in the articles I linked to, the first uses of the hashtag on twitter were verified sock puppet accounts

Since the articles (as well as yourself) misrepresented the meaning of "deflecting genuine criticism", it is clear that their authors are either dishonest or sloppy, so nothing those articles "describe" can be trusted. Furthermore, the links purporting to demonstrate sockpuppets are dead, so there is nothing to back up their charges. In addition, minorities who dare to speak out against people like you and Sarkeesian face a serious harrassment from people like you, which is why we often don't use our real names or images on the web. Finally, for the charge of "astroturfing", it really doesn't matter how a movement starts, it matters who actually participates in it, and that is a lot of minorities who disagree with Sarkeesian's message.

And no piece of the puzzle excuses your blatant misrepresentation of the facts. And the fact is that the IRC logs do not show what you claim they do, and that you blatantly misrepresented the meaning of "deflect genuine criticism". So, whatever you call the "#notyourshield" tag, it is clear that you are a liar.

Re:GOML.

[AK Marc]

You are reading words out of context. The context was how to break something. Then suggesting that those who support it tag away is code for "go astroturf this, and make them look like idiots". Sure, they don't say it. They don't have to. But that doesn't mean that's not what it means.

And the proof to me that this is a mysoginist witch hunt is that it's personal against the women. Zoe is a whore who sleeps her way to the top. Sarkeesian is an evil man-hating feminist SJW. It's never about the issues. Everyone involved in the facts indicate Zoe never got a favorable review from the person she was supposedly sleeping with, and her jilted ex who made the whole thing up has changed his story a few times, as the lies were uncovered, yet is held up to the highest esteem by the people who hate Sarkeesian, who is not involved in the Zoe part at all.

Nobody has ever given a confirmed fact that impeaches Zoe. The rest is all lies. Take it back to the basics. What did Zoe do that earned her all that ire? Break up with a classless jerk for being a classless jerk? As far as I can tell, that's all that happened, and the MRAs who jump over every rape accusation with "where's the proof" took (false) slut shaming without any proof, and joined in on the slut shaming. Others hopped in and pointed out the "other side" were jerks. Yet nobody really looks at the start. Some jerk trying to destroy the career of his ex, because he was mad over being dumped. That's all this is about. Lies by a jilted ex. Nothing more. Why do you side with a lying jerk who has partially recanted some of his lies?

Do you have any facts that conflict with this description of events?

Re:GOML.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Sarkeesian is an evil man-hating feminist SJW. It's never about the issues.

What issues? I looked at Zoe Quinn's game, and it's piss poor. I looked at Anita Sarkeesian's arguments about video games and found them to be inconsistent and bogus. And her academic work is the usual critical theory bullshit, not even original, and divorced from any possibility of rational discourse. So, what "issues" do you think there are to discuss?

What did Zoe do that earned her all that ire?

As far as I'm concerned, Quinn and Sarkeesian are just professional trolls: they make outrageous claims and statements to attract attention, and they translate that into speaking engagements and other personal benefits. Every time they are about to be forgotten, they come up with some other attention grabber, usually some claim that they have received "death threats". I think it's reasonable to be annoyed with professional trolls.

A second thing I find offensive about Sarkeesian is that she presumes to speak for women, minorities, and homosexuals in general and that she pretends to have our interests at heart, and that she denies even the right of members of those groups to make their own choices that differ from hers. And there are many people like me that are annoyed by this, which is why people came up with the tag "#notyourshield".

Re:GOML.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Sarkeesian is an evil man-hating feminist SJW. It's never about the issues.

Since you mention the issues, I'm a gay male gamer, nerd, and immigrant. Video games have been the most accepting, tolerant, and diverse medium for communication and community in my life.

The issue with Anita Sarkeesian is that she pisses all over this medium because she wants to make a name for herself as a journalist and a feminist, and she doesn't give a fuck how much damage she does in the process. As a pretty, privileged straight white American non-techie, after all, it really doesn't matter to her.

Re:GOML.

[AK Marc]

What issues? I looked at Zoe Quinn's game, and it's piss poor.

So because Zoe's game is poor, she must have slept with everyone who reviewed it? Or is it that you just don't like it, but someone else might?

As far as I'm concerned, Quinn and Sarkeesian are just professional trolls: they make outrageous claims and statements to attract attention, and they translate that into speaking engagements and other personal benefits.

Zoe's outrageous claim was that her ex was lying to make her look bad. That doesn't seem so outrageous. She didn't call for attention. It was the MRAs like you that gave her attention then claimed she deserved it. Much like a rapist saying she was asking for it.

A second thing I find offensive about Sarkeesian is that she presumes to speak for women, minorities, and homosexuals in general and that she pretends to have our interests at heart, and that she denies even the right of members of those groups to make their own choices that differ from hers.

Yes, that's why I talked primarily about Zoe, because the insane like you can't get past the events that happened later that aren't related to the facts. You hate Sarkeesian so much that Zoe must be guilty by association. You'd have been a good hunter of innocent people under McCarthy, but here, you just look like a sexist jackass.

Re:GOML.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You hate Sarkeesian so much that Zoe must be guilty by association

I didn't bring Zoe Quinn into this discussion, you did. I don't care about her sex life. All I know about her is that she is a poor game developer, and I only know that because I fact checked Sarkeesian's diatribe.

It was the MRAs like you

I'm not an MRA. I'm a gay man who doesn't like to be used by people like Anita Sarkeesian or you as your token progressive cause, or to be told that I'm thinking wrong. Hence "#notyourshield".

You'd have been a good hunter of innocent people under McCarthy

I would likely have been thrown into prison under McCarthy, as well as afterwards. You, however, probably would have thrived, given what a good little conformist you seem to be.

Re:GOML.

[AK Marc]

I didn't bring Zoe Quinn into this discussion, you did.

You brought up Gamergate before me. And it's not about anything other than Zoe's sex life.

I don't care about her sex life.

Yeah, that's like all the Republicans impeaching Clinton saying they don't care about his sex life. That's the only subject, and the start of the whole thing. If you didn't care about Zoe's sex life, why do you care so much about what others think about it?

I'm not an MRA. I'm a gay man who doesn't like to be used by people like Anita Sarkeesian or you as your token progressive cause,

When did I use you for a progressive cause? I just piss off the MRAs by turning the discussion back to the question about Zoe's sex life, as that's the sole thing this is all about, other than your and other people's over-reaction to Zoe's ex's breakup rant.

You, however, probably would have thrived, given what a good little conformist you seem to be.

You are the one here defending the status quo so strongly. I'm just asking you to think, which is evidently making you angry.

Re:GOML.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You brought up Gamergate before me. And it's not about anything other than Zoe's sex life.

I didn't "bring up" GamerGate, and I don't care about GamerGate; I responded to a post about the origin of "#notyourshield". What I'm trying to get across to you is that lots of people use "#notyourshield" because we are tired of being instrumentalized for the political and ideological agenda of social activists and media personalities.

You are the one here defending the status quo so strongly

Not at all. What I am defending is my right to make my own choices and speak freely, instead of being instrumentalized by journalists and activists for their personal gain, or being silenced for not toeing her party line, or dismissed as a fake minority for disagreeing with activists, or having games destroyed by pressure groups that try to make them conform to their neo-Marxist theories. And, no, I'm not going to provide links to the various statements by her and people like her documenting that those are their intentions; go Google for it yourself, it's easy enough to find.

I just piss off the MRAs by turning the discussion back to the question about Zoe's sex life,

You really need to get over your obsession with Zoe's sex life.

Re:GOML.

[AK Marc]

You really need to get over your obsession with Zoe's sex life.

That's all Gamergate is about.

Re:GOML.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

That's all Gamergate is about.

But here we are talking about SXSW and panels on harassment, and those are explicitly not about GG.

What I am trying to get across to you and others is that when gays, lesbians, women, minorities, and other members that the "marginalized" groups these panels purport to advocate for use tags like #notyourshield, we are not "astroturfing". Yes, believe it or not, plenty of us "marginalized" folks don't need the patronizing advocacy and self-serving media appearances of these people to make it through the day or have careers.

Re:GOML.

[AK Marc]

The Tea Party was astroturf. The start was a conservative splinter of the Republicans. Then the corporations hopped on. #notyoushield was astroturfed, and that makes you a tool of the oppressors. That you don't like being a tool makes you ignore facts and cling to your personal belief that it wasn't an astroturf started to false flag sabotage the Zoe side of Gamergate.

Re:Most stuff aside, who really cares?

[dskoll]

I cannot connect your reply to my post. It seems entirely unrelated, so I don't get your point.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[AmiMoJo]

Twitter goes on evidence. If you have evidence of those people you mention doxing then please post out and I'll file a complaint against them.

Re:lololol

[SeaFox]

I guess the only thing more obvious than a U.S. politician is a Mexican politician.

How is the Mexican more apparent?
Or are you just oblivious spelling?

One thing that's obvious: You posted this comment on the wrong story.

It's a Trap!

[SuperKendall]

Whole day of panels on harassment

Oh right, they put together a whole day teaching people how to harass others online, gathering all of the most epic trolls from around the world to one location...

Obviously gathered for the purpose of a targeted military strike by forum moderators the world over.

Remind me to stay the hell away from Austin that day!

two unrelated things. pusillanimous earlier use

[raymorris]

One can SET the table, have a SET of tools, or SET something down. These are unrelated meanings which happen to have the same spelling, mostly because English speakers prefer their words to be shorter than the Latin and Greek from which they derive.

PUSI-ll-animous is latin for cowardly. A long time ago it was brought into English as "pussy" (other origins are also possible, it was a long time ago).

Some time later, cat or pussy was separately used as slang for vagina.

Two unrelated meanings that happen to have the same spelling because pusillanimous is "too long; didn't say".

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Mashiki]

Perhaps if they had put their money where their mouths are and promoted use of their real names when talking about RL issues.

Well you'll have to excuse us greybeard for understanding why being anonymous or semi-anonymous is important, even back in ye olde days of usenet. Do you need an explanation?

Come now, that's a disingenuous statement...because "Thunderfoot" was a Youtube personality!

And that's a important reason why? How about MundaneMatt?

It's easy for someone to claim something is a meritocracy, when it actually isn't in practice.

Really? I guess that's why Github threw out their meitocracy rug when they changed CEO's, and got on the feels not reals belief that ability doesn't matter. Then again, I guess that's the reason why OpenSSL just publish a CoC that basically says "merit is all that matters." But I'm sure you've got plenty of proof that various things in say OSS aren't merit based, and stupid people doing stupid things aren't called out on it. This is /. after all, we know that isn't true.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Darinbob]

Media corruption has been around for decades. It only turned into gamergate because someone's jilted posted a bunch of lies and it exploded when all those basement dwellers felt offended that a woman should dump a guy that seemed so thoughtful and well spoken in his drunken rant. And besides, even though this journalist didn't even do any reviews of her games, he *could* have and that's what matters. But 10 people still believe that gamergate is still about ethics in journalism when the rest of the world moved beyond and focused on the harrassment and misogyny behind it all. And every single time anything related to gamergate shows up you see the same thing - a tiny number of people who up and say "it's not about misogyny" even though the misogyny shows up in force with stalking, death threats, hate posts, etc.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Mashiki]

People have. Twitter has ignored it, you can still find to this day the personal dox of the CEO of Northstar Debt collection that was calling Randi Harper, for debt reclaiming. And said CEO and families personal information in her feed.

Re:About time they manned up

[Raseri]

Was it also frustrating for you to see a woman and her children being threatened by extreme left-wing lunatics for being a GamerGate supporter? Or does your sympathy extend only to those who have the correct politics?

Also, this:

those of us who created the whole gaming industry in the first place

is the most hilarious thing I've read on here all day. You did no such thing. Get over yourself.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[PaulRivers10]

Oh man, do you guys ever get tired of repeating the same b.s. over and over again? You spend your time man-hating and manipulating, then get upset when someone calls you on it. I imagine GamerGate has both well meaning supporters and haters, but at absolute worst you are the pot complaining that the kettle is as black as you are.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[asdfman2000]

I want to point out something interesting. Those men are referred to by their by their adolescent-y pseudonyms, but the women are referred to by their real names.

Zoe Quinn is not her real name. It's a pseudonym.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Darinbob]

There's no man hating here. There is gamergate hating though. And I am a gamer and a man, so...

soft head

[s.petry]

Your rhetoric does exactly what you are attempting to do in the opposite direction. Amazing how violence only happens when it's "that" side's argument...

Re:About time they manned up

[WillAffleckUW]

Also, this:

those of us who created the whole gaming industry in the first place

is the most hilarious thing I've read on here all day. You did no such thing. Get over yourself.

Try reading some of the historical posts at EFF sometime, and realize I'm one of the guys from the first WorldCon gaming panels, if you haven't edited your Wiki to ignore that basic fact.

You're playing in my sandbox. And that includes the Internet, before we let you children in.

No, but you are!

[s.petry]

Bomb at the Boston Marathon? No warning. Columbine? No warning. Oklahoma city? No warning. Cancelled schools and work that impacted my kids, other family members, or myself? At least in the hundreds. Add in what I heard on the "News" and it's at least 4 times as many.

Seems to match the person's point when we look at history.

Now if I believe TV shows and movies were real... well that would be foolish.

Re:No, but you are!

[s.petry]

The ignorant one is the person who attempts to claim the exception is the rule, as you just did. I used the US as my example because the majority of people on this site are from the US. My same example would work all over the Middle East, where there is no warning about bombs. Just bombs.

Next time you wish to appear intelligent make sure it's not by making false claims fallacy arguments.

Re:From most the comments I've seen here?

[matfud]

Weren't you just complaining about sock puppets APK?

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Yosho]

It only turned into gamergate because someone's jilted posted a bunch of lies and it exploded when all those basement dwellers felt offended that a woman should dump a guy that seemed so thoughtful and well spoken in his drunken rant.

That's not quite what actually happened or why GamerGate became a thing. After a man went public about the emotional abuse and infidelity he had dealt with from his ex-girlfriend, it turned out that one of the men she had cheated with was a writer for Kotaku and had given her favorable coverage without disclosing their relationship. GamerGate happened because, instead of admitting the mistake, Kotaku released an article claiming they had investigated and decided nothing improper was going on, despite photographic evidence otherwise. Personally, I find it very confusing that anti-GG keeps insisting that the entire incident was lies from a jilted ex despite the provided evidence and Quinn later admitting to it.

Many gamers were upset about the coverup, and it might have died down on its own, except several gaming news sites then seemingly independently produced a series of "gamers are dead" articles, which attacked and criticized gamers as a whole and accused gamers of widespread, systemic misogyny because they dared to be upset about a reporting scandal that involved a woman who cheated on her boyfriend. Making things even worse, it was discovered soon after that the series of articles was coordinated through a private mailing list used by all of those publications, where they colluded to decide what should be published.

A lot of people were very upset about this, and what's when GamerGate really took off. Since then, the involved sites have continued to hammer down on their accusations, and a large number of third-wave feminists have joined in after hearing calls of misogyny, trying to claim that strong criticism is the same as harassment, even though men like Jason Schreier, Nathan Grayson, and Jonathan McIntosh have been just as harshly criticized as any women involved. Meanwhile, the examples that anti-GG tries to point to as harassment and threats regularly turn out to be either unassociated with GG or complete fabrications. I keep trying to find somebody who has actually committed physical violence in the name of GG, and I still haven't found any. Women Action Media even did a study and released a report indicating that only a tiny percentage of GamerGate-related activity was involved in harassment at all. If you're going to judge the group based on the actions of a few outliers, then you can condemn pretty much any group.

And it might make you feel better to tell yourself "10 people still believe that gamergate is still about ethics", but KotakuInAction is up to well over 53k subscribers now and is still working hard at exposing corruption, censorship, and collusion. Calling them misogynists just makes them even more determined.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[goose-incarnated]

There's no man hating here. There is gamergate hating though. And I am a gamer and a man, so...

When you gamergate hate, you'r hating on women, you know - look at the number of women using #notyourshield. The type of man who uses a bunch of women as a tool to further what looks like an untra-right-wing ideology is... well, you can probably guess...

Re:From most the comments I've seen here?

[matfud]

I do not need proof (although some of the phrases are a bit telling). It is just the huge number of AC's following your every word that jump in to defend you as you are obviously just and right?

Sock puppets or random AC self confirmation posts are pretty much the same thing.

Re:Facts are how I handle scum like you online

[gargleblast]

APK, the dingle-berry of /. ...

And then he goes and puts a sock on it.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Darinbob]

The gamergate folks are the ones who are doxxing women they hate, stalking, sending death threats. That may not be what the original "it's about the ethics!" people thought it was in the first few hours of gamergate, but that's what it turned into.

The whole point of gamergate is that it was based on a lie; the lie from Zoe Quinn's ex that she was sleeping with a journalist. Which has no evidence of being true. However if it was a guy who slept with a female journalist I can guarantee you that these gamers would have said "way to go dude!" But a lot of gamers already hated Zoe because she had a non traditional game, so they were inclined to believe the lies. The journalist in question never reviewed her game anyway, so it couldn't have been about the ethics. The whole thing really boils down to a few people who hate Zoe Quinn and others from the deep recesses of their souls. I don't know why this hate is there, but it is clear. Every time any story about women shows up on Slashdot they come out of the woodwork repeating the hatred, and Slashdot is the most mild of all the forums.

There's nothing left or right wing here. Is about a group of people who hate certain women. When there's a youtube video where some moron says "here she is flapping her lips again instead of using them to suck a dick", is that *really* the sort of gamergate people that you want to be associated with? That's an attitude that should have died out before we crawled out of caves. I say let the market decide, if you don't like her games then just don't play them rather than start an online jihad.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Darinbob]

Except that it isn't true. The journalist in question never gave a review, favorable or otherwise, for any of Zoe Quinns games. Whether she slept with a journalist or not is utterly irrelevant. The man who went public was a jilted boyfriend, and in my experience you just can't trust either party to tell the truth after a breakup. All this photographic evidence or whatnot is just so similar to all sorts of conspiracy theories, from JFK to the moon landing.

There have been ethics problems with all online journals, gaming or not, for years, so why have it all blow up now? Because Zoe Quinn was already a deeply hated person by a segment of gamers.

And you *know* if it was a guy who slept with a female journalist that it would not have been a scandal, and many of these people would be cheering him on instead. In most of today's cultures, men are allowed to be unfaithful but women are not.

You may think that gamergate is about ethics, and it was only about ethics for a couple of days. After that it became about something else. Shouting about getting back to the original topic is pointless. It's like complaining that Watergate should have been only about a break in at one hotel, or that Whitewatergate should have had nothing to do with Monica. The story grew and changed and that's just how it is. In the public's mind, gamergate is about misogyny in gaming. Unfortunately we don't have any convenient hashtags to slap on the ongoing problem of misogyny in gaming and tech (whether or not you believe it exists).

Re:About time they manned up

[Cederic]

You use Facebook as a homepage and expect us to give you any credibility?

Shit, I don't even know who you are - I can't view your homepage because I don't have an account on your homepage hosting platform of choice.

Maybe you did help build the gaming industry. So did I, and so did many people far more talented and visionary than me. Not sure what the fuck that has to do with current affairs.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Cederic]

You claim it isn't true, then blast on about the lack of a review. Yoshi didn't claim there was a review.

Why have it all blow up now? Fucking read the post you replied to, it tells you why. Stop making up your own bullshit and respond to the clear simple explanation already given.

The public are seeing through the veil of media censorship and agenda pushing to try and write off GG as being about misogyny. Ongoing efforts to push that agenda are merely adding to the evidence of journalistic ethical shortcomings.

As an independent observer I'm fucked off with the media labelling me as sexist for being a gamer, for being supposedly dead and for the attempts to damage an art form that gives me great pleasure.

Shit, just write your own non-sexist games, if you don't like the hundreds that already exist. Just stop harassing the rest of us for enjoying a broad range of games whether they fit worth your skewed world view or not.

slashdot groupthink

[pr0nbot]

I don't really know much about what this is all about (I only ever see stuff about it on Slashdot; I don't generally surf net gossip type sites) but wow, the upvoted comments seem to be entirely on one side of the argument.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Mashiki]

Zoe Quinn is not her real name. It's a pseudonym.

Actually it is her legal name, you can search the MA public records database since she had it changed. She also uses her family name, at times.

Now what?

[easyTree]

"Call off your whole day event on harassment or we'll nuke ya? "

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Darinbob]

Who is accusing anyone of being sexist for being a gamer? And who is damaging an "art" form? Certainly Depression Quest did not damage the art form or prevent anyone from playing any game they want, yet that's when this whole thing started to blow up.

However, there ARE sexist games. What's wrong with pointing this out? Why dump a boatload of hate one someone who points out the standard tropes in video games that are sexist? No one is censoring you from playing those games, they're just pointing out the problems in those games. If some game devs decide to change their game in the next release to not be as sexist, then what's wrong with that? Maybe they want to appeal to a larger market than adolescent teens.

All according to plan

[aoism]

So if I understand correctly, the timeline is something like:

1. 1. get two SJBs to talk about harassment
2. 2. demand more time talking about SJB causes but don't get it because this festival is not your personal soap box
3. 3. call in fake threats and say there will be violence if the SJBs have their two talks
4. 4. wait for knee jerk panic to wear off while you reach out to social media
5. 5. get the time you demanded for more SJB causes
6. 6. profit!

Re:All according to plan

[AK Marc]

I thought it was:
1. [A] breaks up with lying jerk.
2. Lying jerk spreads lies in an attempt to destroy [A]'s career
3. Gamers hop on board slut shaming [A] over lies.
4. Anyone who looks at the facts or defends [A] is labeled an SJW and similarly attacked.
5. ???
6. Profit.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[narcc]

the biggest example of the Streisand Effect yet.

So... What did [unnamed group] attempt covered-up only to have it spread?

Nothing? I see... How is this an example of the Streisand Effect?

Re:Most stuff aside, who really cares?

[narcc]

Translation: Anything I'm not interested in seeing is a waste of resources. This gigantic event should cater exclusively to my desires.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[narcc]

The public are seeing through the veil of media censorship and agenda pushing to try and write off GG as being about misogyny.

Don't be silly. The general understanding is that GG is all about misogyny and harassment. Probably because that's all you see come out of GG.

No one believes that it has anything to do with ethics, because GG has done absolutely nothing to address ethics in game journalism. They have, however, posted countless misogynistic screeds and threatened and harassed women.

As an independent observer I'm fucked off with the media labelling me as sexist for being a gamer

You're living in a fantasy land. The only time you hear that accusation, is when GG supporters tell each other that that's what the media/SJW's/evil monster's think.

Just stop harassing the rest of us for enjoying a broad range of games whether they fit worth your skewed world view or not.

What harassment? Care to share a single example? That'll be the first time in history a GG supporter had anything of merit to offer.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[Mashiki]

Right, so Randi did it (if you can find those tweets). What about the rest? Just because one person is an arsehole doesn't mean everybody vaguely related to them is

Sure can find them here. and another instance here. Or her harassing Anne Rice, and leaving fake book reviews. Pretty good for a anti-harassment person, she does tell people to kill themselves and light themselves on fire often too. Of course there seems to be a pro-"no bad tactics, only targets" mentality among the majority of anti-GG people including making shit up. That's from Bob Chipman by the way, there's also people like Sam Biddle who's harassed and threatened to call a kids employer to get them fired, and said the phrase "bring back bullying." You can't forget the general crazy either.

And of course you can find a list of various people who've either doxed or harassed pro-GG people here. And you can see how someone falls into the cult mentality of wanting to be a "good feminist" here Just a list of anti-GG harassment and of course this beauty where Adem Sessler and Jim Sterling come out pro-doxing Well maybe it's nothing, or maybe there's a lot of people out there with serious mental problems who believe that lashing out is the only way to cope with their own problems.

Maybe way out of band of what you asked but I'm tired, so fuck it.

Obligatory

[Hognoxious]

Think of a car. Think of it with a lack of wheels.

Now think of a boat.

so sad

[paul mafinga]

It's so sad to see the progressive democrats attempting to carve women into another resentful, angry voting block.

During the recent GOP debate, one of the NYC media leftists mentioned the 77% gender wage gap number. It's been widely debunked, but that's to be expected. One of the tactics of the progressive movement is to always claim a problem is around 10x worse than it really is, then negotiate to the center, between the truth value and the bogus value. Meeting in the middle between truth and a lie is still a lie.

That's before considering the obvious outliers -- all the women with their own companies. Apparently they're underpaying themselves, and apparently innocent until proven guilty means nothing to a Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, political machine that uses group guilt by association, pumps it through the legacy NYC / Los Angeles propaganda streams, and carves America into 90%, progressive democrat, voting blocks.

Or the rich history of women, the inspiration derived from the Greek and Egyptian goddesses, to Cleopatra, to the English Queens, to Harriet Tubman, Rosie the Riveter, and all the women who have operated business, obtained high level degrees, and been immensely successful.

There is a danger to revisionist history. As we all know, Herbert Hoover created Hoovervilles, he didn't architect the basic Great Society programs, nor -- after being kicked out of office by the NYC, playboy owned, yellow journalism machines -- did he and the Quakers work tirelessly to provide relief to millions upon millions of starving people in time of war, when the world leaders universally stated that they should starve. The Democrats freed the blacks in 1964, yo.

Like the tragedy of the European slave colonies that America inherited, women have a legacy that they have inherited. Just a few generations ago, there was no 911, antibiotics, or pre/post natal care. Families had 8-10 children, hoping that half would survive to adulthood, and someday provide social security for their aging parents. A woman stayed at home, since she had the baby bottles attached to her upper torso, by her very nature.

It wasn't unusual for a man to come home from earning wages to find his wife dead and a dead baby hanging out of her. What to do? Isn't it obvious? Survive. Off to church to find a widower, and with so many dead men from disease and injury, men and women hooked up fast, for reasons of survival.

With the advent of modern, widespread medicine came record low infant mortality. The demographics speak for themselves. The mercatus study is obviously terrifying, the negotiations in Greece and Detroit have left many pensioners with 10% of their promised retirements. Just a couple of months ago, the social utopian monument to Hadiya Pendleton, Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, was reduced to junk bond status. The political left denies any problem to the end, and still claims nothing is wrong -- it's all a California video, the border is sealed, it's a GOP / NRA conspiracy, all of America is to blame, and the only true Americans are 100% full blooded, Irapapoo Indians.

In truth, many companies are trying very hard to bend over forwards to accommodate victim groups. It's nothing new. HR departments have been storing employee attributes and testing for outliers for decades, not because of a political movement, but because it was the right thing to do. As always, business must higher those with the greatest merit as they depart the education system.

These group resentment constructs -- so often they pick and choose bad stories and forget all the good ones. People need to watch constantly. Just today, President Obama called for major criminal justice reform. As with the same sex relationship issue, the two people who have quietly spent millions behind the scenes to draft papers and promote solutions were not mentioned -- the Koch Brothers.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[narcc]

Because what you say "she points out" is fictitious and don't stand up to any serious analysis.

That's funny. No one, so far, has actually addresses her points. Have a real example?

And she is apparently not merely wrong, but doing this for personal gain. Because she "dumps a boatload of hate" on anybody who disagrees with her. Because she is a sexist and a bigot.

You're thinking of hate-mongers like Thunderf00t. No one cares about him any more, which is why his second-rate screeds have somehow managed to dramatically drop in quality. I didn't think it was possible, but he's actually sunk lower.

What do you think the goal of all their activism is?

I'm far more interested in what you think it's all about. What paranoid conspiracy have you imagined?

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Cederic]

Oh ffs I'm not even a GG supporter and I've heard of the bomb threats that shut down the SPJ Airplay event.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/er... before you ask for fucking evidence.

Stop living in denial and stop supporting professional victims that have harassed themselves to try and drum up publicity and income. It's unethical behaviour, whatever the sex of the self serving arsehole doing it.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[narcc]

I'm not even a GG supporter

Liar:

Stop living in denial and stop supporting professional victims that have harassed themselves

If you're not a supporter, why copy/paste their idiotic rhetoric?

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[Cederic]

Denial. You should look it up.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[narcc]

Why? There are countless example of denial in threads like these.

You, for example, believe total nonsense despite the near limitless evidence to the contrary. Your own rhetoric isn't even original, it's parroted nonsense from a group long discredited.

Even your example is weak. A hate group received bomb threats. Big surprise. Other hate groups face that every day. We don't want GG anymore than we want the KKK polluting our society. What group are you blaming for the threats here? You basically have the whole of society to pick from -- including the very group that organized the event, as threatening their own event is perfectly in line with other dishonest tactics they've used in the past.

What you want to do, of course, is normalize your own, now deviant, beliefs and behaviors. Worse, you know your attitudes are no longer socially acceptable, as evidenced by your explicit disassociation with the very group from which you draw your rhetoric. Yet you persist...

You want to talk about denial. It's pretty clear that you're moved beyond denial into paranoid delusion. You go around hiding your associations, looking for conspiracies, and spreading laughable propaganda on the few corners of the internet you think you'll find a receptive audience. You're a nut.

Re:About time they manned up

[AK Marc]

http://43rddemocrats.org/candi... You should be able to read about him there, in his own words.

Re:The beatings will continue until morale improve

[AK Marc]

After a man went public about the emotional abuse and infidelity he had dealt with from his ex-girlfriend, it turned out that one of the men she had cheated with was a writer for Kotaku and had given her favorable coverage without disclosing their relationship.

Yoshi didn't claim there was a review.

"a writer for Kotaku [gave] her favorable coverage" So you are claiming that Yosho asserted there was coverage without a review, but Darinbob is wrong for assuming that coverage was a review.

I looked up Kotaku for what I could find, and I found a review http://kotaku.com/4-video-game... dated 4/19/13.

As an independent observer I'm fucked off with the media labelling me as sexist for being a gamer,

If that's what you take from it, you are dumb or obtuse. Those in the industry are sexist. The treatment of Zoe is proof of that. If the genders were (semi) swapped in all this, where a male game maker was supposedly sleeping with a female journalist, would he be crucified by the male gamers? Or would he be given a high-5 and congratulated on his score?

What's hilarious is that the "gamer community" were the ones to issue death and rape threats, then deny it, despite ironclad proof otherwise. The only ones hurting the male gaming community were male gamers.

Re:About time they manned up

[Cederic]

Oh. The guy that used to post here as WillSeattle.

Not sure I credit him with much when it comes to establishing the computer games industry. Certain I wouldn't vote for him, even if the alternative was spoiling my ballot.

Re:About time they manned up

[AK Marc]

At least I assume it's the same person. It looks like it's a silly guy with multiple online personalities all under his real name, but kept separate so he can be a jackass on Slashdot and still run for public office.

Ooh, an all-day harassment summit!

[neminem]

Sounds like fun! I want to go to a summit to get harassed all day! Then after that I can go take being-hit-on-the-head lessons at that argument clinic down the street.

Talk about professional victims as harassers

[sethstorm]

For all the control they seem to have over multiple media services (e.g. Twitter, Reddit, Fark, Gawker, etc.), they sure look like professional victims. That, and some of them seem to have some modpoints to blow.

How about having a discussion about how those services have been used to harass and silence individuals that have defied certain narratives?

Found the SJW.

[sethstorm]

Shame that someone doesn't have the modpoints to mod your kind down.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[sethstorm]

So... What did SJWs attempt to cover up only to have it spread?

The harassment by Chelsea van Valkerberg - through the courts towards her ex as well as through her friends when her misdeeds got unveiled.

If it was nothing, then why did Twitter, Fark, Reddit, Polygon, Giant Bomb, BoingBoing, and a host of other sites just coincidentally synchronize on the same enemies and the same narrative? Never mind that this kind of thing happens at some conventions as a form of SJW dhimmitude.

The GameJournopros leaks provide some proof that this was targeted harassment of individuals that defied or strayed from their narrative. If you don't like that Breitbart released it, consider the fearful reaction against its release as validation of fact.

I'm glad that at least Slashdot has largely stayed immune, aside from the occasional firecracker thrown towards those who dare question the SJW narrative - like myself.

You can't take the van Valkerberg out of her ;)

[sethstorm]

Zoe Quinn is not her real name. It's a pseudonym.

Yes and No. Apparently legal records may have changed - especially in light of her van Valkerberg name being in too many places to control.

While a person can take the van Valkerberg out of their legal records, they can't take the van Valkerberg out their actions. They will eventually be remembered as harassers that abused privilege in the name of calling out privilege.

I would admit that it would be nice to walk in the UN and offer a rebuttal to their harassment claims with mine.

Not when they have a friend in the Abuse Dept.

[sethstorm]

N/T

Nope, but nice DARVO.

[sethstorm]

Fixed that for you.

1. Eron Gjoni breaks up with Chelsea van Valkerberg.
2. Chelsea van Valkerberg engages in lawfare to gag Gjoni, preventing him from speaking the truth.
3. Chelsea van Valkerberg reaches out to some friends to have discussion killed off in various online forums.
4. Anyone who looks at the facts or defends Eron Gjoni (or the exposure of the scandal) is labeled a 'harasser' and is attacked/destroyed/doxxed.
5. Chelsea van Valkerberg loses her gag order in Massachusetts
6. Chelsea van Valkerberg loses her gag order in Washington (state).
7. She retreats to more friendly, fact-free venues after losing court battles.

At least we can have the discussion.

[sethstorm]

Unlike many places, Slashdot's discussions are left alone for >90% of the time. It all depends on who has modpoints and when.

Other places have killed off the discussion in the name of "removing harassment", despite allowing harassment of those not in support of the narrative.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[narcc]

why did Twitter, Fark, Reddit, Polygon, Giant Bomb, BoingBoing, and a host of other sites just coincidentally synchronize on the same enemies and the same narrative?

Because they recognize that supporting the kind of abusive behavior we see from GG and similar groups is not socially acceptable. GG just hasn't figured out that they're no different than other hate groups, so when they see a bunch of large sites reaction exactly like a normal person would expect, they immediately assume that there is some secret conspiracy.

I'm glad that at least Slashdot has largely stayed immune

I'm glad to see that someone is paying attention. To hear most you folks talk, you'd think Slashdot is a bastion of liberalism, beholden to the whims of those evil SJW's. A fiction, as you're well aware. It's pretty obvious that the majority here, sadly, agree with you.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[sethstorm]

Because they recognize that supporting the kind of abusive behavior we see from GG and similar groups is not socially acceptable.

Yet the harassment seems to fly from the direction that thinks it's "not socially acceptable" to speak inconvenient truths. Either one abides by the narrative or gets the something equivalent to Scientology's Fair Game.

That, and for people defending civility from hate groups, you sure have a strange definition of both. Sarah Nyberg's crimes against children counted as civility while bringing it to light is hate. In addition, discussions are defined as hate if the wrong people control the discussion or are able to speak. Finally, hatred is defined as civility when the "correct people" control the discussion or make bomb threats against any narrative-breaking event.

With that in mind, your opinion only seems to hold up when you can make appeals to administrative action. Mine can hold up itself based on the facts.

GG just hasn't figured out that they're no different than other hate groups, so when they see a bunch of large sites reaction exactly like a normal person would expect, they immediately assume that there is some secret conspiracy.

The Gamejournopros mailing list leaks, along with the fearful reaction, were proof enough of collusion. That, and disparate sites don't just suddenly get on the same page and deliver the same exact message and policy without some instruction.

Re:Good, talk about professional victims as harass

[narcc]

Pure delusion.

Seems like you have a loose grip on facts.

[sethstorm]

Facts can stand up without any administrative action. Care to try to refute them?

On the other hand, the stuff from you seems to be of the purest delusion, supported only by people willing to obliterate the truth.

Re:Seems like you have a loose grip on facts.

[narcc]

Why? That's been done to death. You know this, yet couldn't care less.

When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty. Sooner or later, however, you find out that the pig likes it.