Slashdot Mirror


Running For Congress, Brianna Wu Criticizes The FBI's GamerGate Report (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader shares this update about programmer/game developer Brianna Wu as well as the FBI's recently-released report on their GamerGate investigation:Wu has officially unveiled the web site for her campaign for a seat in the U.S. Congress, and says if elected she'll confront the FBI over their "appalling failure" when investigating members of the controversial GamerGate coalition. "Wu catalogued more than 180 death threats that she said she received because she spoke out against sexism in the game industry and #GamerGate misogyny," according to VentureBeat, which quotes Wu as saying "only a fraction of a fraction of the information we gave them was ever looked into."

The article says the FBI did investigate -- even asking Google to "preserve records" for several email addresses and YouTube accounts, and making a similar request to Microsoft. And the FBI also interviewed one minor who admitted to making at least 40 threatening phone calls, but after turning over that information learned that the state of Massachusetts had declined to prosecute. In the end the FBI's 173-page report ultimately concluded that there were no actionable leads.

Wu's response? "All this report does for me is show how little the FBI cared about the investigation."

760 comments

  1. Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, you unimportant half-melted snowflake, the world does not revolve around you and yours.

    1. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah! People should be able to subject people who disagree with them to endless harrasement and intimidation without any consequences, right? That's what the President tells me, anyway, and he should know, right?

    2. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not? That's what the democrats do. You don't agree with them? You must be a racist, xenophobic, sexist piece of shit.

    3. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the FBI should investigate the times where Wu was caught red handed creating fake accounts to harass himself.

      Besides, even if 10% of the shit claimed by Wu wasn't made up, trolling is hardly worth spending actual money to investigate.

    4. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the President tells me, anyway...

      Really, I haven't heard that and I've been listening intently. Maybe you should listen to him and not your "handlers".

    5. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well yes, if you want to believe that the white man is superior, that African Americans, Mexicans and Muslims are subhumans, that women should suck it up when men verbally harass them, or, you know, "grab them by the pussy", that does make you a bigot and a misogynist.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you just proved his point. You dont agree with him, so you automatically label him as a bigoted asshole.

    7. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by hey! · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We're all at the center of our own world. If you don't realize that, it means you're so egocentric you think your vantage point is special.

      That said, attracting death threats for expressing your opinion is pretty objective evidence that other people find you notable. In fact you may not realize it, but your need to express your hatred of her lends her stature.

      If you want someone to feel insignificant you should ignore them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      which ironically enough, makes him a bigoted asshole.

    9. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Muslim isn't a race.

    10. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Death threats on the internet are about as credible as Baghdad Bob was during the invasion of Iraq. The FBI looked into them, and determined their credibility was at said level, reported the one person who repeatedly harassed her and presumably handed over their evidence of such to the appropriate authorities, and then dropped the issue because they did their jobs. But for our special snowflake this isn't good enough. She needs that extra special law enforcement appeasement. It's certainly not the FBI's problem that Massachusetts declined to prosecute.

    11. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Staunch feminist uses feminist platform to fund an entry into a political career to build a bigger feminist platform.
      She founded a company for women-only. If she were a man she'd have fallen foul of the law by now for discrimination.

      And this, my friends, is how the world works now. Man follow law. Woman complain about man. ...oh wait, it was always like that.

    12. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      All the rage in politics these days. . Go insane if things don't go your way. Here's the big thing. NO one gives a fuck about "GamerGate" except for the collection of assholes involved in it.

      the reason the FBI didn't go further was because they are not in the business of sucking Social Justice Warrior's dicks.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well yes, if you want to believe that the white man is superior, that African Americans, Mexicans and Muslims are subhumans, that women should suck it up when men verbally harass them, or, you know, "grab them by the pussy", that does make you a bigot and a misogynist.

      Wait......what? We're you making a statement for effect, or just showing how prejudiced you are?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no danger at all. There have been no murders after Internet death threats. Oh wait, http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

    15. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      If you think that my post rises anywhere near the level of hatred you perhaps need to take a remedial English class. Dislike certainly, derision definitely, and I sure as fuck despise the woman's actions. Hatred however is a level of emotional investment I reserve for the truly evil or personal, and she is neither.

      Attracting death threats on the internet merely shows that you are expressing an opinion others dislike and are of a high enough profile or 'lucky' enough to attract them. Given the internet history of the person in question that is decidedly the former situation.

    16. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Brianna" is nothing more than a professional victim. Seriously, "she" has actually made a living off of Patreon by whining and crying about how much the world doesn't like "her".

    17. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Yep it certainly is the republicans making these statements.

    18. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malignant Narcissism is a great Rush instrumental.

    19. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      Firstly, nothing in the article indicates that death threats were made, secondly during those 6 months how many death threats online do you think were made in France? I'm gonna guess somewhere northward of 50 million. Which makes any individual death threat completely and utterly useless as an indicator of actual danger.

    20. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're complaining about a little manscaping?

    21. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is that, the "I know you are, but what am I?" response?

    22. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Cyberax · · Score: 0
      Well, TFA reading is a weak point here, but you should have at least read the summary:

      Wu catalogued more than 180 death threats that she said she received because she spoke out against sexism in the game industry and #GamerGate misogyny

      Nah, nothing special. No need to investigate. And there was also staling involved.

      But I guess you are not worried about being a target of massive harassment or stalking.

    23. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      And "bigotry" isn't limited to racism.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Archfeld · · Score: 1, Informative

      But she is a man. Unless 'her' plumbing is functional rather than added as decorations 'she' is transgender male, not a female. I fully support 'her' choice to appear on the outside as whatever makes 'her' comfortable but cosmetics do not make gender, on either side.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    25. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! People should be able to subject people who disagree with them to endless harrasement and intimidation without any consequences, right? That's what the President tells me, anyway, and he should know, right?

      You know none of that happened, and Wu has been caught harassing themselves multiple times, right?

    26. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by NeoTechni · · Score: 5, Informative

      If anything, this report proves that's what SHE did. Falsely accusing people for years, and she's running for Congress specifically to subvert due process against her victims

    27. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps you should take your own advice. They investigated. The one person who was remotely credible and repeatedly harassed her they reported to the appropriate authorities. She's throwing a bitch fit because they didn't find anyone they were willing to publicly crucify to appease her ego.

    28. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally gay people don't need to white knight

      You must be one piece of work if you can't get a tranny to peg you.

    29. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The context implied otherwise.

    30. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1
    31. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah .... the FBI finds a kid who made over 40 threatening phone calls .... but she is the one lying and falsely accusing people.

      Your lack of basic intelligence is impressive.

    32. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When someone calls you 'bigot' for criticizing a philosophy you know they are _full of shit_.

      Philosophies held are exactly the kind of thing you can judge a person or group on. Skip the name calling and defend it or shut up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't "automatically" but "conditional" as the word "if" indicated.

      But since you failed to notice that, I guess you may be illiterate.

    34. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But since you failed to notice that, I guess you may be illiterate.

      Nah, it's all this new style if-statement considered dangerous coding they are teaching the kids these days.

    35. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is exactly zero substance presented in the criticism here, so your feigned hand-wringing shows your own lack of virtue, or you wouldn't be trying to pull such obvious bullshit.

      Face it, Hornedwumpus, you're defending a bunch of trolls, if you had any integrity, you'd demonstrate some of it.

      But you don't, so you can't.

    36. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, TFA reading is a weak point here, but you should have at least read the summary:

      Wu catalogued more than 180 death threats that she said she received because she spoke out against sexism in the game industry and #GamerGate misogyny

      Nah, nothing special. No need to investigate. And there was also staling involved.

      But they *did* investigate, you should have at least read the summary:

      The article says the FBI did investigate -- even asking Google to "preserve records" for several email addresses and YouTube accounts, and making a similar request to Microsoft. And the FBI also interviewed one minor who admitted to making at least 40 threatening phone calls, but after turning over that information learned that the state of Massachusetts had declined to prosecute. In the end the FBI's 173-page report ultimately concluded that there were no actionable leads.

    37. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Fuckoff AC.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone calls you 'bigot' for criticizing a philosophy you know they are _full of shit_.

      Well that's not happening here is it? The accusation of bigotry, far from being leveled at anyone "for criticizing a philosophy," was leveled at people who "believe that the white man is superior, that African Americans, Mexicans and Muslims are subhumans, that women should suck it up when men verbally harass them, or, you know, 'grab them by the pussy.'" Do try to keep it relevant!

    39. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And "bigotry" isn't limited to racism.

      Bigotry has nothing to do with racism. Bigotry is intolerance of an opinion. In fact, calling people racist because you don't like their opinions is bigotry.

    40. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "malignant narcissist upset" - good self knowledge

    41. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No, a lack of reading comprehension did that. I used the word specifically so people couldn't just dismiss it with "Muslim isn't a race"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    42. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by quenda · · Score: 0

      And "bigotry" isn't limited to racism.

      Labelling someone as a "racist bigot" is typically an act of bigotry itself, oh the irony.

      Bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.".

      So if someone is anti-immigration because they do not want their country to change, that is just plain old conservatism.
      You may well disagree, but call them racist and you become a bigot.

    43. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Troll

      I didn't call anyone a racist, and trying to redefine a word to shortcut actually have to deal with what someone said is, apart from anything else, intellectually lazy

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    44. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when? That hasn't been the definition of bigotry in my lifetime.

    45. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're you making a statement for effect, or just showing how prejudiced you are?

      How is it "prejudice" when the person accused of bigotry exhibits actual bigotry such as that described? That's judging after the evidence is in.

      I'm trying to make sense of your post. Perhaps you simply misread the text you quoted? The statement delineates a set of beliefs which would lead, in the opinion of the original writer, whoever it is who entertains them to be judged a bigot. You cannot seriously read this either was having been written for "effect," or as detailing the prejudices of the original writer.

    46. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "bigotry" isn't limited to the right.

      Fixed that for you.

    47. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Bigotry is the rejection of opinions other than your own simply because they are not your own.
      Bigotry has NOTHING to do hate of a particular race, sex, nation, religion, etc. The original use of the word was related to religion, but still it merely meant rejecting other beliefs without consideration because they are not your own.

    48. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, TFA reading is a weak point here, but you should have at least read the summary:

      Wu catalogued more than 180 death threats that she said she received because she spoke out against sexism in the game industry and #GamerGate misogyny

      Nah, nothing special. No need to investigate.

      It's in the summary dumbass - they did investigate. What more did you want?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    49. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the FBI should investigate the times where Wu was caught red handed creating fake accounts to harass himself.

      Besides, even if 10% of the shit claimed by Wu wasn't made up, trolling is hardly worth spending actual money to investigate.

      Don't worry. AmiMoJo, PopeRatzo and/or Serviscope_minor will be along soon to "explain" and "interpret" the FBI report to fit with their delusions about gamergate. Serviscope_minor might throw his usual moral panic fit because people are thinking the wrong thoughts instead of going with "listen and believe".

      Look for the phrase "this doesn't mean that she wasn't in danger"... or similar god-of-the-gaps arguments.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    50. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Oh...Zennistrad. They were one of the people involved in "CON" the same organization that has operated doxing, and harassment campaigns against people while claiming to be an anti-harassment organization. Also, Wu is directly linked to CON as well. Whoever is running against Wu is going to have so much dirt of their garbage that they likely won't survive the primary.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    51. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by geekpowa · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Do you have actual rebuttal to the argument this apparently terrible person made?

    52. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are worthless. Enjoy your internet points, you fucking Trump supporter.

    53. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People should be able to subject people who disagree with them to endless harrasement and intimidation without any consequences, right?"

        Not all people but whining feminazis are fair game.

    54. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 1
      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    55. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the rejection of other opinions or points of view, it's the hatred or intolerance of them.

      I can reject mind/body dualism and not be a "bigot" for doing so. If I deride dualists as stupid, that's bigotry.

    56. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by geekpowa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The insinuation is that this was done in a clandestine fashion with intent to deceive and overstate the threat. The rebuttal I linked above says that intent is clearly sarcasm/exasperation. Nothing was hidden. The original argument that this was done with intent to deceive is weak as piss.

      On a side note, spent 15 mins flipping through the FBI file linked to the original slashdot story. Some seriously juvenile and purille rubbish there. Allthough the death threats, the ones I read at least, where too over the top to be credible, what is definitely present is a visceral hatred and anger and a quite possibly genuine wish for harm. Apalling: I challenge anyone who thinks that can endure that sort of abuse and remain unaffected by it.

    57. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Demena · · Score: 1

      He is at least willing to post a pseudo identity and affected by rep. You on the other hand do not appear to have the courage of your convictions. Commit to your opinions - or realise they have the value of used cat-shredded toilet paper.

    58. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Demena · · Score: 1

      Unless you can logically show that stupidity. If you can show it, then you were not being bigoted in describing it as stupid, merely accurate.

    59. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, its horrible he called him a democrat. That is low. Very few of those bigoted assholes are left these days.

    60. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't call anyone a racist, and trying to redefine a word to shortcut actually have to deal with what someone said is, apart from anything else, intellectually lazy

      You've called lots of people racist in the past, including me, a black man. Assigning unrelated traits into a single collection like you did may not be you calling someone racist, but you're certainly implying it.

      At least have the courage to directly call someone out instead of loosely chaining booleans together with a vague conditional.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    61. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      > If you think that my post rises anywhere near the level of hatred you perhaps need to take a remedial English class

      Since the GP said nothing about you (nor did it imply anything about you) your response seems weird and irrationally nasty. Good luck troll.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    62. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That said, attracting death threats for expressing your opinion is pretty objective evidence that other people find you notable.

      I suspect the death threats weren't for expressing an opinion, but rather for actively trying to attack something a lot of people cared about.
      Once you go on the offensive against a large enough group of people you are no longer dealing with individuals, but a group that can be described with statistics.
      At odds with a group of 100,000 people? Yep, you probably have a thousand schizophrenics in there, ten thousand persons with impulse-control disorder and likely a few hundred criminal and self-destructive psychopaths.
      I'm surprised that no nut-job went as far as smashing up her car with a baseball bat, but perhaps the group she agitated is on average more sane than the population as a whole.

      Picking a fight with some asshole you don't like is something you sometimes have to do.
      Picking a fight with a group large enough to be broken down into statistics?
      That means that you have unknown enemies with severe psychological disorders.

    63. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do people not understand "grab them by the pussy" was hyperbole?

      If not, where are the women he's victimized, or are they all too intimidated to come forward?

    64. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kid was found to be trolling her, unless you take threats a child seriously.

      I don't, but then again I'm not a giant attention seeking crybaby trying to get top score in victem points.

    65. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children are cruel, did no one ever teach you that?

      How about you ask a veteran that endured torture what he thinks of SJW twitter PTSD.

    66. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the criticism is something along the lines of "While the 5 pillars of Islam are laudible, I feel that they do not adequately compensate for the rather outdated attitudes towards gender equality still held by a disproportionate number of Muslims" I'll largely agree with this. If it's "that woman with a burka might be working for the enemy because all Muslims may want to destroy our way of life" then I'll probably consider you a bigot.

    67. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      There isn't really any need to interpret the FBI report, it's pretty straight forward. They spoke to some of the people dong the harassing and ask them nicely to stop, Most of them were kids who never thought that there would be any consequences, quickly apologised and promised not to do it again.

      The issue is that they didn't make much effort to get to the organisers of the harassment campaign, merely the useful idiots who joined in and failed to even create proper anonymous accounts.

      Regardless of what you think of Wu, it seems that law enforcement in general is unequipped to deal with this sort of crime. For example, the person who posted a death threat along with her home address has never been brought to justice. Again, regardless of your opinion of Wu, such things are clearly illegal. I'm sure someone else can cite the exact law.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    68. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      There isn't really any need to interpret the FBI report, it's pretty straight forward. They spoke to some of the people dong the harassing and ask them nicely to stop, Most of them were kids who never thought that there would be any consequences, quickly apologised and promised not to do it again.

      The issue is that they didn't make much effort to get to the organisers of the harassment campaign, merely the useful idiots who joined in and failed to even create proper anonymous accounts.

      Regardless of what you think of Wu, it seems that law enforcement in general is unequipped to deal with this sort of crime. For example, the person who posted a death threat along with her home address has never been brought to justice. Again, regardless of your opinion of Wu, such things are clearly illegal. I'm sure someone else can cite the exact law.

      Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".

      The straight forward takeaway from "they found nothing actionable" is indeed "they found nothing actionable".

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    69. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The issue is that the victims of the crimes actually did a better job of investigating it than the FBI did in many cases. Individual citizens are reliant on law enforcement to take the investigation beyond what they themselves are legally allowed to do, using the special investigatory powers granted to them.

      Making credible threats, even on Twitter, is a crime. The FBI didn't even get as far as Quinn did by logging the IRC channel that the GamerGate organisers were using to discuss their crimes. Those logs are a goldmine of evidence, including the unmasked IP addresses of home internet connections that presumably belong to the suspects.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    70. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, he is making a statement of fact. If you behave in a misogynist way, then your behaviour can accurately be described as misogynist. There are no "alternate facts" here, these are simply the words used to describe certain ideas.

      Complaining about these words is just the new "politically correct". An effort to rework the language into a kind of newspeak where criticism of your views is impossible because the words needed to describe them are banned.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    71. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately we don't have to go with your opinion on this, there is a legal standard that has been established over the centuries. Posting a threat that the poster is capable of carrying out, say violence and a home address, is considered credible by the law. The fact that it comes over Twitter is irrelevant.

      Another way to look at it, if someone posted your home address and a threat to shoot the place up, would you simply ignore it and assume your family was safe, or would you have some kind of reaction?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    72. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm "bigoted" against people who try to remove existing nuance from language to prove they're not bigots. Anyway with that out of the way:

      Bigotry has nothing to do with racism.

      Mirriam Webster says:

      *Â a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially
      *Â one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

      Bigotry is intolerance of an opinion.

      No, it's a pattern of intolerance against opinions (plural). I think you're opinion on the word "bigot" makes you a dumbass but that doesn't make me a bigot. Anyway feel free to go and actually use a dictionary.

      In fact, calling people racist because you don't like their opinions is bigotry.

      Depends on the opinions, really. Something is not "not racist" merely because you don't want it to be.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    73. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This.

      I actually had to look it up. And I would indeed consider myself an avid gamer. Actually, currently it's likely I spend more time playing games than working (if that's possible). And I haven't heard about it until recently, and I looked it up ... and I don't get it. No, honestly, I don't get it. What the fuck is this about? Someone left someone and now someone wrote an article about a game but didn't report about the game but let his (or her, I don't care) hurt feelings get in the way.

      That's it? For real? That's what people get worked up about?

      Don't get me wrong, of course, losing someone and being hurt matters to the person who it happens to, but why the FUCK should I give half a shit about it? "But journalism and integrity..." BULLSHIT! Does anyone still read "journalist" articles about games? Half of them are paid ads anyway, the other half is worded in a way that reeks worse of copy/paste than the average answer from a tech supporter. If you care for other people's opinions on games, read reviews from other players on Steam.

      Aside of that, PLEASE educate me why this is even a thing? If anything, it reminds me that adding "-gate" to any topic only means "we want to blow this out of proportion or else nobody gives a shit because it's not worth giving one".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    74. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So just because someone doesn't like the anal douche he has to be fond of the turd sandwich? That's a bit far fetched, don't you think?

      How about "I support neither lunatic"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    75. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the FBI should investigate the times where Wu was caught red handed creating fake accounts to harass himself.

      Besides, even if 10% of the shit claimed by Wu wasn't made up, trolling is hardly worth spending actual money to investigate.

      I though Brianna Wu was a woman. Wow!

    76. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you look at the evidence, they went after the low hanging fruit and the people who used old technology that they were familiar with. For example, phone records, or asking Twitter for user data.

      The IRC logs captured by Quinn show things that are actionable. People speaking about the harassment campaign, apparently logged in from residential internet connections in the US. They failed to even investigate that channel. Didn't even create a GUI in Visual BASIC like on CSI.

      Just because they didn't consider the IRC logs to be credible you assume that they didn't even look at them? Maybe they discarded "evidence" that was not credible. Looking at the list of around 20 LEO agencies that were involved in the investigation (posted elsethread), I'm more likely to believe that they found those logs suspect than that they ignored them altogether.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    77. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both sides of gamergate were subject to threats and harrassment, it fits one side's narrative to pretend otherwise.

    78. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by butzwonker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Interesting. The above post has been rated insightful, whereas in fact its what you could only call double-bigoted in a self-defeating way. No matter how you put it, the above AC doesn't have an argument.

    79. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the point. They failed to gather the evidence themselves, which would have made it most robust.

      TBH, those IRC logs would not have changed much. Assume that they did have those logs, it still wouldn't turn Wu's lies about being chased from her home (and further lies about reporting it) into truths.

      And once again, those logs may have not been credible anyway, hence they were ignored. You are making the assumption that those logs were credible.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    80. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What makes you think she was lying about receiving a credible threat that included her home address? It's been well documented. The FBI records just released say they looked at it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    81. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      "In fact you may not realize it, but your need to express your hatred of her lends her stature."

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    82. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the f- are you talking about?

      "Hey!" clearly responded to "ravenshrike", it's there for all to see, if you look at the thread. This is further collaborated by him saying "We're all at the center of our own world.", since this is a direct response to ravenshrike saying "the world does not revolve around you". so he is VERY CLEARLY addressing ravenshrike.

      Then hey! continues saying "In fact YOU may not realize it, but YOUR need to express YOUR hatred of her lends her stature."

      To which ravenshrike answered that his post didn't rise to the level of hatred.

      That latter response makes sense, thus, giving the preceding comment. So hey! DID say or imply something about him, and his response was not weird or irrational at all.

    83. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop breaking the law, asshole!

    84. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does anyone still read "journalist" articles about games? Half of them are paid ads anyway, the other half is worded in a way that reeks worse of copy/paste than the average answer from a tech supporter. If you care for other people's opinions on games, read reviews from other players on Steam.

      That's why it happened in the first place. Because people had enough, and it exploded when the media decided to double down and pull out the "gamers are dead" articles. Then rounded that out with mass censorship on any discussion of it. The comment graveyards on reddit are still around, some are huge 25k+ deleted comments? 5k+ here or there on it? Yep. The gamejournopros leaks. The "writers" shilling for their friends/buddies shit and not disclosing it? Those same writers being in a gigantic circle jerk of undisclosed payments from various people in the indie industry as well. Keep in mind that this wasn't the start, this had been building since the days of Kane and Lynch and the Dorito Pope.

      The icing on the cake was simply all the bullshit that sites like polygon, kotaku, rps, and so on have tried to push. Things like "GTAV is sexist" or why your vidya makes you a violent killer. Along with the big "vidya is sexist" so we need to create a safe space for the special snowflakes, and you need to give them special concessions because they're special. Which kinda goes against the entire "git gud" line(aka merit is all that matters) that gaming is built around. If anything it's simply exposed that the above mentioned sites are cancerous identity politics engines. And even media like the BBC or NPR have no problems pushing that same line of reasoning as long as it gets them what they want.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    85. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Complaining about these words is just the new "politically correct". An effort to rework the language into a kind of newspeak where criticism of your views is impossible because the words needed to describe them are banned.

      A truly hilarious criticism coming from an SJW, considering the fact that SJW's are the most serious threat to free speech in the country right now. I dare say you forfeited any right to cite Orwell the second you started trying to ban conservatives from speaking at college campuses across the country, campaigning to have people fired from their jobs for having opinions that didn't jibe with yours, and passing laws that jail people who refuse to use made-up pronouns. Sorry, no moral high ground there for you, snowflake.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    86. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the above linked image showing that yes they were attempting to fish and got caught at doing it(which is why it was deleted), isn't an example that yes. Wu is batshit insane, and there is the possibility that they were creating dummy accounts in the first place.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    87. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      What makes you think she was lying about receiving a credible threat that included her home address? It's been well documented. The FBI records just released say they looked at it.

      They say they looked at it, then they say it was not actionable. I believe them. You obviously don't. Evidence-based reasoning has never been your strong point.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    88. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a "Fuckoff AC"? An unfortunately-named brand of air conditioner?

    89. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Apalling: I challenge anyone who thinks that can endure that sort of abuse and remain unaffected by it.

      I could. The first step I'd do, which come to think of I already did, is not read it. It's amazing how easy it is to remain unaffected by even the most puerile stuff, if you don't bother to read it.

    90. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      what is definitely present is a visceral hatred and anger and a quite possibly genuine wish for harm

      "Dear Sir/Madam,

      Once the FBI processes the backlog of Trump supporters, we'll get back to you. Could you make some time for us in April 2137?

      FBI"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    91. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is that the victims of the crimes

      """""""""victims"""""""""
      """""""""crimes"""""""""

      lol

    92. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The issue is that the victims of the crimes actually did a better job of investigating it than the FBI did in many cases.

      That's an "issue"? It's not very rare that an individual has more time for his pet peeve than a government office for the average individual in a whole country. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect, starting with neigbour relations.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    93. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not an SJW, I support free speech and wouldn't want to ban people from speaking on college campuses. I don't know of any laws that jail people for not using made-up pronouns but I doubt I would support them. I much prefer to exercise my own freedom of speech, rather than to use the law to limit others.

      Also, if I was a snowflake, do you think I would hang around on Slashdot, putting up with the kind of abuse I get?

      Perhaps you should find out what people actually think on this topics before accusing them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    94. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you.

    95. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      How exactly does running for Congress subvert due process in this instance?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    96. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself.

    97. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh sorry, I just assumed that since some SJW's are anti-free-speech that all of them are. You know, kind of like how SJW's assume that all conservatives are racists and misogynists because some of them are, huh?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    98. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by geekpowa · · Score: 1

      It's definitely a weird thing to write. It looks like a fishing expedition / incitement to bully. It isn't evidennce of fabricated threat. The tweets in link I provided above strongly suggest a different motive. I see no smoking gin in all this, nothing compelling beyond odd behaviour. If this is is considered best critique of BW, seriously it isn't much of a critique.

    99. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Fortunately we don't have to go with your opinion on this, there is a legal standard that has been established over the centuries. Posting a threat that the poster is capable of carrying out, say violence and a home address, is considered credible by the law. The fact that it comes over Twitter is irrelevant.

      Another way to look at it, if someone posted your home address and a threat to shoot the place up, would you simply ignore it and assume your family was safe, or would you have some kind of reaction?

      And the legal standard is "did the authorities determine this to be devoid of credibility?". In this case, they did so I'm not sure what you are unhappy about.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    100. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that isn't illegal.

      Posting someones information is not illegal if it is already a public record, see familytreenow.com

      Likewise, a death threat is not illegal when made online if there is no real intent to follow through on it, as per a supreme court ruling on the issue.

      Maybe these things *should* be illegal, but they are not at the moment.

    101. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      The threats are credible. No college would ignore threats like this. They demonstrate means, motivation and planning (from the FBI report):

      If you do not cancel [redacted] a Montreal MAssacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as students and staff at the nearby Women's Center. I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I'm giving you a chance to stop it.

      You have 24 hours to cancel [redacted] You might be foolish enough to just beef up security at the event, but that won't save you. Even if they're able to stop me, there are plenty of feminists on campus who won't be able to defend themselves. One way or another, I'm going to make sure they die.

      You've probable heard of a man named [redacted] He was a hero to men everywhere for standing up to the toxic influence of feminist on Western masculinity. We live in a nation of emasculated cowards too afraid to challenge the vile, misandrist harpies who seek to destroy them. Feminist has taken over every facet of our society, and women like [redacted] want to punish us for even fantasizing about being men. This is why I've chosen to target her.

      Later on you can see that the FBI considered some of the threats made on Twitter to be serious enough to warrant investigation.

      Further on you can see a report about a thwarted swatting attempt, which was linked back to posts on 8chan.

      Around the half way mark they detail the police investigating doxxing on 8chan. This is then followed by attempts to open fraudulent bank accounts in the victim's name, which the FBI states they believe was by GamerGate.

      It goes on but you get the picture.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    102. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC here calling you out on the relevance of the political conversation.
      Can we bring this back to the original topic, which was that someone who stirred the pot in a community that trolls for fun is now trying to get into politics and complaining that "the FBI didn't take it seriously" when they made an almost 200 page report about a bunch of 14 year olds trolling said trollbait?

    103. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

      They did action those threats. They tried to investigate, they requested information from Twitter, Google and Microsoft. The issue is that because those requests didn't result in a name and address, they didn't take it further or link it up with the parallel activity on 8chan and IRC properly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    104. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >I think you just proved his point. You dont agree with him, so you automatically label him as a bigoted asshole.

      No. We only do that when the opinions we don't agree with are the ones that are LITERALLY DEFINED AS "being a bigot".

      We don't call you a bigotted asshole for saying "I want tax cuts on the rich" - we think you're an idiot, but we don't think your a bigoted asshole. We think that policy has racist outcomes but we generally hold that your pursuit of it is motivated by ignorance OF those outcomes rather than a desire to achieve them. But when you hold bigoted opinions - calling you a bigot is the ONLY form of a disagreement around.

      You want the fastest possible way to destroy the world ? Start treating NAZIs like "just another political opinion".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    105. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      People should be able to subject people who disagree with them to endless harassment and intimidation without any consequences, right?

      And that's exactly what she plans to do to the other kids that called bad names once she's been given the congressional power to pursue her feminist witch-hunt with impunity.

      That's enough to make me campaign against her just on principle alone.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    106. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The report says that they took some of the threats seriously.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    107. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 0, Troll

      > made-up pronouns

      All pronouns are made up. All WORDS are made up.

      Seriously... where the fuck did you think they came from ?

      Even if you're a creationist... you didn't actually think we're still speaking with the words God used when talking to Adam did you ? Not to mention - if that had been real, Adam would like have spoken Mesopotamian - not English. English wouldn't be made up for another 9 thousand years or so.

      Words are made up all the time - and all words are made up. One of the most basic purposes of making up words is to accurately describe things that were not previously described accurately. Which is exactly what the thing you're so freaked out about happens to consist off. As it happens that failure to use the right word (and how new it is has NOTHING to do with how right it is) is proven to actually KILL people - so punishing those who malignantly refuse to do so after they learn this is an act of saving lives.

      Yep... we're the greatest threat to freedom of speech (not Trump arresting journalists)... because we told you, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theaterhouse and today's rightwingers are such namby-pamby little snowflakes that they believe they should be able to live in a little safe space where nothing you say ever has consequences.

      Hint: getting people fired for saying asshole things is NOT an infringement on free speech, it's an ACT AND CELEBRATION of free speech. You have the right to say fucked up shit -and I have the right to tell your boss that if he doesn't fire your ass for it I will not shop at his business. Consequences of speech are ALSO free speech. Telling us we can't DO that- now THAT is the biggest threat to free speech. It's trying to make a world where only YOU lot get to have free speech because you precious little alt-right snowflakes can't handle criticism.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    108. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      They did action those threats. They tried to investigate, they requested information from Twitter, Google and Microsoft. The issue is that because those requests didn't result in a name and address, they didn't take it further or link it up with the parallel activity on 8chan and IRC properly.

      Did you even read the linked PDF? Those requests *did* result in names (and addresses), many of whom were actually interviewed! After interviewing them, they were determined to not be credible.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    109. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Damn, that was beautifully put.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    110. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      The report says that they took some of the threats seriously.

      No. It says they took *all* of the threats seriously, which is why they subsequently investigated those threats, and said investigation found them to not be credible.

      TLDR; the FBI took the threats seriously. They investigated. The concluded that the threats were not credible.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    111. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The actual definiition is posted... literally ONE POST ABOVE YOURS... and yet you persist with this flagrant lie.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    112. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You most probably are, aren't you?

      And Anonymous Coward at that. And a TRUMPbot.

    113. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      For example, the person who posted a death threat along with her home address has never been brought to justice.

      I find myself curious. Exactly what crime was committed by the person of which you speak? Was it a Federal crime, or a State crime, and if the latter, which State?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    114. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >How exactly does running for Congress subvert due process in this instance?

      Because she's not running as a republican and if she wins there will be one less republican in the majority and that is pretty much all these people need to consider her guilty of ALL crimes ever invented.

      In practise of course, running for congress does not subvert due process in ANY instance. Hell congressman have been elected with criminal convictions hanging over them - and spent much of their terms in jail (it's easy if you are running unopposed).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    115. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eat shit.

    116. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      For example, with the bomb threat against Sarkeesian's talk, they took it seriously but ultimately the trail went cold. It remains an open, unresolved investigation but is not being actively pursued.

      There is a clear difference between the way they investigated the credible threat and the way they dismissed the "over 9000 bombs" one, for example. It's right there in the report linked in the summary.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    117. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Apalling: I challenge anyone who thinks that can endure that sort of abuse and remain unaffected by it.

      I could. The first step I'd do, which come to think of I already did, is not read it. It's amazing how easy it is to remain unaffected by even the most puerile stuff, if you don't bother to read it.

      Was thinking the same thing. Only reason I even know of this is the articles on /. And if it had been aimed at me, it's likely that the first I'd have heard about it is reading about it on /.

      Which would have tickled my fancy no end (that many people so excited about my thoughts that they were threatening me (from far away) would have been funny), till it got boring and it got tossed into the bit bucket along with all the other "oh no, not again" articles on /.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    118. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      After interviewing them, they were determined to not be credible.

      So at least we can now agree that reacting to them as if they might be credible, the only reasonable action for the college and the individuals threatened to take, was reasonable as the FBI felt that investigation was warranted before determining that they were not actually going to follow through.

      Unfortunately since they didn't find the authors of the ones that included home addresses, which are the ones that would have likely lead to a prosecution.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    119. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People said that about trump. Just saying.

    120. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, this isn't a public school cafeteria. . . . (evil grin)

    121. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      After interviewing them, they were determined to not be credible.

      So at least we can now agree that reacting to them as if they might be credible,

      Taking a threat seriously does not mean I/they think it is credible. They took the threat seriously, and then found it to be non-credible.

      You are seriously stretching to keep your narrative intact in light of the FBI report.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    122. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So ... after not caring about what journalists write and them lashing out, I now should care about them lashing out? Or for not writing anything and "censoring"?

      Again, nobody so far managed to give me any kind of reason, let alone a good one, why I should give a fuck about this whole mess.

      People who know nothing about games write about games to piss off gamers. It's not like this has never happened before, and I somehow wonder why gamers still give a shit. From "Uh, games make people go on killing sprees" to "Uh, games are misogynist".

      Does any "gamer" still give a shit what they say?

      The media have misrepresented games and people who play them for decades now. And suddenly we're supposed to give a shit about what they write? For real?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    123. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I see what you mean, but the way it's usually supposed to work is that the individual does some basic evidence gathering and then hands over to law enforcement who use their special powers of investigation to solve the crime.

      For example, if they had started logging 4chan posts immediately they could have created reliable evidence, with a chain of custody that would be difficult to dispute in court. As it happens the owner of textfiles.com claims to have been logging 4chan posts since almost the very beginning. It's not technologically difficult or expensive to do.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    124. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Just as a matter of interest, what did you think of the death threats and racist abuse sent to Jennifer Holliday for being prepared to sing at Trump's inauguration?

    125. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".

      Now what does that remind me off... something that happened around 6 months ago... what was it again, something about emails and "nothing actionable" and "no prosecutor would try to make a case"... I seem to recall a LOT of people who did NOT interpret that "nothing actionable" as, you know "nothing actionable"... were you one of them ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    126. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      >They say they looked at it, then they say it was not actionable. I believe them. You obviously don't. Evidence-based reasoning has never been your strong point.

      If it was credible ENOUGH for them to even look into it... that means you can hardly blame HER for being sufficiently scared to get the hell out of dodge, which means your claim that she "lied" about being chased out of her home is utter bunk. The FBI are a law enforcement agency, they are concerned with wether the evidence is strong enough to make a case in court -because it looks bad when you lose too many cases. Wu is a private citizen, she has no such concern - she saw a death threat with her address attached. Only a complete fucking moron would NOT run after that.

      If you seriously are going to argue she is lying about that, then I invite you to prove that by posting, everywhere you can, your home address and real name, as well as a confession to having helped plan and execute the 9/11 attacks and bragging how the police can't touch you because you have friends in high places.

      Lets see how long you stay in your home when a bunch of crazy-assed wingnut vigilante shoot-up-the-school types decide you're public enemy number one and KNOW where you live.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    127. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Definition of bigot
      : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    128. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Section 875(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Transmitting "true threats" over state borders is illegal at the federal level. Individual states may have laws against other types of threatening behaviour.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    129. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      If you don't care about being literally Hitler just because you're a white male and if you don't care about story lines having "diversity" shoe horned into them then don't worry about it. It did bug me for a while but now I don't read it and I buy games on their merit not their political agenda.

    130. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      >Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".

      Now what does that remind me off... something that happened around 6 months ago... what was it again, something about emails and "nothing actionable" and "no prosecutor would try to make a case"... I seem to recall a LOT of people who did NOT interpret that "nothing actionable" as, you know "nothing actionable"... were you one of them ?

      Nope. I was not one of them. Now that gamer-gate supporters are mostly exonerated due to this report, are you still going to paint all gamer-gate supporters as misogynist?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    131. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Learn to read shit for brains.

      In fact you may not realize it, but your need to express your hatred of her lends her stature.

      Dislike of a person and derisive comments about them do not hatred make, a fact which hey! seems to fail to grasp.

    132. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The law should be applied. Anyone making threats that contravene federal law should be investigated and prosecuted. The law applies equally to everyone, regardless of who the victim is.

      Why would you even ask me this?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    133. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by murdocj · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you think SJWs are the most serious threat to free speech in the USA, you haven't been awake the last week. trump, bannon, and conway have been running an intimidation campaign trying to get the press to just turn into Pravda and echo the party line. It's far scarier and more dangerous than someone complaining on slashdot. Especially since trump is going to appoint at least one, probably two Supreme Court justices.

    134. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Or they realized that IRC logs are not credible evidence unless they were the ones doing the logging as they're* nothing more than an unsecure text file that is pathetically easy to edit.

      *At least the few clients I'm familiar with, and probably the one Wu used.

    135. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The only person in the running I wouldn't have supported against Hillary was Jeb. Mainly because the continued threat of political dynasties would have been even worse had he been in play. That said I voted against Trump in the primaries. However, even 8 years of ultra-sterotype Trump is highly unlikely to be as damaging long term to the American political process as 8 years of Hillary, so Trump was for whom the lever was pulled.

    136. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must be not familiar with POTUS issuing gag orders on federal agencies, or actually, any outcomes associated with the most recent election

    137. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      "Not prosecuted" is not the same as "exonerated", especially since misogyny is not a criminal offense. It is despicable, but it's not a crime. I saw the messages they sent, I saw the evidence piled up, I saw the impacts. The movement was a flagrantly misogynistic one, but much like the Trump campaign (which, frankly was just GamerGate USA - or do you think it's a surprise that Trump gave Milo's boss a high profile government job ?) we had all these despicable things being said, despicable groups saying "That's our guy" yet somehow we were supposed to NOT link the movement with the despicable things done in it's name.

      And we're not talking about a few extremists, we're talking about a constant and obviously and hardly disguised trend with just barely enough plausible deniability attached to be able to claim "it's not ME it's all those OTHER people who don't really represent the movement".

      The movement was a bunch of zero-sum thinkers who had this bizarre idea that, if not EVERY game has nekked chicks in it then somehow gaming is dead.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    138. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by aevan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Somewhat because there was a third side: people just stirring up shit and trolling both for the lulz.

      Or even your own side for that matter...it was really hard to resist baiting a certain self-styled royalty of a chan with how quickly he lost his spaghetti.

    139. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Both hardline "gamegaters" and hardline "sjws" are a danger to free speech. I don't really see difference between their methods.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    140. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by aevan · · Score: 1

      Less people have been killed after internet death threats than by Muslims, adjusted by ratio of occurrence and population (source: any CoD game). Should we take them both fully credible?

    141. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The moment you speak to his boss with the intent of causing him harm, is the moment your free opinion transforms to a tool of destructing the livelihood of another human. Same as hate speech inciting someone else to take action against you. Same as doccing people. These actions are beyond free speech. They are not for declaring an opinion, they goal is to cause harm to another human.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    142. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yes, fear of change and acting to prevent it are conservatism. However, when you throw out something like "keep out the mexican rapists", you've crossed the line into bigotry. Today's conservatist movement has by and large crossed that line. There are still afew national voices that avoid flagrently espousing such views, but they are slowly going silent.
      Mostly because, IMHO, they are not rascists, although they are bigots by your definition. They hold deeply unpopular opinions about taxes and spending, or they are trying to benefit themselves and other elites. They have been using the other, more common "keep america white" conservatives as cover and never meant for it to get this far.

    143. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      "Not prosecuted" is not the same as "exonerated",

      It is when "innocent until proven guilty" is in force, which it is. This whole "guilty until proven innocent" is (like I said in another story) repugnant to the middle majority of the population. Only the extremists on both sides think that an accused must prove themselves innocent.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    144. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I would care about being literally Hitler, mostly 'cause then I'd have been dead for my whole life and then some.

      The point is that I'm not even figuratively Hitler. There is someone who considers me Hitler for being who or what I am. Whether I care about this depends entirely on whether I give a shit about what the person thinks.

      Take a wild guess whether I do.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    145. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Nice strawman there. Notice how you ignored the very next sentence which indicated that the REASON why it isn't in this case is because the accusation is not a crime. Nobody will EVER be prosecuted for misogyny - because it isn't a crime.
      So NOTHING in the FBI report has anything TO DO with the accusation of misogyny, they didn't investigate misogyny - it's not a crime.

      My point was that the two things are utterly unrelated, and you had to go and quote a sentence out of the context of the very next one to try and pretend I was arguing against presumption of innocence.

      By the way - do you spend equal measures of time defending OJ Simpson's reputation ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    146. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Troll

      So let me get this straight. X uses words to do harm and that's okay, but if I arrange a boycott of his employer - then THAT harm is NOT okay ?

      Only a rightwinger can write a flagrantly hypocritical statement like you just did and not even fucking blush.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    147. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My current hope is that Trump and what the next 4 years bring to the US manages to shake people awake. I doubt it, but I hope for it.

      Quite frankly, I'm kinda glad I didn't have to make the decision between Hillary and Donald. Either was cringe-worthy. Hillary would have meant 4 more years of back-office crony capitalism. Trump is blatant enough to simply flaunt it in front of everyone's face. Hell, he was pretty much talking aloud about how to slot his kids into well paying positions.

      My hope is that Trump is enough devil-may-care to not give a shit about exposing the corrupt structures he uses because he has his own financial empire to fall back onto once his political gig is over.

      That's pretty much the only good thing that may come out of this.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    148. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to work on reading comprehension. The OP is claiming that she is running for Congress so that, if she wins, she can use the powers of that office to punish those who have offended her, whether or not their offense is a violation of the law.

      NOTE: I do not have an opinion on whether the OP is right or not, but Brianna Wu's tactics during the Gamergate situation resembled those of people in other situations who created fake attacks on themselves...that does not mean they are not true, just that she was either behind those tactics, or she provoked them in order to garner publicity for herself rather than seeking to actually address the problem she claimed to be protesting.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    149. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I reviewed this article http://www.nydailynews.com/new... and found not a single mention of a death threat, let alone 180. You are apparently NOT responding to the same article that the person you replied to was.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    150. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SJW's are the most serious threat to free speech in the country right now

      Have you not noticed who the President is and what he's been up to?

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    151. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't, but then again I'm not a giant attention seeking crybaby trying to get top score in victem points."

      Not sure what you're crying about.

    152. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the FBI realises Wu was responsible for the actual serious threats, but from the heavy redactions it's not possible to say for certain.

    153. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So... All congresspeople, basically anyone who tried to influence or make law is just trying to subvert due process by changing the rules.

      That doesn't sound right.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    154. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite part is where you said it's "clearly illegal".....and then proceeded to not know the exact law. Belies the definition of "clearly" doesn't it?

    155. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's the point being made. Why didn't the FBI log that IRC channel? Capturing evidence is a pretty basic part of law enforcement, and would have been trivial for them to do.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    156. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by inhuman_4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not an SJW

      Good god man you must be joking. You're not just any SJW, you are the SJW. You're easily the most famous SJW on slashdot. I knew even before clinking on the story that half of the comments would be you flame warring with someone. Even on stories that aren't political you're waging a culture war, your old sig was something like "SJW: Someone I disagree with and by the way I'm an idiot" and now your new sig is anti-GamerGate. I don't know if maybe you don't know what a SJW is, or you do and just don't like the label. But you fit the mold to a T. If you honestly don't think you're a SJW I suggest you go back are re-read some of your own comments because the pattern of aggressive social justice advocacy is plain for all to see.

    157. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want someone to feel insignificant you should ignore them.

      You must be a conservative. How well as the "pretend to have the moral high ground, and avoid stooping to their level" worked out for you over the last, say, generation?

    158. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My point is that the legal requirement for it to be a crime at the federal level is that it crosses borders and is a "true threat", which basically means that it is something a reasonable person would take seriously.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    159. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about transmitting "empty threats"?

      The thing is, when you actually followup on online threats, most of them look like
      A: I'm ex Marine Corps, and I'm going to come over and beat the crap out of you tomorrow.
      B: Yeah yeah...
      Two days later:
      B: So, weren't you coming over to beat me up yesterday? What happened?
      A: I'm grounded. My mom got pissed because I didn't clean my room.

    160. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      She could get a Kickstarter going and build her own SJW video game company. Nah, no one cares.

    161. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Fragnet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your comment is reasonable on the face of it but the more I think about it the more smug it seems. It doesn't take an entire community to destroy a way of life. Just a critical mass. That critical mass is approaching in Europe. If you look at Pew attitudes research, more than a critical mass believe in death for apostasy, more than a critical mass are against gay and women's rights.

      If you want you could show me how this is compatible with Western Liberalism? I can't see it. Every +1 is +1 towards that critical mass. Just remember, white European liberals have stopped reproducing.

    162. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this would be Hillary sh would be exonerated!

    163. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making credible threats, even on Twitter, is a crime.

      A credible threat on Twitter? That's pretty much an oxymoron.

      Ok, there was this one guy who said he was going to become president - but he only succeeded because most people didn't consider that a credible threat until it was too late.

    164. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by peppepz · · Score: 2

      So if someone is anti-immigration because they do not want their country to change, that is just plain old conservatism.

      No, that is a texbook example of xenophobia. In politics, conservatism means that one is content with the current laws and does not advocate reforms.

    165. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's literally the definition of the word. Seriously. Go to dictionary.com, look up bigotry and read the definition.

    166. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by bfpierce · · Score: 2

      You being black is entirely irrelevant information here.

    167. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posting a threat that the poster is capable of carrying out, say violence and a home address, is considered credible by the law.

      "Capable of carrying out" may involve more than you think...

      FBI agent: We checked out the guy making the threats. While he does have the address of the possible victim, the victim lives 1500 miles away, and the guy isn't old enough to get a drivers license. After we explained the situation, his mother took away his nerf guns and grounded him.

    168. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, with the bomb threat against Sarkeesian's talk, they took it seriously but ultimately the trail went cold.

      Simple explanation: The trail went cold because the guy making the threat went offline. Why? Because his mom took away his internet connection for making threats online.

    169. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      And you know it was a "true threat" how?

      A quick check of the concept notes that there is no legal precedent for precisely defining a "true threat" and/or separating same from hyperbole. Given that a "true threat" is so vague, perhaps the FBI decided that the relevant comments were just someone being rude as hell in public (which isn't a crime).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    170. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. I heard democrats running around in 2008 and 2012 calling anyone who voted against Obama a racist. Of course it didn't get any press then because Obama won (and there weren't stupid marches everywhere to "protest" it) and the press loves him. This has been happening for years.

    171. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by rhazz · · Score: 2

      your old sig was something like "SJW: Someone I disagree with and by the way I'm an idiot"

      In the context of almost every discussion where the term "SJW" is flung about, I think that sig was a pretty accurate analogy.

      Disclaimer: One time I agreed with something AmiMoJo said.

    172. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But black people can't be racist.

    173. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily, AGAIN, the OP's claim is that Brianna Wu is running for Congress in order to use the power of that seat to do so. That does not mean that they believe that every Congressperson does so. It just means that they believe that it is Brianna Wu's intention to do so.

      Do you attempt to blatantly misconstrue everything everyone says? Or only on this topic?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    174. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      Anita Sarkeesian essentially attempts to endlessly harass everyone she disagrees with by becoming news and changing industry behaviors to do something about it.

      The real fix is to ignore the noisy, bitchy, sandy-vagina girls and pay more attention to the nice girls who aren't bitching about every depiction of a size-D chest as some form of objectification.

    175. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      If you look at Pew attitudes research, more than a critical mass believe in death for apostasy, more than a critical mass are against gay and women's rights.

      I'm not sure you mean by 'critical mass' because you are deliberately vague about that. Do you mean significant political influence? That's not happening in any European country, so that's twaddle.

    176. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how many are under investigation from the FBI for trying to shut down milo events???

    177. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so funny, the courage of his convictions and all.

        "All this report does for me is show how little the FBI cared about the investigation"

      Count me in too.

    178. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's even worse. The OP is saying that when someone tries to make changes to the law that they dislike, but does it in the normal, accepted democratic way that is denying someone else due process. That's clearly nonsense, the due process is the requirement to be elected, to table a bill and have it accepted by other representatives and signed into law.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    179. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But all the things attributed to SJWs don't fit me. My position and behaviour is the exact opposite of most of them.

      The exact opposite of SJW is an anti-SJW

      But you and many others have often mocked anti-SJWs as behaving the same way as the SJWs they mock, and in your very post here you try to label somebody slamming SJWs as an SJW.

      Really, just replace SJW with "whiner". You're basically a whiner about whiners. You may whine about different things than the actual whiners, but you're still a whiner. A meta-whiner if you will, which would mean you're meta-SJW, a level above normal SJW. More SJW than most SJW. You can claim to be "different" from most SJWs, but not different in a good way.

    180. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by cpurdy · · Score: 1

      Q: "If not, where are the women he's victimized, or are they all too intimidated to come forward?" A: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=women+vic...

    181. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, the first person to transform 'words' into some sort of economic, social or physical retribution is the one trying to stamp out free speech.

      there's the idea that the public space should be the space where people can exchange ideas, engage in politics, debate etc. etc. and at the end of the day, can go back home and not care what your political position is.

      again, brendan eich. he made a small political contribution, 1k. the kind of political contribution we want people to make, the kind of political engagement we claim we want people to make. and he was fucking crucified. and they asked him to recant. recant your views, recant your political contribution, but he stood by his religious views... which are shared by islam by the way... and lost his job.

      the system is more important than the current "hot topic".

      we yell at each other, because you're right and i'm left, as far apart on the political spectrum as possible. or you're left and i'm right. And what we do on our "weekends" is yell the hell each other, threaten each other's lives, cut each other with mean, spiteful and cruel words. and when the "weekend" ends, and the "weekday" starts, I'll say hi, jim, at the water cooler, because you're human, and i'm human, and we have more in common...

      knew a guy once, he said I was the most pleasant liberal he'd ever talked to, maybe it was because I let him talk, and i'm not shrill.

    182. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Fragnet · · Score: 0

      That's not happening in any European country

      In countries like Sweden they have huge political influence mostly through the proxy of many useful idiots on the left (white liberals, hell bent on cultural suicide). Otherwise my point stands - population growth difference will take care of the rest. This is of course notwithstanding the existing "no-go" areas for authorities in countries like Belgium and France.

    183. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by penandpaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the press to just turn into Pravda and echo the party line.

      Oh, you mean like Clinton? You know, handing over debate questions, getting campaign approval on articles written before publishing, having direct financial ties, an obvious bias that affected the quality of journalism from reporting on the issues like the Wikileaks and said behavior, and the collusion that labeled and posted Trump as the Pied Piper i.e. someone that they thought Clinton could beat because she is that bad.

      Isn't it a good thing the media and government being at odds? Let's be clear, if you want a Pravda comparison that would only applicable to the Clinton News Network and the like. The media and government at odds is the exact opposite.

    184. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's nothing misogynistic about Gamergate. You've got some trolls that latched onto it as a means of trolling, but even referring to that as misogyny is giving them a bit too much credit.

      Nobody was prosecuted because there was no crime committed and most of those "misogynists" you're referring to aren't. They're just people that don't agree with her bigotry and bullshit. She intentionally kicked the bee hive and now is whining about the bees. Don't want to get stung, then don't mess with the bees. It's neither complicated nor unreasonable. Her and that Sarkesian woman need to shut the hell up before they screw things up for everybody else. It's rather grotesque the way that people actually buy into their bullshit.

      And what about the misandry of women like Wu? How is that not an issue?

    185. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      You mean your stance that people should be silenced for speech? I remember when you threw a hissyfit when I pointed that out. Then got your panties in a twist, when I pointed out that even "bad speech that's legal" should be allowed. Strange though that you're suddenly claiming you've reversed your view. How about when you were happily supporting safe spaces? No platforming? Blocking dissenting viewpoints that are contrary to presented view? Those are all views that you've held over the last year.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    186. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Mainly because I was appalled, firstly at her treatment, and secondly because she felt she had to apologise to her abusers. That's so wrong and yet I don't see any outcry or demonstrations on her behalf. This is why I find it so hard to be part of the left even though my politics will always lean that way.

      The way she was treated was disgraceful and yet there's no demands for redress or criminal proceedings because it's not racism or misogyny when "our side" does it.

    187. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The desires or "plans" of the woman in the burka are irrelevant. History shows us that muslims in large numbers always make war with everyone around them, even other muslims. It flows naturally from their core philosophies, wherein they believe Allah made them pure, therefore evil and corruption comes from outside the self. Society, the actions of others, etc. This is unlike Christianity where they believe people are fallen and evil you do is your own damn fault. This is why where Christians/westerners punish the rapist, muslims stone the rape victim whose brazen bare ankles tempted the pure muslim man to sin, so she must be purged. Ergo, enough muslims who have a bad time in life (which is inevitable...there is no end to suffering in this world) will always eventually blame their troubles on infidels and apostates and go snackbar on them.

      So, the woman in the burka isn't the problem, but the five kids she squirts out will be. Therefore it's best to keep muslims in muslim countries because eventually they will try to turn any country they're in into a muslim country. Unless you want to live in a muslim country, and I don't. I kind of want the future to look like Star Trek, and muslims don't build spaceships.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    188. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Trump and Bannon just picked up in Jan what the far left crowd has been doing since 2014.

    189. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be forgetting that the FBI decided there were no actionable crimes committed. Sooo. No crime to solve. It seems you and Wu had hoped they would stumble upon something actionable. They didn't you were wrong. Deal with it.

    190. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they did and didnt find anything actionable... Just cause one of your patron saints shows up with a plain text text file doesnt mean whats in the file is true or actionable.

    191. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Wild accusations, no links or evidence... Fuck off Mashiki.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    192. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto

    193. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard of her until you mentioned her, so I had to google what this was about. According to an NY Times article it seems like she was responding to concerns people expressed to her, rather than apologising to people who abused her. Am I missing something here? I'm afraid I don't have time to research it in detail.

      Obviously, just so there is no doubt because that twat Mashiki is probably stalking me right now, if there was any harassment it should be condemned and if it was illegal it should be prosecuted.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    194. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and if she wins there will be one less republican in the majority [...]

      She isn't going to win shit. She is so crazy, she couldn't even get elected dogcatcher in Berkeley.

    195. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      words dont cause harm. sticks and stones...... remember that thing we learned in pre school???

    196. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot meet kettle.

      Captcha: truth

    197. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both...

    198. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what you heard was a bunch of racists claiming that that's what people were saying.

    199. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, Congresspersons have more power than just proposing and passing laws. They are often able to exert pressure on various members of government departments to change the way those individuals do their jobs.

      Which brings me back to my question from my previous post. Do you attempt to blatantly misconstrue everything everyone says? Or only on this topic?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    200. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So 1500 years of near-constant war in Christendom doesn't count as making war? For fuck's sake, it was a Christian nation that killed six million Jews, invaded its neighbors and plunged the world into the greatest conflict it has ever known.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    201. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      It's nothing to do with journalism or critics. It's about harassment. That's it. Everything else is just a smokescreen. Don't get sucked in.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    202. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey common, just so you know Feminism is defined as equality for everyone...

      I can't name anything it's done for men, or any other gender, but if you're not a feminist then you must be a Nazi!

    203. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm inclined to believe he's not a "proper" SJW if he's (or her, who knows) faithful to...

      I support free speech and wouldn't want to ban people from speaking on college campuses. I don't know of any laws that jail people for not using made-up pronouns but I doubt I would support them. I much prefer to exercise my own freedom of speech, rather than to use the law to limit others.

      He may have the other aspects of retrograde thinking that promotes victimhood and group rights.

      Going through AniMojo's recent 50 posts, none of it seems to contain ad hominems, go off the rails, or do much more than expression an idea in an earnest way. This solidly makes him seem not an SJW to me. IE, he seems to want to win arguments based on the strength of ideas presented.

      Your post is just a bunch of accusations about his character though, which is the behavior I expect from an SJW/regressive.

    204. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never bullied in school, huh?

    205. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has an excellent point. You're just self-blinded to it. Try again with an open mind to see another's (sarcastic) perspective and you might learn something important about the world.

      Or not... I suspect.

    206. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is X, and show us proof of harm, please note your hurt feeling count for jack and shit, in that order.

    207. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't want terrorists entering my country, here is a list of known countries that support terrorism.

      How do you not understand that entry to another country is a privilege, and it can be revoked, at any time. You snot nose brats are still wet behind the ears about global politics.

      I dare you wet blankets to travel through Europe and the Middle East. See how far your tolerance gets you when some "freedom fighter" wants to saw your head off while live streaming to Facebook.

    208. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by dwheeler · · Score: 1

      Nazi Germany was not a "Christian nation". Nazi leaders like Joseph Goebbels, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler saw the kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as high priority, and anti-church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among the grassroots party activists. The Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said that there was "an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view". Hitler's chosen deputy, Martin Bormann, advised Nazi officials in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.".

      --
      - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
    209. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was credible ENOUGH for them to even look into it... that means you can hardly blame HER for being sufficiently scared to get the hell out of dodge, which means your claim that she "lied" about being chased out of her home is utter bunk.

      Non sequitur. The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, etc all provide a certain degree of diligence to investigate all sorts of threats, even ones that on their face seem implausible. Further, "get the hell out of dodge" out of your own volition out of fear and "chased out of her home" out of a direct, imminent threat are two very different things.

      The FBI are a law enforcement agency, they are concerned with wether the evidence is strong enough to make a case in court -because it looks bad when you lose too many cases. Wu is a private citizen, she has no such concern - she saw a death threat with her address attached. Only a complete fucking moron would NOT run after that.

      Congratulations. You've just insulted most police, judges, and investigative journalists who work with known murders, conflating Brianna Wu's concerns of a bunch of a internet trolls from their moms' basements.

      If you seriously are going to argue she is lying about that, then I invite you to prove that by posting, everywhere you can, your home address and real name, as well as a confession to having helped plan and execute the 9/11 attacks and bragging how the police can't touch you because you have friends in high places.

      Uh, and where does this follow from? Are you suggesting Brianna Wu helped plan 9/11 and hence had a real fear for her life? Or are you claiming we/she should believe some random asshole on the internet that he was the REAL 9/11 mastermind and never caught and he's decide that, yes, Brianna Wu is now on the top of his list? Delusional very much?

      Lets see how long you stay in your home when a bunch of crazy-assed wingnut vigilante shoot-up-the-school types decide you're public enemy number one and KNOW where you live.

      Welcome to Small Town, America, where everyone knows your name (and can figure out your address). Where there's plenty of crazy-assed wingnut vigilante shoot-up-the-school types and it'd be pretty trivial to get away with a murder. We don't see every jackass making a murky, threatening statement going to jail. Although, yes, if you made a very clear, vocal statement, you'd likely be detained and investigated. Oddly enough, though, the worst you'd likely see is warnings of possible harassment charges, unless it continued.

      PS - Seriously, I can understand why Brianna Wu might have been concerned for her life, but people have been actually SWATed and we hold less emotional concern for their well being than you seem to hold for Brianna Wu and the threats she's received. If you want to generally argue that the FBI is unwilling to investigate pettier offenses and there ineffectual in investigating cyber crimes, I'd entierly agree. There's a whole world of cyber fraud, identify theft, etc which has actual, real-world consequences that the FBI does little, to nothing about. But given the circumstance, until Brianna Wu is LITERALLY chased out of her home, the FBI has no reason to do more than what it has done: investigate with due diligence possible threats and treat them as mere words until actual action follows (like planning an attack, planning proximity, buying weapons, et al).

    210. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original intentions of the gamergate movement was tackling gaming journalism integrity. Basically, many of the reviews and articles on major websites are ads put out by authors that recieve incentives from publishers in the form of gifts, event invitations, paid trips to events, and other things. They started calling out names of offending articles and authors of all types, and one of them was Brianna Wu, and a couple of other female writers. After being put on the spotlight for the integrity of some of her articles, she began the cry of sexism, and treated the whole movement as an attack on her and female gamers. Using her position, she began twisting the meaning of the movement in her articles. Meanwhile, a small group of the 4chan followers began adding fuel to the fire with threats and doxxing her, which she took as a personal attack, and how it was all revolving around her. It was all downhill from there, and eventually, using her manipulation, she completely managed to turn the meaning into what people think of when gamergate comes up. In the end, she got money out the whole thing, and is advising game companies on how they can be more inclusive to women.

    211. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The best thing about this article is that the core reason for the anger of Brianna Wu is the FBI putting it into light that Wu is a liar.
      Page ~120 as i'm reading it, FD-1036, Title: U Bomb threat against PAX East D03/06/2015

      "A female game developer has claimed that a bomb threat has been issued towards PAX East, which takes place March 6 through March 8 of this year."
      "She tweeted publicly about it (link: [redacted]) and claims that Twitter did not find that the threat violated their Terms of Service."

      And now the important part:

      "[REDACTED] but this is the first time i have genuinely feared for my life at the event. Lot's of people are going to be there, and a bomb threat is sure to drive many people away."

      Agent's addendum: "This woman previously said she was bringing a gang of personal bodyguards to PAX and
      FALSELY ATTRIBUTED A SARIN GAS ATTACK THREAT AT PAX TOWARDS A GROUP OF HER ENEMIES, SHE
      (AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE'S LIVES, HER CLAIMS) NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED IMMEDIATELY."

      Brianna Wu everyone.

    212. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Properly being whatever you personally wanted to happen. You are a caricature of your own self.

    213. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! People should be able to subject people who disagree with them to endless harrasement and intimidation without any consequences, right? That's what the President tells me, anyway, and he should know, right?

      That seems to be what wu is up to, yes. You've nailed it.

    214. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      I think you just proved his point. You dont agree with him, so you automatically label him as a bigoted asshole.

      Yup, he sure did. Hey, at least he gave me a laugh today!

    215. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, the person who posted a death threat along with her home address has never been brought to justice.

      Without intent and the probability of action, that is not a crime where Wu lives, thus the inaction of law enforcement. Your version of justice is not the same as justice in reality. We are a civilization with laws. That is what counts, not special snowflake pandering.

    216. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And makes you a piece of shit subhuman smelly indo-chimp. Get the fuck out this country parasite.

    217. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commit to your opinions - or realise they have the value of used cat-shredded toilet paper.

      How does pseudo-anonymity change that?

      Should you really believe people should listen to you based on your reputation, use your real name such that consequences both good and bad can be levied. There are a few on slashdot that do.

    218. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot meet kettle.

    219. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Lutherans and Catholics made up the vast majority of German citizens. That the leadership, or at least some of them, were antagonistic to the Church does not change the fact that Germany was and is a Christian nation, and that the bureaucracy, military and ordinary citizens were almost to the man Christians by upbringing and self-identification. Even more to the point, the rampant anti-Semitism in Germany was hardly unique to Germany, and has been a feature of European Christianity since almost the beginning, so even if the senior Nazis were all anti-Christian (which isn't as clear as you say), it's irrelevant. It was Christians who built the gas chambers and ovens, and its Christians who herded millions of people into them. It was Christians that invaded Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and really, WWII was simply a continuation of WWI (which is why Churchill once called the two wars a "second Thirty Years War").

      But that's ignoring the rest of what I said too. Peace in Europe, by and large, is a construct of the last 70 years. Prior to that, Christendom was a very bloody and violent place.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    220. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "SJW's are the most serious threat to free speech in the country right now"

      The new President just censored the Twitter accounts of all national park service departments, and seems bent on dismantling media outlets who oppose him, and yet somehow "SJWs" are a threat to free speech? Because they criticize you and you want to do what ... censor criticism in order to protect free speech, as long as you don't disagree with it?

    221. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think your opinions on here somehow have more value? You're an egotistical moron.

    222. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And the Christians stopped having holy wars a long, long time ago. Muslims are still going strong at it. Why do you want to let in people who are still acting like it's the 7th century and will never stop acting like it's the 7th century?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    223. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how many times does an alias of yours pop up in the CON logs leak?

    224. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you behave in a misogynist way, then your behaviour can accurately be described as misogynist.

      This rings false, because we all know that "disagreeing with a woman" makes you a misogynist. Much like teaching women self-defense against rapists makes you a rape apologist, and suggesting that everyone should ignore race in how they treat others makes you a racist.

      Those little games are all played out. When basically everything is racist, misogynist, and xenophobic, the only rational response is to shrug and ignore those words. The language has changed, and those words no longer have useful meaning.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    225. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight. X uses words to do harm and that's okay, but if I arrange a boycott of his employer - then THAT harm is NOT okay ?

      The difference is that a tiny subset of people randomly decided that not using the pronouns they made up online in the span of a few short years somehow constitutes an abuse of some sort, all while the majority of the population outside this bubble have no idea why it came about and is still reeling over the anger that spews from their mouths. Most of the girls I see that claim to be "non-binary" can easily be classified as tomboys that like to wear a dress every once in a while. Oh wow! You like to change your style of clothes depending on your mood, you're so unique! /sarcasm.

      The saddest part is that every transgendered person I know and have heard about (either 1st or 2nd hand) actually doesn't support all these pronouns as it cheapens the effort they put into being accepted as a member of the opposite sex while these "non-binary" people claim to represent the entire group.

    226. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      We had this conversation once. I remember digging up about 12 quotes from you that were SJW chapter-and-verse. It's just weird that you deny this.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    227. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe she'll go after those that "went after her" because they're mostly her friends or co-conspirators. Really though, she'll use her position to push inter-sectional propaganda, which is designed by the elites of this country to divide us and keep us hating each other instead of working together to keep the Trumps and Hillarys of the world from taking office.

    228. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by lgw · · Score: 1

      There are many political philosophies I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to Communism. I'm opposed to Anarchy. I'm opposed to Feudalism. I'm opposed to Islam.

      Nothing there to be embarrassed about, doesn't matter what word you use. Sure, 2 of those political philosophies demand a specific religious belief - that if anything makes them more dangerous.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    229. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think most Muslim wars of conquest were actually Holy Wars? Next you'll be telling me the Crusades were all about God.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    230. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah when you insult millions of people, when you call everyone playing a video game a rapist(even though many are girls, even though tons of players are virgins, even though you know it's just a game) you get shit on.

      I hope nobody shows this bitch the movie BASEketball. She'd have an aneurysm.

    231. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This rings false, because we all know that "disagreeing with a woman" makes you a misogynist.

      This rings stupid, because we all know that thinking that "disagreeing with a woman" makes you a misogynist is moronic and untrue.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    232. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Who cares if they're really for religion or just using religion as an excuse to conquer? The muslims are still doing it and will never stop. So stop letting them into the west or we're going to be living in the 7th century again.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    233. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You know there are over a billion Muslims in the world, and in actual numbers the group that go around trying to kill lots of people are a very small group. I realize you're a very delicate little snowflake and easily frightened, but what I'm seeing here more than anything else is a complete failure of the education system, as your ability to assess threat seems utterly hampered. It can be amended, however. Start with a basic statistics course.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    234. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many people have been blasted for "hate speech" for criticizing the views of progressive women. It's common enough that accusations of actual hate speech are routinely dismissed by many. Just more words over-used to the point of meaninglessness.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    235. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi deadspin

    236. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by TedHornsby · · Score: 1

      passing laws that jail people who refuse to use made-up pronouns. Sorry, no moral high ground there for you, snowflake.

      I'm gonna have to call for a citation on that one, homey.

    237. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I have to separate you two?

      The threat was initially believed to be sufficiently credible that the FBI bothered to investigate. Her address was put out there and people threatened her, so she fled her home. Pretty simple.
      Since then, the FBI investigated the ones they could investigate and determined that the ones they investigated were not credible.

      This is not complicated.

    238. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by TedHornsby · · Score: 2

      I think the FBI should investigate the times where Wu was caught red handed creating fake accounts to harass himself.

      Besides, even if 10% of the shit claimed by Wu wasn't made up, trolling is hardly worth spending actual money to investigate.

      I think this whole 'Gamergate' shitshow is the most ado I've ever seen be made about absolutely nothing.

      /. is supposed to be my refuge, damn it! If I want to see a bunch of professional victims argue over who gets to be the Idiot King, I would go to reddit.

    239. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You need a basic history course. When muslims are few in number they say "we are a religion of peace." When they are more they say "we need to live under our own laws." When they are many they say "convert or die." It happens over and over again. Last one was Lebanon, and France is next. In less than a generation...about 2030 or so there's going to be civil war in France. You are a shortsighted idiot.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    240. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If by "history" you mean "I just make this shit up", then I'm not sure what the source would be. Stormfront maybe?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    241. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think they'd at least ask a REAL woman about such matters rather than a mentally ill guy pretending he's a woman.

    242. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what do you call a woman who was born with the proper "plumbing", but isn't able to give birth? It is "cosmetic" after all...

    243. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Doxing people is the epitome of free speech. It may not be pleasant and it can be used for ill but it is simply an aggregate of publicly available data. Fear mongering needs to go, no more coddling.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    244. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here you go homey... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    245. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While some may tell you that Gamergate was a training ground for Trump fascists, in reality it's a training ground for all the false news writers.

      In reality, Gamergate shouldn't of popped up in the news as much as it did - it's just something to do with game journalism. However many of the people - some of them that ended up as Hillary staffers - at the "anti" end of the scale used it as a stepping platform for smear campaigns.

      How is this related to the FBI report? Well most of the smear campaign is pretty false. Pretty much if you hate gamergate, you have the following in common: You didn't read the original post that sparked all of this, and yet still invovled yourself and have have been supporting an abusive individual this entire time. You didn't read the FBI report, and still think Gamergate is all about sending death threats. You didn't read the leaks from CON(an anti harrassment organization which actually is about causing harrassment) and still think that the people at the center of this haven't been lying out of their teeth just to cover up a simple conflict of interest.

    246. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people have engaged in hate speech with their criticism of progressive feminists, and the refusal to own up to even the existence of such 'criticism' is rendering other critics to be less reputable. They'd much rather blame the victim. Hence why they themselves are ignored.

    247. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      A sad medical condition, that will hopefully be treatable now or in the near future. I do admit that at sometime in the future medical procedures may make even that classification impossible if a complete reproductive system can be created, and implanted or cloned/grown.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    248. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for SJWs trump would have probably lost. This is similar to how yippies and other attention seeking pseudo activists lost the election for hubert humphrey and got nixon elected.

      "I hope one day women have the same rights as guns"

      This is a recent sign at a trump protest that went viral, now mind you I'm very anti trump, lukewarm on guns, and very pro-abortion/PP

      See she's not really there to protest trump, she's there for social reasons... her sign isn't designed to convey a message as it's meaningless, it was there to get high-fives for snark from her cool friends. Meanwhile it alienates gun owners and men... people who would still benefit directly from the services they're unaware exist at PP and who also enjoy the social benefits of legal abortion.

      SJWs are a cult/popularity contest/hobby they're often just cyberbullies. Even having direct lineage to the old anon /i/ boards who discovered that their power increased by pretending to be the weak bad guy during the chanology campaign.

      Trump barely won... and these people barely helped him with their highly visible histrionics.

    249. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're the only one who looks sad when you put the petty needs of your ego to justify reality ahead of the desire of another human to be referred to in the manner they have every right to choose

    250. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happens all the time.

      Go ahead.. go to some active discussion of the pink hat protesters somewhere on reddit. Say "I think that the sign saying women have less rights than guns is stupid"
      Someone will accuse you of being a sexist misogynist pig or of wanting to take away rights from women. When you didn't say that at all.

        Maybe you're a woman or maybe you just always agree with women so you have a degree of social privilege and are unaware that some people are called mean names for bothering people who playact hero activist.

    251. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the biggest fucking SJW on slashdot, dipshit. You're also a prime example of Smug Liberal Elitist Asshole.

    252. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDK, you seem to be proving the adage.

    253. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xe has a point.

    254. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      apparently it is because you got it wrong. they found the threat to be serious enough to investigate but not credible enough to be actionable.

      let me explain the difference.

      If i report that doug has threatened to murder me, well murder is a serious crime and people who threaten it sometimes end up murdering those they threaten.

      so the police found the threat serious enough to investigate but when they found that doug is my neighbor's chicken, the threat of murder wasn't credible.

      because the threat wasn't credible they did not pursue prosecution.

      hope that helps show the difference between brianna crying wolf and that being serious enough for the FBI to investigate and her being batshit crazy and/or full of shit and justly the FBI deeming her maniacal rantings not credible.

    255. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if there has been a rash of exploding ducks, and you're not sure which ones could blow up next to you at any moment would you not feel compelled to distance yourself from all ducks as a matter of self preservation? We know not all Muslims are terrorists. But the point is that we don't know which ones are, and which ones aren't. And I think categorizing all Muslims as a potential risk is a matter of logical analysis as opposed to pure xenophobia.

    256. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      This.

      I actually had to look it up. And I would indeed consider myself an avid gamer. Actually, currently it's likely I spend more time playing games than working (if that's possible). And I haven't heard about it until recently, and I looked it up ... and I don't get it.

      Then you should probably complain about this guy using your account who posted previously about Gamergate.

    257. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pot is racist! The kettle is sexist!

    258. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my the excuse making for the Trump crowd begins, anything but realizing that it was the whim of the electoral college and the desperate viciousness of the reactionary party, eveything, everythinh is something the left made him do.

    259. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the sleeping-around for reviews had to do with anything, but the bigger issue is more the transformation and great political correctness wave hitting the games industry.

      It's a bit of a stretch, but if you want developers to be free to make whatever artistic choices in their game, then you may give a shit if affirmative action or (hate this word) SJW PC-tropes actually become a mandated part of the industry. Some examples I've seen: Allowing black characters in a Viking game, female soldiers in WWII FPS games, making zombies set in Africa appear white, eliminating scantily clad armor/outfits that objectify women, allowing LGBT relationships in-game.

      Personally not a gamergater, but as a Libertarian I say let game companies do what they want, and people can vote with their wallets. I certainly believe there IS a market for games that emphasize PC-ness, and more power to the game devs that want to run with that, just don't make it a requirement that takes devs time away from just making the gameplay better.

    260. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Does an opinion matter more because of a fake name?

      The quality of thd opinion, which you failed to address, is still every bit as flawed, I suspect you can't even articulate a sensible argument. You're just relying on a habitual reaction.

    261. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      That's not happening in any European country

      In countries like Sweden they have huge political influence mostly through the proxy of many useful idiots on the left (white liberals, hell bent on cultural suicide). Otherwise my point stands - population growth difference will take care of the rest. This is of course notwithstanding the existing "no-go" areas for authorities in countries like Belgium and France.

      Any notion that the left will accept the suppression of gay and women's right is just post-thinking bunkum.

      Any notion that in any European country the population growth of Muslims could make them a majority in any reasonable timeframe is nonsense, the percentages aren't there anywhere. And that's even ignoring the implicit bonkers idea that the Muslim population would vote en masse for some kind of suppressive laws if they had the numbers. Many refugees have fled their homeland because of suppressive laws.

      Any myths about 'no-go' areas in Europe are bovine excrement that ignorant North-Americans tell each other to feel superior.

      Summary: you have no substance, just twaddle.

    262. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Well, if we're talking about a logical analysis, how many ducks are exploding? About 50? Because that means that out of every million ducks I see, one is an exploding version. And the odds of it exploding at this moment are even lower. Ducks are safe.

      Statistically, you must realise that you're likely to be shot by a white guy with a gun than killed by a muslim terrorist. Hell, it's repeatedly pointed out that toddlers kill more people than terrorists!

      Relax! The world is not out to blow you up with an exploding duck or an exploding Muslim.

    263. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Demena · · Score: 1

      I did not say that people should believe anything because of reputation. But disbelieving because of reputation is a seperate matter. I am prepared to blow karma I have spent decades building but not risk the lives of my kids. Not that it would be too hard to work out who I am anyway.

      Part of my point is that an AC cannot claim, "but I said earlier" because AC is AC. No thread, nothing carried forward.

      If you post as AC then anyone can post as "you". You get your (pseudo) anonymity but you give up continuity. You simply can not have both. So an AC cannot legitimately claim "but I said before..." as an AC post stands alone, by itself, on its tod, has no continuity... How much do I have to explain the obvious?

    264. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Demena · · Score: 1

      I do not think my opinion has any weight at all and nor should it. But I will pull up an AC who tries, "but I said before" shit. An AC posts a single post they cannot post a series simply because they are AC and cannot prove (or maintain) that they were the 'prior' AC. An AC comment is never more than a toss-away.

    265. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is it came from not the typical "Media" which as mis-characterized gaming and games. It came from publications that grew up with gaming and were there to bat for gammers every time people like Joe Lieberman were starting to start a culture war against it.

      Believe it or not, despite what you say about not taking journalists very seriously, they have an impact on what games people buy and play, the proof is in the very fact that game publishers were willing to sock so much money into buying their reviews. I've gotten a lot of 'so what' from other friends of mine who say they never read much from these sites anyway, and honestly it should concern you. Even if it doesn't effect what games you buy, it will effect what games are made.

      The very lynch pin of the whole thing, was that a poorly rated game, which had a lot of lack luster Steam reviews still made it into a Green light on steam. The game directly subverted the "git gud" as previously mentioned, and the game creator used her ties inside the industry to get people talking about her game to legitimize it, it worked. It was put up on Steam above other indie titles people were working on, and the community got a game they never wanted because people worked the back room (or bedroom).

      Then all the journalists banded together to basically call everyone a piece of shit and tell us "YOU SHOULD WANT THAT GAME". Nope, don't want Depression quest. Look it up on your own if you care to see about its accolades.

    266. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Demena · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Buzztt! There is nothing to address. With an AC here and an AC there.... Its a fucking farmyard and since the cow, the chickens, the horse, the fox are calling themselves AC. Well, collectively this Mr AC makes no sense. So I have nothing to address. I do not know who the fuck wrote what. This whole thread is "nah nah! nah!". An AC cannot have continuity. Nor can an AC respond to a reply. Who know who posted?

      I do not even have a dog in this race. The US conquered my country in 1985. My only view point here is "meta".

    267. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Any notion that the left will accept the suppression of gay and women's right is just post-thinking bunkum.

      Except they do when it comes to Islam. That's why they call people out as "islamophobic" when the offer up criticism of Muslim culture.

      Any myths about 'no-go' areas in Europe are bovine excrement that ignorant North-Americans tell each other to feel superior.

      You have no idea. Ask yourself why Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe.

    268. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is there employer, he can tell his employees to stop tweeting. Like every organization on the world does. This is not a free speech issue.

      Privately they can still tweet however they want. Just not with the official government approval.

    269. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay afraid then. But dont expect me to cower with you.

    270. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably a sign of mental illness. Happens a lot with that type.

    271. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And it follows that everything the US has done ever, incl slavery, was done by Democrats. And you still support them!

    272. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? What's the use of letting someone immigrate who'll just end up in prison. Keep out Mexican racists bring in the Mexican doctors and lawyers I say. That would also bring down healthcare costs.

    273. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      Any notion that the left will accept the suppression of gay and women's right is just post-thinking bunkum.

      Except they do when it comes to Islam. That's why they call people out as "islamophobic" when the offer up criticism of Muslim culture.

      Is this an attempt at logical thought, or just deflection? Because the second statement is false, and therefore cannot justify the first statement.

      Any myths about 'no-go' areas in Europe are bovine excrement that ignorant North-Americans tell each other to feel superior.

      You have no idea. Ask yourself why Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe.

      I note that you have abandoned your original bogus claim. Pity you're replacing it with an equally bogus claim.

      Still all twaddle. Ask yourself why you keep spouting all this twaddle: perhaps it is because you are in fact islamophobic? Or perhaps your news sources are lying to you?

    274. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure someone else can cite the exact law.

      Typical SJW response. Throw out unsubstantiated claims and then ask others to do the work to try and prove it for you.

    275. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard AmiMojo is Brianna Wu and has a dozen aliases. That should explain everything.

    276. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only because the pot called the kettle black, if it would have used African American then it'd be fine!

    277. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When is your gender reassignment surgery scheduled?

    278. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why are amimojos comments in defense of himself all modded -1? I too would think he fits the stereo type of SJW and I disagree with most of what he says. Still down modding all his comments does at least look like an attempt on silencing his free speech.

    279. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Oh, neither is okay. The problem is SJWs only see the former as wrong.

      Also: being offended is not the same as being hurt.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    280. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still down modding all his comments does at least look like an attempt on silencing his free speech.

      Because SJWs don't support free speech they have by implication accepted that their own speech can be censored, which in turn means that free speech applies only to those defending conservative values. AmiMoJo needs to be modded into oblivion until he understands his leftist SJW BS is not welcome here. True freedom can only be achieved when all liberals are either in custody or otherwise silenced.

    281. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Oh, many "progressive feminists" have mastered portraying themselves as victims just in order to attract sympathy to their cause despite actual lack of merit, and to shut up all opposition through accusations of victim blaming and hate speech when confronted with actual criticism.

      Not to look far, the "hero" of this article somehow ignores all the death threats issued by her goons to Gamergaters.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    282. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but the thread chain is there, making the quality of the content quite subject to examination.

      You, knowing this, choose to instead chase after a false standard, rather than address what HornedWumpus was wringing his hands over.

    283. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      'LITERALLY DEFINED AS "being a bigot".'

      Except that definition is a slippery slope. Who is a bigot? A person, who expresses discomfort about a woman (self-identifying as a man) uses men's bathroom? A person unhappy about losing a place in university in favor of someone with worse score, who passed through 'affirmative action'? Someone threatened to be fired from work which is his life, for wearing a shirt that some consider offensive?

      Keep your definitions strict, and we can all agree what constitutes bigotry. Let the scope encompass majority of the nation and nobody cares about the shit they became.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    284. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you condescending shit, sending death threats even to unimportant people is unacceptable, criminal behaviour and should be prosecuted!

    285. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      It seems Sweden just accepted suppression of women's rights, through excusing rapists who are immigrants from responsibility for the crime.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    286. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Demena · · Score: 1

      False standard? Okay. It is settled then is it not? Wow, the ACs are out if force. Is it just one? Is it a dozen? Who knows and who cares. There has been no "quality of content", it seem mostly content free to me.

      Look, I have no sympathy for the Wu woman and her whining. I do not think she is correct. But I take issue with people attacking her here because she is trans. They are separate issues. The number of people who have used "he" just as a provocation is, well, it was surprising to me. Pretty much all has been ad hominem. Never a worthwhile argument and seldom used by respectable people.

      Now I do not know who you are, which of the above posts were made by you or some other AC so I do not know what your position is (and do not tell me you said earlier - you are an AC, there is no 'earlier') so your post is just the whistle in the wind of some inaccurate sniper in the bush somewhere. I have restated (again) my point of view. If you want to have a dialog then either identify or email me.

      But an AC does not get dialog, cannot have dialog because there can be no continuity. You cannot tell one AC from another (even an IP and MAC dress does not enable that).

      In the meantime that "whoosh" is not your remark passing over my head but me simply discarding that remark in the way it deserves.

      If you choose to answer this and answer it as an AC remember that it is not an answer because I cannot tell one AC from another (only site admins can and even they can not be sure).

    287. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. He is not their employer. The government is.

    288. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Because the second statement is false

      I suppose it must be false as you've as asserted it to be so with no argument whatsoever.

      I note that you have abandoned your original bogus claim

      Such as:

      “Of course there are no-go zones in France where the police cannot intervene and do their jobs in safety,” Denis Jacob from the union Alternative police-CFDT told The Local. “And it’s the same for fire fighters or pretty much any representative of the state. The police can’t apply the law in these areas, they are attacked. If the police can’t do their work it’s because there are criminals and delinquents who don’t respect the law.”

      , for example. Do you mean to suggest he's lying?

      Pity you're replacing it with an equally bogus claim.

      What, that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe? Been for a swim in your pretty little bathing suit recently?

      perhaps it is because you are in fact islamophobic?

      I have a phobia against bad ideas and Islam is an extremely bad idea. Speaking of twaddle, perhaps your news sources are lying to you?

    289. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Oh, neither is okay. The problem is SJWs only see the former as wrong.
      Because the second is what is known as "self defence". You may want to look up the legal principle of "first aggressor".

      >Also: being offended is not the same as being hurt.
      Being offended has never been a factor, it is a strawman of those who want their ability to harm to remain unimpeded to claim they are merely causing offence. But if you want to know how bad the bullying was, you don't ask the bully - you ask the victim, somewhere the bully can't know what he said.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    290. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Except that definition is a slippery slope.
      There is no such thing. The slippery slope is a fallacy. Slippery slopes do not exist.

      >A person, who expresses discomfort about a woman (self-identifying as a man) uses men's bathroom?
      Absolutely. This only suddenly became an issue because it became a stick you could hit a vulnerable person with. Nobody is REALLY uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms. Everyone who complains about this has a unisex bathroom in their house !

      >A person unhappy about losing a place in university in favor of someone with worse score, who passed through 'affirmative action'?
      Nope. Being unhappy about losing a place does not make you a bigot. Trying to use the court system to force a university to alter their admissions policy to one that would let you in is an entirely different matter however.

      >Let the scope encompass majority of the nation and nobody cares about the shit they became.
      So... here's the problem with your idea. Overwhelmingly the targets of bigottry are minorities, and over many centuries the system was set up (by long-dead bigots) to favour the majority. 99% of the complaints are NOT about people, but about that system. Complaints about structural or systemic racism for example does not accuse anybody of doing something racist. Merely of benefiting passively from what your ancestors did in the name of racism. Nobody can be blamed for what their ancestors did that was unjust - but you sure as hell can be expected to help dismantle it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    291. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 1500 years of near-constant war in Christendom doesn't count as making war? For fuck's sake, it was a Christian nation that killed six million Jews, invaded its neighbors and plunged the world into the greatest conflict it has ever known.

      Whoa, Nazi Germany was definitely NOT a Christian nation. The Nazi movement was 100% secular. If you were honest, you'd have a hard time finding any war that used the Christian religion as an excuse since the Crusades, which were actually a move to push back Muslim Invaders. But then you'd have to be honest, which judging by the above...well, you get the idea.

    292. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know there are over a billion Muslims in the world, and in actual numbers the group that go around trying to kill lots of people are a very small group.

      Do some research on Daesh. It's not as small as you think, and that's only one of several dozen radical Islamist groups.

    293. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's nothing to do with journalism or critics. It's about harassment. That's it. Everything else is just a smokescreen. Don't get sucked in.

      Stop lying. You can throw every hissyfit that you want but GG won and you know it. They got their ethics policies on most of those sites that they had problems with. Those sites that did so are doing better, sometimes climbing fast in website rankings. Those that didn't are failing, or have shutdown completely in the last 2 years. The people who wrote the "gamers are dead" articles? Most of them are out of the game journo industry. We got our updated disclosure links as well via the FTC.

      Funny that going on 3 years you still can't actually prove any type of harassment from people in GG. Your biggest show of force is a random IRC channel which has no names of any of the people involved, which can't be linked back to anyone. But you throw a hissyfit when people link you the CON leaks showing that people like Quinn, Wu, and people directly linked to Sarkeesian(Cross), engaged in a harassment campaign, and doxed people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    294. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      People in GG don't care if someone labels them as Hitler or worse then isis(both of which the game journos have used), to label people who belong to it. GG was never about the PR battle, which is why their smear campaign failed. If anything, it simply gives us more ammo to show just how shitty these so-called journos actually are. As a kicker, the person who started the "GG is worse then ISIS" was Devin Faracci...who's disappeared after apparently committing a sexual assault. He virtue signaled hard. Another one would be Matt Hickey a journo who wrote hit piece after hit piece on GG full of actual lies. He was forced out by the publication he was writing for, then it came out that he had apparently committed multiple rapes, sex by deception, and so on. That case is still a head of the courts. Leigh Alexander for example was forced out by Gamasutra after her disastrous "gamers are dead" articles and shuffled around from site-to-site, each of which has failed.

        If you have time, you can watch one of the original "wtf happened" videos. It'll give you a background on what happened(approx 55min) Or GG in 60 seconds. I haven't touched on the "social justice" backlash against minorities who were in GG either, including their attacks, attempts to dox, and successful harassment of them for daring to tell the white-upper-middle class elitists to fuck off because really, you don't speak for me. Which went on under the "#notyourshield" tag. (approx 6min long). The amount of vitriol spewed by supposed people who support minorities for "walking off the plantation" was nothing short of extraordinary, and showed a lot of people that people in the social justice circles were nothing but closet racists and bigots. This likely one of the big things that started the whole "sjw's = cancer" bits, which has hit mainstream. And they did it all by their own actions.

      If you don't care that's great. Other people will do the work on your behalf to stop these shitty people who are trying to create a desert of political correctness from ruining your hobby and my hobby.

      The real problem is that these individuals are trying to displace existing things because it hurts their feelings. They demand special concessions, or shoehorning into stories. Attack artists for daring to draw sexy characters and so on. They don't want to make their own stuff, they want to be included in existing stuff and engage in shake-down like behaviors against developers to try and get their stuff included. This isn't any different then the bullshit you see with people like Sharpton demanding companies "kiss the ring" or they'll suddenly have racism problems.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    295. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Wild accusations, no links or evidence... Fuck off Mashiki.

      I'll use the same quote you used against me. "It's all right there, in your post history." Which you never actually could prove. Grow the fuck up, or get some mental help. I don't care which, but you apparently have a serious case of BPD in which case your meds are fucked up, or it's undiagnosed.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    296. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Zxern · · Score: 1

      Where were they supposed to get independent IRC logs to actually investigate? It's not like those servers actually log the chats themselves.

    297. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comment heading refers to the comment itself. Meta.

    298. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Wild accusations, no links or evidence... Fuck off Mashiki.

      The last time you denied a position I dug up 10 links to previous posts of yours, and quoted them and linked them as well for context. You then doubled down on your denial.

      The positions you hold are repulsive to most people; in this thread alone you are defending someone (Wu) whom the FBI report implicated as falsely sending threats, and yet you claim you hold progressive views.

      Honestly, us on the left very much want you (and Serviscope_minor, and all the rest) to please stop calling yourselves 'left'. You are regressive, holding on to outdated and primitive ideals while trying to associate your fringe beliefs with the left majority (me, essentially).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    299. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because I had a spine and stood up for myself. People respect that. Maybe you should try it one day.

    300. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Exophase · · Score: 1

      She is running in a solid blue district. Her only relevant battle is against the long-term Democrat incumbent she will need to primary against. On the off chance that she wins this battle (due to extremely low mid-term primary turn-out - she's even telling her supporters she can win with as few as 4000 votes, although that's completely unrealistic) I can just about guarantee that she will be a weaker than usual opponent to whatever Republican runs in the general.

    301. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So you're saying she's a weak candidate. What does THAT have to do with due process? Oh, right, nothing.

      The likelihood of her actually winning is relatively immaterial to the issue being discussed.

      That said, I wouldn't be so sure. If 2016 taught us anything it's that there are no more certainties in the world of politics, we've also seen democrats over the weekend finally getting the message their constituents have been sending: they demand absolute and unbending resistance and a solidly progressive stance. The message to the old center-right Clinton-coalition is - support a purely progressive agenda or you're out on your ass.

      Don't underestimate the impact such a thing can have. in 2010 the Tea Party represented less than 10% of the population - they elected a mere 40 or so politicians, that's less than 10% of the votes in congress. Yet they gained influence far beyond their numbers - those 10% or so (now known as the "freedom caucus") had the power to shut down the government... twice. Every other republican, even the moderate ones had to go hard-right or risk being the next guy to lose his seat to a tea-party candidate.
      Now, the progressive wing of the democrats are taking the same tactics, and the thing is -they are not some small 10% fringe group. If the primaries proved one thing it's that they are at LEAST half of the democrat voters, and quite possibly a majority. For 2 decades the democrats paid lip service to them, but basically ignored them in policy - and they sucked it up because they bought the message being sold: that progressive agendas cannot be sold to the American electorate, that the only way to get ANYTHING progressive done is to elect center-right candidates who will do some small progressive steps ahead. The Obama years showed that system collapsing as a classic center-right democrat got painted as a radical liberal (despite never pursuing a single liberal policy) and obstructed at every corner. It showed a small 10% fringe on the far right gain almost complete veto-power over congress... and then the center-right candidate for president lost.

      They are angry, and they don't believe in the old system anymore, they don't believe you can gain small progressive victories by voting for center-right candidates who can get republicans to compromise, they know it doesn't work anymore. So, the only way to fight uncompromising rightwingers is to provide an uncompromising left-wing, which happens to outnumber the other by at least 5 to 1.
      There are very, very interesting times ahead.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    302. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Last time you dug up 10 posts and demonstrated your inability to comprehend them.

      As I recall one example was the claim that I support segregation. I don't. I've told you that over and over again. The best you could come up with is to show that I am okay with separate male and female locker rooms, which is clearly nothing to do with trying to prevent groups of people mixing socially and everything to do with offering everyone an opportunity to participate.

      If you can't understand this, I can't help you. There is no simpler way to explain it. If you refuse to believe me when I say something is my position, it's literally impossible to have any kind of discussion with you because you are always talking to some imaginary person who only exists in your head and I can't be expected to defend them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    303. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      The story you linked to actually debunks the claim that you can be fined for not using made-up pronouns.

      a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individualâ(TM)s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman âoehimâ or âoeMr.â after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses â¦

      In other words, it's for mis-gendering, not for not using specific pronouns like "ze" and "hir", which are presumably what the GP means by "made up pronouns".

      I can never quite decide if people just have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills or are deliberately misinterpreting stuff.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    304. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Last time you dug up 10 posts and demonstrated your inability to comprehend them.

      I was careful to include context - my comprehension was and still is fine.

      As I recall one example was the claim that I support segregation. I don't. I've told you that over and over again. The best you could come up with is to show that I am okay with separate male and female locker rooms,

      Nope - you said, multiple times, that separate classes for different demographics was what you supported. You use locker rooms to back-pedal.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    305. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ah, you mean CS classes for girls.

      Well, the same logic applies. Segregation has the goal of keeping groups apart, usually racial groups. Since the goal of CS classes for girls is to ultimately give them the same opportunities and bring them together with boys later on, it is in fact th exact opposite of segregation.

      The locker room example is exactly the same. The goal is to give everyone equal opportunity to participate in an activity that requires a change of clothes, and it succeeds without disadvantaging anyone.

      I explained all this last time. It's not segregation in the commonly used sense. You could argue that in a technical sense the word may be applicable, but in that case I'm not going to argue or feel that I need to defend my position because it is entirely consistent, non-discriminatory and progressive.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    306. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Same way Quinn did, connect and start logging themselves. They can set up a computer with verified software environment and chain of custody for evidence gathered, the same way they do when examining a suspect's hard drive etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    307. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a dick, I completely disagree with AmiMoJo and such about things like GamerGate as much as you clearly do, but the guys you listed all at post their view in a typically coherent and well argued manner without resorting to trolling or being shitty whether you agree with them or not.

      Slashdot has long seen it's plurality of views become eroded, and I remember when cold fjord was the target of hate of the moment over things such as Snowden and he too was treated the same way despite being on the opposite end of the spectrum to these guys.

      By trying to carry out a public virtual lynching of these guys as you've just done you're effectively trying to shut down opposing opinion, you're engaging in defacto censorship by trying to shut up alternative views, and you're basically trying to argue in favour of a kind of useless group think echo chamber - if you want that you can just talk to yourself, it's easier and quicker.

      So sure, disagree with them, god only knows I do, especially on this issue where I can barely hide my disdain for attention seeking idiots like Wu who are in part responsible for the rise of people like Trump precisely because they took a legitimate cause and made everyone hate it and rail against it in the opposite direction by engaging in a form of extremism - few people have a problem with genuine feminism, but people like Wu aren't feminists, they're female supremacists, and all extremism is bad no matter what the flavour. But don't engage however in the sort of ad-hominem attack you just have because that too edges you into the realm of extremism as you're really just trying to stifle discussion unless it adheres to your perceived one true world view, and what's the point in a discussion thread if you're not allowed to discuss? Are things really getting so bad here now that legitimate discussion is frowned upon and those who seek to engage in it named and shamed in an attempt to censor their alternative views?

      You're not forced to read their posts or agree with them, at least let them have their voice without trying to attack them for who they are rather than what they've said in any particular instance, if enough people agree with you then their voices will be lowered enough by the moderation system alone without you trying to eliminate their arguments before anyone's bothered to read them with your pre-judgement ad-hominem attack.

    308. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too would like to see an investigation into this fraud. Whatever they are calling their self these days.

    309. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a guy so what does it matter

    310. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by khallow · · Score: 1

      No college would ignore threats like this.

      FBI isn't a college.

      The threats are credible.

      And I think the FBI determined that contrary to your assertions, the threats weren't credible.

      They demonstrate means, motivation and planning (from the FBI report):

      They don't demonstration sincerity. Fake threats (for example, created by the very party threatened) look just like real ones.

    311. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed; you can write Jaguar all you want on the hood, that's still a Corolla. And demanding people be censored or in any way punished for pointing out it's still a rusty Toyota is vile in the extreme.

    312. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Is+Don+the+new+Ron · · Score: 1

      If anything, this report proves that's what SHE did. Falsely accusing people for years, and she's running for Congress specifically to subvert due process against her victims

      Change the pronouns and the position, and this sounds like somebody that won a recent election.

      --
      Deja vu: In the 80s we had a 70ish actor as POTUS, a woman PM in the UK, and a bald leader of that other nuke superpower
    313. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Segregation has the goal of keeping groups apart, usually racial groups. Since the goal of CS classes for girls is to ultimately give them the same opportunities and bring them together with boys later on, it is in fact th exact opposite of segregation.

      This is an alternative fact, or in other words a lie (said to promote a narrative).

      The meaning of segregation isn't about the goal.

      Segregation is about the action of separating people into groups, usually by race, but they can do it by gender too.

      So yes, locker rooms can be said to be segregation. The difference is the justification for that segregation.

      What makes some segregation ok and others not is in the justification. Appealing to goals is just another way of saying "ends justify the means", and that is an inconsistent, discriminatory, and regressive position.

      For evidence, we have the alt right and white nationalists and Trumpists and all those people you criticize all the time. They appeal to goals too. When people put the goals ahead of everything else, they are capable of doing all sorts of terrible things to pursue that goal.

      Most recent example: the "goal" is to protect Americans from terrorists! America First! America First! America First! Stop the immigration! Send back the refugees! Ban the Muslims (of course they won't call it a Muslim ban, just like you're fibbing so hard to not admit segregation)!

      It's not segregation in the commonly used sense.

      That's irrelevant. How common something is in the aggregate doesn't mean it can't be applied in this specific instance.

      Also, you're appealing to popularity. "SJW" has a commonly used meaning too. Doesn't stop you from harassing people over it (you say you're for freedom of speech, but realize that you're effectively policing people of speech whenever you try to derail people who use the term SJW)

      I'm not going to argue or feel that I need to defend my position

      Your feelings are irrelevant here. You want to support something (separate CS classes), it's up to you to defend it. You're not entitled to somebody else doing it for you.

      Calling yourself consistent, non-discriminatory, and progressive with no evidence is just delusion. Kinda like... kinda like Trump telling himself his inauguration is the biggest EVER. (Listen and) believe him!

    314. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drink!

      When something negative is said about Hillary/feminists/the left, and people try to change subject to how bad Trump/the right is, take a drink

      Also known as whataboutism.

    315. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has the right to alter facts.

    316. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to be called Loretta...

    317. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      > There is no such thing. The slippery slope is a fallacy. Slippery slopes do not exist.

      You don't have random strangers use the bathroom in your house at the same time you do.
      You didn't suffer through having your hard work be for naught because someone was accepted over you basing on their skin color.
      You didn't have to apologize to the whole world for your fashion choices.

      Keep repeating the lie, until you believe it.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    318. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I reserve the right to refer to anyone as anything, that is why this country is so great. You on the other hand seem to suffer greatly at the thought of my exercising my right to an opinion other than yours or to free speech. I do feel sad for you, it must be a grim world where everyone who doesn't echo your opinion is an enemy...

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    319. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      So, "they did it first, therefore it makes it right for me to do this too"?

      Fighting bigotry with a different kind of bigotry? That is suuure to work.

      > Being offended has never been a factor

      Except in case of the Shirtstorm. Nobody was ever hurt over the shirt the lead of Philae mission wore. A shirt he received as a birthday gift from a female friend. Suddenly the fact he managed to perform a landing on a comet became moot in the eyes of his fashion choice, and he was facing losing his life's work over the fashion choice.

      Keep repeating the lie, until you believe it.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    320. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      First link I came to (there are plenty more, both hostile and supportive):

      http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    321. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Islam's "law of abrogation" in everyday life!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    322. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it was the liberals' hubris and treating conservatives/libertarians like idiots that made this country elect someone like Donald Trump.

    323. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it was the dirty politics going on inside the DNC or maybe, just maybe it was due to the Democrat controlled MSM lying to and manipulating the general public not to mention slandering Trump and his supporters any chance they got back then and even now!

    324. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a good thing the GamerGate perps didn't publicly fantasize about blowing up the White House. If they had, they'd be in real trouble. The left-wing news media would have been so outraged and offended that they would have dug up Claude Rains to tell us how shocked -- shocked he was.

    325. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not defending any claims that she would threaten due process. I was simply disputing your statement that her victory would mean one less Republican in the congressional majority. If she won she would more than likely make it easier for Republicans to gain a seat, not lose one.

    326. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Exophase · · Score: 1

      Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in here...

    327. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >You don't have random strangers use the bathroom in your house at the same time you do.
      What's that got to do with anything ? Statistically YOU are FAR more dangerous than the people you are seeking to keep out.

      >You didn't suffer through having your hard work be for naught because someone was accepted over you basing on their skin color.
      Neither has anybody else. If you worked that hard, you would get accepted somewhere else, probably a few places. And the odds that you can actually afford to GO somewhere else is significantly higher.

      >You didn't have to apologize to the whole world for your fashion choices.
      What the fuck was your fashion choices ? A KKK hoodie in swastika print !?!?!

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    328. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Hey JoJo, stick to something you actually know something about, like tech.
      When you go on sjw tirades about shit you know nothing at all about, it only shows just how extreme your stupidity can be.

    329. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Its a good thing the GamerGate perps didn't publicly fantasize about blowing up the White House. If they had, they'd be in real trouble. The left-wing news media would have been so outraged and offended that they would have dug up Claude Rains to tell us how shocked -- shocked he was.

      Threatening anyone with death is a crime, and if it is an elected official it is taken very seriously as in you are gonna get a visit from your local friendly FBI agent or the Secret Service.

      Funny - I thought even "right wingers" thought that it was a crime. Or have we gone beyond law now?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    330. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistically YOU are FAR more dangerous than the people you are seeking to keep out.

      Then we REALLY should keep people out of America. Gotta protect them from those evil bigots living in America, just waiting for a chance to throw them off roof tops, or force them to convert to Christianity at threat of death.

      We should hurry to keep the women and children out, as American bigots are known to rape the women, and force children to join their Christian militias hell bent on waging crusades on the middle east and Islam, which is of course a religion of peace.

      And the odds that you can actually afford to GO somewhere else is significantly higher.

      Ah, but the odds are he's more dangerous than the people he's trying to keep out. So we don't really want him to be going everywhere spreading his hatred and bigotry. Why do you want to give him a platform?

    331. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do NOT want Chinese in the USA government, not withstanding. When they do, it is my experience American people start disappearing and the place fills with indiscernible Orientals, Arabs and African croonies, homeless. I think it is a matter to take to the weapons. I would not do it myself, I am just too valuable, but I would advocate no matter how rational the Oriental may be and how idiotically schizophrenic or purely deaf dumb the American representative may be. They can push their own Americans and ensure it is an American person, normal (no fats, no Africans), who answer post mail and phones and email. Orientals are very easily deceived by some American types, besides.

    332. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're also a prime example of Smug Liberal Elitist Asshole.

      "SLEA"??

    333. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all black people are from Africa. Go up to a Jamaican and call them African American. They will probably smack you in the face

    334. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by murdocj · · Score: 1

      No, not like Clinton. Remind me when Clinton told the press to shut up and just echo the party line. That's right, you can't. But that's what every press conference under our beloved new fuehrer is... either you are cheering his godlike brilliance, or you need to shut up. Welcome to the end of democracy.

    335. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people "stalking" you are your army of sock puppets and all the people you ripped off

    336. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      "What's that got to do with anything ? Statistically YOU are FAR more dangerous than the people you are seeking to keep out."

      Statistically there's exactly one instance of me, and I know well how dangerous or safe I am. OTOH, I've faced quite a few transsexuals, who - completely apart from being trans - were raving lunatics, abusive, violent and paranoid. Even towards people sympathetic to them. So, statistically - you're full of shit.

      "Neither has anybody else. If you worked that hard, you would get accepted somewhere else, probably a few places. And the odds that you can actually afford to GO somewhere else is significantly higher."
      Suuure, Keep repeating the lie until you believe it.

      "What the fuck was your fashion choices ? A KKK hoodie in swastika print !?!?!"
      A gaudy shirt gifted by a female friend for birthday.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    337. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Statistically there's exactly one instance of me, and I know well how dangerous or safe I am
      You may know that, but nobody else does. So statistically I see a white male. That makes you the most likely to be a serial killer, the most likely to be a mass shooter, the most likely to rape somebody AND the most likely to commit an act of domestic terrorism. If anybody should be getting banned from the USA to make it safer it's us. Of course, all those protests you are about to levy about why it would be crazy to try and ban white males -apply even MORE STRONGLY to say people from Syria.

      > I've faced quite a few transsexuals,
      What the fuck do transexuals have to do with a discussion on transgender rights ? I'm not likely to take an argument seriously when steeped in such obvious ignorance of the subject matter.
      > were raving lunatics, abusive, violent and paranoid
      And I've known lots and lots of straight, cisgender white males like that. Trans people are not more likely to be any of those things. Considering the levels of abuse they face, I can't blame them for being prone to depression and cynicism though - but that's OUR fault.

      > So, statistically - you're full of shit.
      You seem to be confusing "statistics" with "anecdotes". Anecdotal evidence isn't.

      >Suuure, Keep repeating the lie until you believe it.
      Well... since you seem to believe anecdotal evidence is "statistics" I get to say that this is exactly what happened to me - at a time, and in a place, where affirmative action was significantly more comprehensive than it is now. If I could do it and you couldn't - I can only assume that your "hard work" was unfortunately not backed up by the intellectual talents required for university access. Perhaps you'd have done better applying your hard work to a profession more suited to your IQ... plumbing perhaps. Plumbers make a LOT of money, it's a job that's unlikely to be automated away and since it's fairly easy to be your own boss you can EVEN compete with immigrants - hell you can come to employ them.

      >A gaudy shirt gifted by a female friend for birthday. [knowyourmeme.com]
      Yeah, that shirt was gaudy and if it had been an isolated case it would be entirely overblown, but in that same period we had a famous biologist telling a conference he doesn't like having women in his labs because they fall in love with colleagues and when it ends they cry, and a whole host of other public scandals that reeks of a science world that seriously makes women feel unwelcome. Now I have sympathy for Taylor, I don't think he intended to offend anybody or be sexist, but on the other hand having to give an apology is not, as you seem to suggest, some terrible torture that no human should ever be forced to experience. Frankly giving apologies is something we should all be doing more often. I wasn't impressed when a bunch of republicans after Obama's middle-east tour complained that "I would never apologise for America". That's INSANE. Sometimes America fucks up, just like everybody else. When it does - It SHOULD be a country great enough to apologise. Saying "I'm sorry" is, frankly, the sign of being a mature and wise person - it is not, something, which you should deem an unthinkable evil !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    338. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      shut up and just echo the party line.

      Clinton article approvals and review before publication, giving debate questions, flying around on the same flight, corporate owners donating millions to campaign, running obvious biased articles in favour of clinton. The list goes on. ... She didn't have to say shut up because they were in bed. Did you miss all of this during the election or are you really this stupid? Why do you think people called CNN the Clinton News Network? Hint: They toed the party line through collusion and favoritism that undermined any sense of journalistic integrity. Why do you think that kind of relationship would be result in impartiality and integrity now?

      just echo the party line. That's right, you can't. But that's what every press conference under our beloved new fuehrer is

      Hm, really? Is CNN toeing the party line? Are there other media outlets not toeing the party line? I saw the press conferences and I saw the government and a few media organizations at odds. So what? Why should I care that Trump doesn't like CNN because they proven themselves to be devoid of integrity?

      either you are cheering his godlike brilliance, or you need to shut up. Welcome to the end of democracy.

      LOL, Yes, the God-King giveth and the God-King taketh away. Praise the Keks for our beloved God-King of Keks Trump. The Don G
      If you think this is the end of democracy... You're and idiot. od himself, that will forever free the Kekistanis in the promised land of Kekistan. Good gravy man you should step away from the internet and smell the roses. Just breathe...

    339. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      The fact that you haven't heard about it is telling. The way she was treated was as unacceptable as the treatment of Leslie Jones but because she was on the "wrong" side it's not news.

    340. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Telling of what? That I don't obsessively read US news to check for incidents that I, as Slashdot's resident arch SJW, should get upset about?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    341. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people in GamerGate initially had the same opinion as you: "gaming journalism is bullshit, why should anyone care?". Turns out, if you post it on Reddit, you may get banned. Because those journalists happen to be admins of dozens of subreddits.

      Some people got pissed off afterwards, and that's how they became members of GG, which usually means they participare on a subreddit where they write comments like "censorship sucks".

      As long as you don't talk loudly about your opinions on gaming journalism, there is no reason to care, I guess.

    342. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Telling in that the Leslie Jones story was international news and was a sign of the evils of the alt right and white male misogynoir whereas what happened to Jennifer Holliday was largely unreported because it didn't fit that narrative. You shouldn't have had to do any searches for it - it should've be decried loudly on the usual platforms but it wasn't. I'm not getting at you personally, but rather at the shitty double standards.

    343. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      > That makes you the most likely to be a serial killer, the most likely to be a mass shooter, the most likely to rape somebody AND the most likely to commit an act of domestic terrorism.

      Compare number of deaths by the means you listed to deaths caused by armed assault, then compare demographics of assailants.

      Don't forget to normalize for total population of given demographics, because somehow it seems you believe if there were 100 crimes committed by group A and 50 crimes committed by group B, that means A is twice as dangerous as B - while you totally disregard the fact A is ten times as numerous as B, meaning, in fact any member of B is 5 times as dangerous as a member of A.

      These numbers really cease to support your point if you normalize them to "per 1000 members of given group".

      > You seem to be confusing "statistics" with "anecdotes". Anecdotal evidence isn't.

      You don't use statistics to describe a set of exactly one. Statistical sample of one isn't.

      > Perhaps you'd have done better applying your hard work to a profession more suited to your IQ..

      To my IQ AND SKIN COLOR, you meant? Because were I black, my IQ would be sufficient. It's "stand up to make room for the 'preferred ethnicity' on the bus" all over again, being white being penalized. And no, what my great-grandfather did is not my fault.

      > But on the other hand having to give an apology is not, as you seem to suggest, some terrible torture that no human should ever be forced to experience.

      Have you seen a video of that apology? The guy was a nervous wreck. He was about to lose his life's work. THAT is a torture nobody should be forced to experience. Over what?

      That's not an isolated incident. The cases, where the "offended" would begin a witch hunt are numerous. And you're shooting your own foot, because top professionals hate walking on eggshells around "special snowflakes" and simply move to the "backwards, bigoted" firms that don't like to take the risk associated with employing the "easily offended".

      Nobody can force an employer to choose a candidate of demographic that is a legal risk, or might lead to losing top professionals, and increasing number of employers are getting aware of this; "We'll stay in contact", a firm handshake, and pat your back on the way to the exit, while checking the box next to the white male's name - because if he's underperforming, he can be fired with no risk of costly legal battle over discrimination.

      When - roughly 7 years ago - I was working with an all-male team, and the management suggested hiring a woman to join our team, we were open and practically enthusiastic. I know what my answer would be today: Hell, no. If a slip of a tongue could mean disciplinary action, I'll pass. Yes, there are many reasonable, skilled women who would definitely contribute to the group and give new insights, but you know... that analogy about a bowl of M&Ms, some of them poisoned?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    344. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >These numbers really cease to support your point if you normalize them to "per 1000 members of given group".
      Weird... I could have sworn the FBI and the NSA would know that... yet it was them, both of them, that rated rightwing white militia member's the highest terrorist risk in America. And it's odd how you are so happy to make that adjustment when trying to pretend that righting christian fundamentalist whites are not high-risk - but you aren't willing to make the same adjustment when calculating odds of being shot by cops. Rightwingers constantly claim white people are shot by cops more often - but ignore that, as a percentage of the population, black people get shot by cops far more than anybody else. Which is why we see a video of an unarmed man being killed by cops AT LEAST once EVERY MONTH.

      >You don't use statistics to describe a set of exactly one. Statistical sample of one isn't.
      I didn't, you did. I said, that not knowing you personally, I can only judge based on statistics. For child molestation I could go a step further and add that less than 1% of all molestation ever are done by strangers. They are done by people the family knows and trusts and over 90% are done by parents. Not to mention that the laws being passed against it are ludicrous on a dozen other levels.
      Suddenly you have mothers unable to take their infant sons to the bathroom ! So what... if dad isn't with us today, you are not allowed to pee because you can't quite manage by yourself yet ?

      >That's not an isolated incident.
      Your proposed solution has the odd quality that
      1) It doesn't actually prevent the issue you see and
      2) It actually INCREASES those problems.
      Nobody was "offended" by the shirt, people complained that it creates an unwelcoming environment - a completely different thing. And your "solution" is to make the environment MORE unwelcoming ... which can ONLY lead to MORE complaints.
      The complaints didn't come from his colleagues, it didn't even come from inside the same organisation - it came from the outside world. So unless you want to work for a company with no customers or business relationships - your approach does absolutely NOTHING to reduce that.

      Here's a much more sensible way to prevent such problems: act professionally in your professional life. Leave sex for after-hours.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    345. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      > yet it was them, both of them, that rated rightwing white militia member's the highest terrorist risk in America.

      Oh. So I don't qualify after all. I'm moderate, not a militia member, and not affiliated with any such groups. What you did is precisely the thing you claim to be opposed to: stereotyping, through encompassing the whole group basing on behavior of its small minority. Congratulations, you're a bigot.

      I've been to the discussion about frequency of black shooting before. It's a self-propelling machine of hate, where a moderate disproportion in crime rate results in a big disproportion in persecution involving violence. Blacks are already dealing with their internal problems, and once these are gone, it will be time to heal the rift. But as long as violence and crime is glorified by the popculture (the whole "gangsta" style) this is an uphill battle. The fault is on both sides, and it won't get better if only one side steps down.

      > I didn't, you did. I said, that not knowing you personally, I can only judge based on statistics.

      And then you judged me basing on statistics concerning "rightwing white militia" instead of the whole white populace. That's not how statistics works.

      > Your proposed solution

      This is not a proposed solution. It's the observation of reality, which is definitely unpleasant and harmful at a large scale, but it's immediately beneficial to the employers. "Tragedy of the commons." It's a social situation that guides social behaviors along the locally, immediately most profitable path, with disregard for society-wide consequences. And it's the laws you introduced that created this social situation. Not only "minorities" want to live free of harassment, and making every minor offense, no matter how minimal, punishable severely - is definitely harassment. And since the majority doesn't have the nice, individualized system solutions for dealing with that harassment (it's been made legal - made into law!) they use whatever tools they have. If that tool happens to be equivalent to sledgehammer - too bad.

      > Here's a much more sensible way to prevent such problems: act professionally in your professional life. Leave sex for after-hours.

      It's the misconception, that "professional" = "behaving like a professional salesperson." In STEM, this is completely wrong. Most brilliant minds are very frequently eccentric. And as result of your suggestion, you end up with corporate culture of mild-mannered, professional looking, and completely inept staff. Because the TRUE professionals left - or were fired.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    346. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I don't know if maybe you don't know what a SJW is, or you do and just don't like the label

      I know what an SJW is, and I don't like the label, primarily because it's been so overused and abused that it no longer has much meaning. I see racists tossing it around a lot with a lot of "if you hate the KKK you're an SJW." There has been a successful push to identify the SJW label as "anyone who does not like far-right male-centered white nationalism." I'm afraid the label is ruined, which is too bad, because I found it rather useful myself in the pre-GamerGate days.

    347. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They were supposed to find the massive conspiracy of pink bunnies that was out to get Wu. Why didn't they find the massive conspiracy of pink bunnies? It must be because they weren't looking hard enough, the FBI should increase the resources being put into searching for pink bunnies.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    348. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't the FBI take the claims of the pink bunny conspiracy seriously!? They must be in on the conspiracy, the FBI is really run by the pink bunnies!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    349. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The issue is that the victims of the crimes actually did a better job of investigating it than the FBI did in many cases.

      When did Wu show up and interview anyone? The FBI did their job, they passed off the evidence of the only crime they were able to find in the logs, and it was ignored.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    350. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Since you're an AC and it's three days later, I don't know if you'll ever see this, but...

      What makes some segregation ok and others not is in the justification. Appealing to goals is just another way of saying "ends justify the means", and that is an inconsistent, discriminatory, and regressive position.

      I honestly don't understand the difference between those two statements: "What makes some segregation ok and others not is in the justification" and "Appealing to goals is just another way of saying "ends justify the means"." Isn't the 'justification' itself for segregation a form of the ends justify the means? The segregation is the means, and the goal is the justification. They seem like synonyms. I know you have to be making a distinction here, but I'm just not getting the difference.

    351. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      > You're also a prime example of Smug Liberal Elitist Asshole.

      "SLEA"??

      Seems like Smug Elitist Asshole Liberal would make a better acronym.

    352. Re: Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it was the liberals' hubris and treating conservatives/libertarians like idiots

      If the result is the election of Donald Trump, then maybe they were right.
      Then again, liberals were dumb enough to select Hillary as their candidate.

      We're all fucking stupid, and just generally fucked.

    353. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Lutherans and Catholics made up the vast majority of German citizens. That the leadership, or at least some of them, were antagonistic to the Church does not change the fact that Germany was and is a Christian nation

      That says more that the Nazi leadership was adept that suppressing Christianity in German (or at least, in elevating other sentiments above it). It's certainly not worth conflating it with other holy wars from various religions.

    354. Re:Malignant narcissist upset, news at 11. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Why? What's the use of letting someone immigrate who'll just end up in prison. Keep out Mexican racists bring in the Mexican doctors and lawyers I say. That would also bring down healthcare costs.

      That's fine, but that wasn't the context that the 'mexican rapist' line came from.
      It was the assumption that the people who come over the border are murderers and rapists. Oh, and some of them are probably ok folks.

  2. FBI cares about a crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly. If it isn't something sexy like bank-robbery or terrorism, they won't bother.

    Heck, with Trump in charge, they probably won't care about the banks.

  3. No, not this again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GamerGate, Anti-GamerGate, Anti-Anti-GamerGate...

    Whatever this stuff actually means, keep it the hell off of Slashdot

  4. No one gives a fuck by Notabadguy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Lady, no one gives a fuck. Do something about hunger, or world peace, or H1Bs, or unemployment, or campaign corruption, or lobbyists, or something that matters.

    If you want to pick a fight with the FBI, maybe pick on the DOJ + FBI failure to prosecute Hilary for selling access to our government, taking bribes, or violating national security by dispersing classified information?

    1. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hillary lost, get over it. You have to own your guy's fuck-ups, now.

    2. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary lost, get over it. You have to own your guy's fuck-ups, now.

      This is the sorest bunch of winners ever. I've never seen people who's canddates win, and they're angrier than before the election.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:No one gives a fuck by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think conservatives won ?

      Conservatives value process and playing by the rules, the use of reason to prove our point.

      The left kept screaming like children and digging in their heels till they created a reflection of themselves that hates them.

      Trump won, he is purely a creation of the insanity of the left and their unwillingness to have a rational political process.

      You are welcome to him.

    4. Re:No one gives a fuck by Raenex · · Score: 2

      This is the sorest bunch of winners ever. I've never seen people who's canddates win, and they're angrier than before the election.

      And how long were people harping about Bush after Obama got elected and rainbows and unicorns didn't magically appear across the country?

    5. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You think conservatives won ?

      I think that a process that modern day crypto-conservatives used to their advantage since the early 1990's, and went nuts over for the last 8 years got out of their control. Republicans own both the house and senate, and most of the state Governments, they also have a Republican president. Sounds to me like they won really big.

      Conservatives value process and playing by the rules, the use of reason to prove our point.

      Conservatives, perhaps. Crypto-conservatives, the present day version no, they do not.

      I don't want to get in a tit-for -tat battle, but here is one of your leaders, Mitch McConnel, on the previous occupant's nomination for the Supreme court, and the REpublican Congress refuesd to even consider the previous occupat's nomination. Tell me the process, and playing by the rules, and the use of reason that just saying "NO" is. However, rest assured that Mitch is aghast that any opposition to your Republican leader Donald Trump, the duly elected president of teh United States of America, the candidate who set Republican Conservative Records in the number of votes cast for him in the primaries, in addition to teh record set, had almost twice the votes of the nearest competitior Ted Cruz.

      sorry fellow, Donald Trump is exactly the representative of the Republican party. He is the man ovrwhemlingly wanted by Republicans.

      And here is the issue I have with the present day Republicans. After overwhelmingly supporting this guy, you won't own what he is. You might not like it, but you are part of what got hiim there, congratulations, you must be proud of the ultimte culmination of your hard work

      Not that you'll own it. It isn't in the crypto-conservative's psyche. You'll have some excuse.

      And before you accuse me of being a liberal - I'm not. I'm a Goldwater conservative, I believe in paying attention to the budget, but once set, paying the bills (present day cons like to "starve the beast". I believe in compromise to do the law (don't even get me started), I believe that th eGovernment needs to stay out of our bedrooms and private life, and I believe in separation of religion and state - and for the same reason my boy Barry did, and I quote from a speech of his in 1981:

      "There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

      This is what your party has become. What Barry warned against has become reality to the point that you elected the exact opposite of wht you preach as your vlues because you hate anyone who doesn't toe the party line, and Trump was infinitely preferable to a godammed stinking Democrat. The next several years are going to be interesting. Will the Republicans reform the country into some sort of totalitarian government, accepting every fiat your president signs, or will we have civil war number two, or will you just inherit the wind. Gonna be exciting fer sure!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re: No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think conservatives won ?
      Conservatives value process and playing by the rules, the use of reason to prove our point.
      The left kept screaming like children and digging in their heels till they created a reflection of themselves that hates them.
      Trump won, he is purely a creation of the insanity of the left and their unwillingness to have a rational political process.
      You are welcome to him.

      Ah, the conservative blame game shows itself. As usually, you declare that you're not responsible, somebody else is at fault.

      No wonder your Trump acts the same way. Sorry, but you own him, he became your face, and he'll do what all of the screaming mobs you've cultivated demand.

      It's your own fault for fanning the flames and sowing the wind. You could have repudiated the obstructionists who spent 8 years demanding a repeal without a replacement. You could have rejected the Supreme Court Stonewalling. You could have made a lot of choices, you could have fought against voter disenfranchisement, against gerrymandering, you could have taken the chance Obama gave you, but you didn't.

      You won't even own up to your choices, and you expect others to believe you as you desperately cast about for somebody else to be at fault. Sorry, but you don't have reason, you don't want rationality, you just can't stand for your feelings to be hurt because your hot potato finally burned your hands.

      No wonder you now have Trump to live down.

    7. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't the ones violently rioting in the streets and punching people. Hillary supporters are

    8. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lady, no one gives a fuck.

      Precisely. Some people are just too stupid to recognize their relatively insignificant place in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps she needs another lesson in humility.

      Do something about hunger, or world peace, or H1Bs, or unemployment, or campaign corruption, or lobbyists, or something that matters.

      She can start with her own attitude, be the change you want to see and all of that.

      If you want to pick a fight with the FBI, maybe pick on the DOJ + FBI failure to prosecute Hilary for selling access to our government, taking bribes, or violating national security by dispersing classified information?

      That's up to Donald Trump now and he's indicated that he's no longer particularly interested in going after Hillary. He has enough on his plate right now without adding another distracting sideshow. Although, I suspect that Donald Trump will preserve carefully what evidence he has against her to ensure her quiet return to private life.

    9. Re:No one gives a fuck by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get in a tit-for -tat battle

      Really that's why you decided to fisk my statement and take an arrogant tone ?

      Anyway conservatives have been pretty good about attacking Mitch McConnel, how did the left do with Obama and Hillary or do you think he brought hope and change she lost due to misogyny ?

    10. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize the correct parallel would be McCain, not Bush, right? Obama ran against McCain in 2008, and no, I don't remember too many Democrats carrying on about McCain after the election the same way the Republicans are still carrying on about Clinton.

    11. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lady, no one gives a fuck.

      In Wu's case, that's a plumbing problem.

    12. Re:No one gives a fuck by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You realize the correct parallel would be McCain, not Bush, right? Obama ran against McCain in 2008

      McCain wasn't a magnet for dislike like Hillary. Obama ("hope and change") was essentially running against Bush's legacy and a figure of scorn by the left.

    13. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      I'm from overseas. I use media from many countries. From what I have seen so far (but not recorded for either side) it would seem to be running about three-to-one the other way. Do a little googling or better yet, a search engine that does not just give you want you want to see.

      This though, applies to both sides...

      Please note that a demonstration is not a riot and cannot become one unless there is an opposition presence (although sometimes that opposition may come from politicised police). That presence is intrinsically aggressive and promotes volatile situations that start at insult and descend to violence. Often by the time the first punch is thrown both sides have gone way beyond civil respect. If you are going to protest a protest then have your counter-protest elsewhere. For good manners, for freedom of speech and safety of all concerned.

    14. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      How do you know?

    15. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you for real?

      The left didn't vote for Trump, the "conservatives" did. (They are really more regressive than conservative.)
      Your argument is on the level of a crazy person screaming "Society made me do it!"

    16. Re:No one gives a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And we don't give a fuck about this either.

      You want to be a man, you want to be a woman, you want to be polka dotted alien from the planet Xrbrt. For all I care, so be it. It does not matter. Not at all.

      It's interesting how people confuse a person's nature with his/her/its/whatevers point. I don't care who someone is. I care about what $pronoun has to say. If all they are talking about is how they feel oppressed because someone dares to use the wrong pronoun in their presence, get the fuck out of the way, you're stealing oxygen from someone who might actually have a solution for an actual problem.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:No one gives a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the UKIP reaction to the Brexit-Yes was hilarious!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:No one gives a fuck by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      If you want to pick a fight with the FBI, maybe pick on the DOJ + FBI failure to prosecute Hilary for selling access to our government, taking bribes, or violating national security by dispersing classified information?

      Ummmmm, no, people being mean on the internet is the worst blight we face as a species and all must be done to wipe it from the face of the earth, well, internet...

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    19. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this idiot did. He thinks that merely with eloquent prose that he can convince you of how "right" he is.

      Truth is...all he seems to me is to be someone that likes to hear his own head rattle. All he did was bloviate. He can't even own that the Dems lost because his bunch didn't have anything to offer the people and that the people won't own what Trump is. Yet...Trump currently seems to be as advertised.

      The GP poster's so full of shit he'd splatter if you slapped him. I'm not going to try. The derp coming off of that one sticks like napalm.

    20. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Are you pre-teen, or are you senile? Because you sure don't seem to remember the last eight years.

      I do not think the Trumpsters are angrier than before the election, but if they are, they will tell you they are just following the advice of someone who said "elections have consequences", "punch back twice as hard", "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", "if you don't like a particular policy or president, go out there and win an election", and similar victory-lap snark. It's not as if Trump supporters normalized poutrage as a political form, or torched some schlub's limo because said limo owner was trying to make a living, or whatever.

    21. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Can you provide examples or support for why it you think it is "running about three-to-one the other way"? If those examples are mostly outside the US, why are they relevant to judging whether Trump and/or Clinton voters are acting badly?

      Here in the US, Trump voters are mostly working-class people who don't have time to protest in the streets. They're not professionals like the leftist mob leaders, and they're not students or jobless like the leftist fodder. Pro-Trump demonstrators in the US haven't rioted, haven't engaged in widespread property destruction or assaults outside of riots, and haven't tried to block people from attending government functions. Anti-Trump demonstrators have done all of those things. Except for one truly horrible executive order on immigration, even the anti-Trump US media haven't found any organized or significant pro-Trump lawlessness.

    22. Re:No one gives a fuck by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      >punching NAZIS
      FTFY.

      No. Nazis are not people and punching them is never wrong and always righteous. Fuck you don't GET more righteous and heroic than punching a fucking nazi.

      Captain America punched fucking NAZIs.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:No one gives a fuck by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >violently rioting

      3 Million Marchers in America. 5 Million worldwide. Biggest protest march in human history.

      Number of arrests: 0
      Number of violent episodes: 0

      Violence in protests are hardly ever instigated by the protestors, it's generally police that start that shit.
      When the protestors are mostly white women, the police are scared to start fights -and there are no protestors fighting back you can take photos of to post on rightwing propaganda sites and claim the protests were "violent".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get in a tit-for -tat battle

      Really that's why you decided to fisk my statement and take an arrogant tone ?

      You can always tell me what part I am wrong on.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:No one gives a fuck by jittles · · Score: 1

      Hillary lost, get over it. You have to own your guy's fuck-ups, now.

      This is the sorest bunch of winners ever. I've never seen people who's canddates win, and they're angrier than before the election.

      There's just a bunch of nonsense on both sides. People are constantly (to this date) blaming Bernie Sanders supporters or people who voted Third Party. How the hell do they think we got stuck in this situation with Trump and Clinton as our "only choices"? Because of dumb asses who insist that if you don't vote for one party or the other then you're to blame for whoever gets elected. That's just bullshit. And who do you think pushes that agenda? The two parties who have everything to gain and nothing to lose from such an agenda. They don't want to see some other party rise to power. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about the election that ended over two months ago. Tell me what you're going to do now. How you're going to be a leader and an example and how you're going to do your part to help fix the current situation. But stop crying about what happened two months ago because it's over and no amount of finger pointing or complaining is going to change it.

    26. Re:No one gives a fuck by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What about the leftists beating the crap out of trash bins at the inauguration? I assume the trash bin provoked them? Was it Adolf Binler, the most evil and racist trash bin of all time, so it had it coming?

      The left comes to "protests" ready to riot. This is not like the civil rights movement where men marched in suits and ladies in dresses. The modern left passes out instructions for what kind of clothes to wear for rioting, they bring masks, etc. So to say they're protests that can turn violent because of opposition is completely false. Yes, and Tim McVeigh peacefully drove the fertilizer van up to the federal building until the peaceful van turned violent, and the 9/11 hijackers peacefully boarded the plane and peacefully subdued the flight staff with peaceful box cutters until the peaceful meeting of the peaceful plane and the World Trade Center suddenly turned violent. The left's "peaceful protests" is just a euphemism for "assembly time before the rioting."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    27. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Democrats are not a part of this "left" you Yanks keep blithering about. Democrats are right wing, Republicans are further right wing and are seemingly in thrall to religious whackos. The US doesn't have a mainstream party of left-leaning politics. Respecting someone's right to piss in the toilet of their choice - amongst other things - has sweet FA to do with this "left" and everything to do with an increasingly pervasive need by the (religious, Christian, albeit in name only) right to control the lives of others, especially those who do not conform to their norms. It's all well and good when the victims of this nonsense aren't anyone you care about, but what happens when it's your head on the block? When you become the "other"? Who will be fighting for you?
      Do not confuse identity politics with left-wing politics. The latter certainly includes a lot of supporters of the former, but it's all a tool to divide us, a means to set up an 'us and them' scenario so that we don't focus on where it's all coming from. To give you a clue, follow the money. The enemy isn't transgender folks, or refugees, or Jews, or whatever the current bogeyman is. The enemy is the person who distracts you with this crap while he picks your pocket. Your enemy is the 1%.

    28. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you left-wingers trot out a new nasty name every week. Tolerance, at its best.

    29. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so... that starbucks window broke itself???

    30. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Tell me what you're going to do now.

      Me: I'm going to get the lawn chair out, some popcorn, some tequila shots, and watch events unfold. My comments are not anything other than noting that the winners are at least as angry as they were before the election, and winning has not diminshed their anger one little bit. That does not often end well.

      While I have my own political thoughts, they aren't in play here - this is just an observation.

      You're welcome to the party.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:No one gives a fuck by jittles · · Score: 1

      Tell me what you're going to do now.

      Me: I'm going to get the lawn chair out, some popcorn, some tequila shots, and watch events unfold. My comments are not anything other than noting that the winners are at least as angry as they were before the election, and winning has not diminshed their anger one little bit. That does not often end well.

      While I have my own political thoughts, they aren't in play here - this is just an observation.

      You're welcome to the party.

      Well I wasn't trying to imply that you're the kind of person that I am describing. Both sides are angry right now. I want to see people stop complaining and start doing something. Drinking tequila is always something I can stand behind, however!

    32. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Wow, you left-wingers trot out a new nasty name every week. Tolerance, at its best.

      Not a liberal, unless you consider Barry Goldwater a liberal. IOW, I like fiscal responsibility, and allowing people freedom. Crypto-conservatives give lip service to conservative principles, but don't follow them.

      You cannot call yourselves fiscal conservatives when you do a perfect spend spend spend plan, and the leader of the Republican party, the man who represents your principles and goals, is planning on adding a Tax so that American citizens can pay for building the Maginot line two.

      In other words, the people who call themselves conservatives that days, are just like those whom they castigate. IOW, Crypto conservatives = Liberals when it comes to spending my Tax dollars.

      Or if you want to eliminate all the nice words, Modern conservatives are fucking lowlife hypocrites, and quite liberal in their spending and quite invasive of personal freedoms - exactly what you might accuse liberals of doing.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    33. Re:No one gives a fuck by minderaser · · Score: 1

      Still pounding the table sweetheart? If you had an ounce of self-awareness, you might realize how neatly you fit the stereotype of a Trumptard throwing a fit because you don't understand reality enough to not continually throw a tantrum about everything.

    34. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Are you pre-teen, or are you senile?

      Ah, starting out by taking the high road, eh? Well played citizen!

      I merely state that the winners have not been cheering. They've been just as anry as before. But since you cannot have a discussion without an insult, That's about all I have to say to you. Peaceout.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    35. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how long were people harping about Bush after Obama got elected and rainbows and unicorns didn't magically appear across the country?

      Eight years and counting.

    36. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      Trumptard? Err... I think you have it backwards. I am and always have been a liberal who believes in freedom of thought and action. I am reluctant to say so excuse I hate the abuse that is handed out to liberals in the USA where the constitution of the USA is and was about as liberal as you can get. To me the "trumptards" are betraying the heritage of the founders of the USA.

      You want examples but as I tried to say, from external (to the USA) media the overall impression is that it is about three-to-one. I am not trying to make the claim of three incidents to one incident as it is no longer possibly to accept the accuracy of any US source on its own. The US is now a post factual society where truth can only be adjudged and never known.

      Trump lawlessness? Emoluments act. Why is he not already in jail? Openly and determinably corrupt. A public scofflaw.

    37. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      Last time I heard beating a bin was property damage not violence. Stop wanking in public.

      "You say "The left comes to "protests" ready to riot. This is not like the civil rights movement where men marched in suits and ladies in dresses. The modern left passes out instructions for what kind of clothes to wear for rioting, they bring masks, etc." And I say bullshit. I am a leftie in the political sense. I very much agree with the founding fathers; the epitome of the "left".

      Stop being a Werribee Duck and look at the examples you chose. McVeigh, 9/11 hijackers - right wing terrorists both. You looking for examples to illustrate your foolishness? You could not have chosen better.

    38. Re:No one gives a fuck by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      that's right, white women liberals only start fights at right wing functions in order to bird dog them, everyone knows this.

    39. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realize that liberal in the UK and the US means something very different.

    40. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      True. Very true. But then try Australia where the regressive, reactionary party is actually called the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is actually anti-liberal. It is the party that wants to rule not govern.

      But look at the root of the word, it damn well means freedom. A liberal in the only real sense of the word desires a society where each individual has as much possible freedom as is consistent with a functioning society. The very founders of the US very liberals of some ilk almost exclusively and tried to design a republic to function that way (..if you can keep it). Yet in the US today a liberal is a 'libtard'. [sarcasm] How very, very sane [/sarcasm].

    41. Re:No one gives a fuck by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      https://newrepublic.com/articl...

      Don't just read the headline, read the article - with all those cited examples and proof. The same behaviour that was smiled at last saturday is "rioting" when black lives matter protesters (for example) did them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    42. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where "Trumptard" came from -- I generally don't use the word, and I am no fan of Trump, so I wouldn't call either of us Trumptards.

      The vast majority of violent crime that I have seen covered in the US media has either been perpetrated by anti-Trump activists, or hoaxes by anti-Trump activists. If non-US media gives you the impression that Trump's supporters are committing three times as much violent crime (against either people or property) as Trump's opponents, I think those media are grievously misleading you. It gives the impression that you're a conspiracy theorist falling for Fake News, especially when you suggest that US-based sources are actually covering up some truth that fits their ideology.

      There is no Emoluments Act, and there's quite a lot of legal support for the idea that he has not violated the Emoluments Clause. Why are you pushing falsehoods?

    43. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Your earlier comment: "This is the sorest bunch of winners ever. I've never seen people who's canddates win, and they're angrier than before the election."
      Your newer comment: "I merely state that the winners have not been cheering. They've been just as anry [sic] as before."

      I will take that about-face as a retraction of your earlier claim that Trump's supporters are angrier now than before the election, an admission that Obama is a shining example of acting angrier after winning an election than before it, and a sign that your memory is either not here yet or has already gone.

    44. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      In the US as well, the term "liberal" has been captured by people who want to enforce ideological uniformity and usher in pervasive government. Some critics of those goals see the contradiction as betraying a lack of mental acuity, leading to the contraction that you complain about.

    45. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      I thought you were tone who called me a Trumptard which I dislike as much as libtard. If you did not I apologise for assuming or reading it that way.

      We could spend quite a bit of time trying to align definitions before we get to three to one but yes, that is impression I am getting, and not all of it from overseas.

      Okay let us look at two US airplane passengers after the election. 1. Democrat woman who refuses to change her seat 2. Republican who walks up and down the aisle telling individuals how they are fucked now and the 'funny coloured' ones will be sent 'home'.

      Now they both got thrown of the plane (good!) but one seems passive aggressive while the other is aggressive. The bloke walking up and down the isle was clearly trying to provoke terror.

      Now it stopped short of violence on both occasions. But they are clearly not equate-able. If it had not been for the presence of cabin crew how do you think it would have gone? So, overall, I am seeing passive resistance from democrats but aggressive crowing and glee from the republicans. There is too much post truth stuff out there to get a real handle on the numbers but three to one seems to be about the ratio I am seeing of those that are credible. I am sorry if you do not like that but it is my impression. I am not normally thought of as a credulous person, more of a cynic actually.

      Okay, it is not an ACT (as it is in many places) but it is law and principle that is mostly universal although some places only provide lip service to their laws on it. But I am not pushing falsehoods. He is in clear violation of its provisions. As I said, I am a cynic and there is no support for his behaviour in the law. None. Those who assert otherwise. Well if they win then you have lost your republic.

    46. Re:No one gives a fuck by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      how about everything after you invented the phrase "Crypto Conservative"

      I mean there are degrees of wrong and then there are degrees of wrong. Characterizing the vote against Hillary as support for Trump is beyond mindblowing.

    47. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      The AC you replied to before my first comment explicitly mentioned "violently rioting in the streets and punching people". Your examples are two non-violent, although both abhorrent and obnoxious, incidents. On the other hand, we had riots after the election and riots for the inauguration, all by anti-Trump people. I assume the "punching people" bit was a reference to when a racist asshole got punched on live TV by one of the anti-Trump rioters in Washington DC -- an act that was praised by a lot of other Trump critics. Would you like to try again, and explain why you think violent crime is predominantly committed by Trump supporters?

      The Emoluments Clause is short: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." What is the clear violation? Did Vladimir Putin tell Russia to write a big check, payable to Donald J. Trump, that Trump then deposited?

    48. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      If the ideological conformity is one that promotes the freedom all all to be diverse including many different viewpoints then I probably support that if it is done by education (not "re-education") as it is necessary that all agree not to impose or inflict their personal beliefs on others. So there must be some conformity even in diversity. In the US that conformity should be (yes, I know, I know...should) that you are all Americans and follow the rule of law not Allah, Yahveh, Karl Marx, Harpo Marx or anything else. Any lack of conformity in that is basically un-American.

      Here is an example, I do not like guns (well, actually I do but I respect them too much to want them around). You may have an open carry license. Fine, do not visit my home carrying a firearm or I will have the police remove you. There you have one legal standard but accomodations to suit others.

      As for pervasive government well when I call the police (above) I expect them to turn up and remove you. But really you cannot have a democratic republic without education, knowledge and thought. In that way government should be pervading. But the issue here is exactly what people consider to be pervasive. I would consider the new toilet laws pervasive. A law to address a non-existent issue. So "pervasive" is not something you can argue about really. It is a subjective issue.

    49. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      There is an article on the net somewhere about reading news as if you were a spy. It makes a lot of sense.

      Bearing that in mind (from your first link) 'What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said.'. He said "anarchists" not democrats. I write that off to idiots or a false flag operation. It is not something with which you can tarnish Democrats. So, let me look at the second link.

      Okay, read the second link. Lots of American violence, not so much elsewhere. Even the American violence is localised. Notice any correspondence with police reputations in those areas? Breaking ATMs is a democratic thing is it? Considering the numbers of protests and the number of people protesting do you think it was possible for there to be no violence? I see a lot of violent cops. Sorry, I cannot put this down to "democrats" either. You might also want to check how much violence there was in the rest of the world. I'll chalk most of those down to American contempt for Americans in general rather than anything specific.

      Do you understand the word emolument? Please check that. Also I need only one example to prove you wrong ok? That is logic, check it. And here is the large calibre weapon that blows your argument away. The contract for the lease on the hotel. It specifically prohibits a particular emolument and Trump is in violation of both lease and emolument law since the moment he took office. Now I have proven you to be incorrect but are you going to admit it? Got my doubts.

    50. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the best examples of the ideological conformity that the left is pushing in the US comes from college campuses, where conservative and libertarian speakers are often threatened or assaulted -- and where campus authorities sometimes cancel their speeches because of the heckler's vote and concerns about safety or security. There are plenty of others, but often more polished by experience in how to get away with things.

      A good example of pervasive government is California's Proposition 65, which requires businesses to conspicuously notify consumers if there are any of a very long list of substances that are "known to the State of California to cause" cancer and/or birth defects in a product or place of business in California. The list currently includes things like aloe vera extract, aspirin, boric acid, caffeine, carbon monoxide *and* dioxide ... and I got tired after the letter 'C'. As a result, most products you can buy in the US have a Prop 65 warning -- which sometimes leads to confusion abroad when products intended for sale in the US make it to other countries. There are more burdensome and broader government regulations with equally unclear marginal benefits, but Prop 65 is easy to see as an excess.

      While reasonable people might disagree about exactly what constitutes "pervasive" government, though, US "liberals" are in favor of a lot of government oversight to make sure companies aren't trying to cheat employees by doing things like making lunch breaks optional; they want to ensure education is run by government rather than by schools offering government-approved curricula tailored in ways that parents prefer; and so forth.

    51. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Move the goalposts much? The original AC comment said "Hillary supporters", not Democrats. (It is odd, though, that these supposedly anti-capitalist anarchists mostly sat out the last eight years in the US.) Similarly, non-US protests are essentially outside both that AC's claim and your counter-claim that numbers were "about three-to-one the other way". You seem to have conceded that violence is, in fact, mostly being perpetrated by Clinton supporters -- except when you're throwing out conspiracy theories that police instigated the violence.

      An emolument is compensation for employment or holding an office. Which foreign royalty or state is paying Donald Trump a salary? You are spouting talking points that you clearly do not understand -- mentioning a hotel without specifying which one, citing supposed terms of a lease without identifying that lease, and throwing around the phrase "emolument law" as if that means anything specific. The only thing you've proven is that you cannot write coherently.

    52. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      Move the goalposts much? The original AC comment said "Hillary supporters", not Democrats. (It is odd, though, that these supposedly anti-capitalist anarchists mostly sat out the last eight years in the US.) Similarly, non-US protests are essentially outside both that AC's claim and your counter-claim that numbers were "about three-to-one the other way". You seem to have conceded that violence is, in fact, mostly being perpetrated by Clinton supporters -- except when you're throwing out conspiracy theories that police instigated the violence.

      Oh, put words in my mouth why don't you? Are you claiming the Hillary supporters are not democrats? Seems they would be a subset by definition. Now, I did not call them anti-capatlist anarchists. I do not even know where you got the anti-capitalist from. But it was the cop who called them anarchists not me. As to where have they been? Haven't you kept your eyes open later? Some of the black lives matter people (of course black lives matter, all lives matter) have been even assassinating cops indiscriminately. I have conceded nothing and while I am not a Hillary supporter I have no reason to attack them either and I doubt many of them are violent (most people, most places are not violent). Although I am happy to denigrate Hillary and the democratic party for what they did to Bernie. They deserved to lose.

      An emolument is compensation for employment or holding an office. Which foreign royalty or state is paying Donald Trump a salary? You are spouting talking points that you clearly do not understand -- mentioning a hotel without specifying which one, citing supposed terms of a lease without identifying that lease, and throwing around the phrase "emolument law" as if that means anything specific. The only thing you've proven is that you cannot write coherently.

      Oh, come on! Emoluments do not have to come from overseas. As for details http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us.... First link on a search for "trump hotel lease"

      I can not write coherently? Perhaps you have to be able to think coherently to see it. I am sure everyone else can. Talk to a non-partisan lawyer.

      Anyway I am done with you. Reason is not your forte. And I am fed up with reiterating stuff. Bye

    53. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      On your para 1

      The idealogical conformity that I would prefer is the old idea that universities are places where ideas are explored not censored. There is however a problem when people claim equality of ideas. Intelligent design for example, does not cut it and has no place in schools and universities and should not be encouraged there as it gives them recognition they do not deserve. You might call that idealogical conformity but I would call it intellectual honesty. If we were designed by another being it must be stupid (or careless).

      WRT para 2

      That is not an argument about mandating warnings it is an argument about how those are implemented. I am a diabetic. I would like to know the Glycemic Index and Glycemic load of the foods I buy. Too bad for me that I do not get it as it is "too hard" for the manufacturer. Snow globes seem stupid though. I (obviously) am in favour of information being supplied.

      WRT para 3

      Good. Companies should not cheat employees. "schools offering government approved curricula tailored in ways that parents prefer..." you mean propaganda schools? With maybe, prayers to a god required? Been here, done that. I have no desire for my kids to be inculcated rather than educated. No, you lose on that one. Many of those schools are evil beyond belief. Would you send your kids to a Madrassa that taught that women should stay in the home and always obey a male? No, education should be, must be, secular. That is part of the social conformity that is needed to make society work. I am told that many atheists in the USA, particularly in certain areas must keep mum about it and indeed, some are socially obliged to attend a church - or they are not considered members of the community and are readily mistreated. So, no, I do not support you in saying the government is too pervasive in that area. I would say - not enough. You are failing your countries children. (So are we)

    54. Re:No one gives a fuck by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I asked questions because you are pretty incoherent. It seemed like you were trying to distinguish the protesters from Democrats -- anarchists in the US functionally act like extremist Democrats, and typically vote D, but maybe you were trying to say they're No True Democrat-man. That doesn't help your incorrect claim that most of the violent protests in the US were by Trump supporters rather than by Clinton supporters: The violent protesters preferred Clinton to Trump, and would have only voted for Stein (or anyone else) if their state was predictably going to go for Clinton.

      That NBC story is astonishingly weak. You can find two law professors to support just about any bat-guano crazy idea; having legal theories that are outside the mainstream is almost a requirement to be a law professor. As the article quotes Trump correctly saying, the conflict-of-interest laws that motivate that lease term do not (and could not constitutionally) apply to the President. By its own language, the lease term they cite does not prevent lease-holders from running for, or being elected to, office. It only prohibits people who already hold office from taking or assuming an interest in the lease. It says no office-holder "shall be admitted to" the lease. Trump was "admitted to" the lease long before he started his campaign, when he did not hold any government office. If those partisan law professors (you did notice that one of them worked for Obama, right?) didn't mention anything more pertinent, you can bet they couldn't find anything more pertinent.

    55. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Your newer comment: "I merely state that the winners have not been cheering. They've been just as anry [sic] as before."

      I will take that about-face as a retraction of your earlier claim that Trump's supporters are angrier now than before the election

      Umm, no. Twas no about face. Come back when you can follow the conversation.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    56. Re:No one gives a fuck by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      how about everything after you invented the phrase "Crypto Conservative"

      I mean there are degrees of wrong and then there are degrees of wrong. Characterizing the vote against Hillary as support for Trump is beyond mindblowing.

      Okay, so let's say I am completely wrong. Do you have anything to offer for your argument beyond that your mind is "blown".

      Do you understand what "crypto"-something means?

      You've managed to just tell me I was wrong because I was wrong. If that's all you have to offer, don't bother to reply, unless you are one of those who feels a deep need to have the last word.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re:No one gives a fuck by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.reuters.com/article...
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/w...

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/...

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      I don't see rioting from conservatives at all. I am not sure what news you are seeing, but these riots are from people "protesting" Trump and his policies (without even having a basic understanding of the policies). The day before the inauguration, the protesters torched a limo. Ironically, the limo was owned by a muslim man who didn't like Trump either. Protests at U C Berkeley turned violent over Milo Yiannopoulos, and the recent executive orders that were implimenting policy passed by the previous administration. Portland Oregon protests turn violent over Trumps (illegal!) immigrant stances.

      There were some non-violent protests, such as the women's protests the Saturday after the inauguration, but that is hardly the norm right now.

      FYI, I live 30 minutes outside DC, I hear about all the crap going on down there, and it isn't pretty with all the violence coming from these people.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    58. Re:No one gives a fuck by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      AC Tried to grab her pussy and got a surprise...Dundee style.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    59. Re:No one gives a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1
      Yes, I am hearing a lot of crap too.

      That is the operative word. Crap. It has always been the violent right. Always and forever. Always will be.

      Do you ever consider things for veracity?

      Trump has policies? Right, Get Rich. And Barton's is to break America. That much we do know.

    60. Re:No one gives a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I honestly have to ask, for my interest - and I'm not trying to put you down here. I see you once in a while and your comments stick out. Is your account shared between two people who post, or are you a moderately autistic person who sometimes doesn't take his meds?

      Your comments are sometimes normal and fairly to a point, and sometimes it's completely ridiculous but you clearly believe what you are saying. You often draw conclusions from things that literally no normal person would make, and it's to the point where I'm like "is he kidding?" It's like someone says "the sky is blue" and you go "see - the ozone is depleting" and give details of plane exhaust chemistry for some reason. I'm almost positive you sometimes reply to yourself and reply to individual comments from others several times from different accounts.

      if this is one account - take your meds. and no, I didn't write this to diss you.

    61. Re:No one gives a fuck by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I was pointing out, that I haven't seen any violence from the right, you however just say without any references at all that the right is 3x as violent as the left. I don't see any violence from the right, and in fact, the only thing I have been pointed to by friends who are left leaning is that the right burned some effigies when Obama was elected. What violence are you seeing from the American conservatives? I have seen tons of violence over the past few years, and it is all people I would place in the American left.

      The crap I was specifically speaking of though, is the violence and destruction. I was warned not to even go into Baltimore not too long ago because of these riots:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      They were destroying cars, burned down and looted a CVS, and all over a single traffic death that was attributed to poor training. I would love to see all this violence you see coming from the right though. The riots on the left have become the left versus the government (that they built in many cases), so as you point out, it becomes the people versus the police.

      If however you were trying to say that it is 3 left to 1 right, I would tend to agree, but that is not how I read your comment. The reason is that traditionally the right values authority, whereas the left is about bucking authority. It is a core value of the movements. This leads to the left traditionally being violent to authority as they try to change the problems they see in that authority.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. John Walker Flynt again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That guy got pissy when his bad knockoff of megaman-but-with-more-T&A got bad ratings, even though one should not expect much from a game when one spends part of the budget on a motorcycle. He only joined that whole thing in order to promote his crappy game, giving interviews to people who'd donated (such as Eric Johnson), while pretending there were no connections between them.

    What was the FBI gonna find with those threats anyways, when they were made by "Wu", who never changed homes despite being "oh so scared" and claiming he'd moved out? Also that he flipflopped once or twice as to which side of that whole GG debacle he was on, depending on whom he was milking for more funds at the time?

    Nobody would be better suited for congress, though we should really adjust the laws to keep people so well suited to its current incarnation *OUT*. And possibly in jail.

  6. Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wu? really, what's needed in Congress right now is an ex-General whose ACTUALLY been under fire and under a death threat.

    Trump has just removed the military and NSA from the security council, and placed his PR man Bannon in there, together with a Flynn, a known Russia spy. USA's effectively been subjected to a decapitation strike, only instead of bombing the leader of country, he's been replaced with a simple election hack.

    And nobody in the mainstream media discusses the arrested US spies in Russia? Where did they get the names from... the day after Trump's men were put into the CIA? Gee I wonder if Trump committed treason to help Putin secure Trump's power base?

    Priorities.
    Really when the core defence of America is at stake, you have bigger problem to fix than misogyny. You need cold headed military and hard nosed politicians in Congress and Senate. Trump's men will call you a terrorist, threaten your life with actual police state, and you'll go crying, and that's no help to anyone.

    1. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit all you privileged misogynist bigots don't understand! None of that matters! All that matters is my virtue and how brightly it can be signaled!

      - The lefties after losing the election thanks to telling "privileged" poor ex-coal miners that they don't matter because they're white men.

    2. Re: Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need cold headed military and hard nosed politicians in Congress and Senate.

      Sadly, those are the idiots most likely to cause problems as they rail about a bomber gap, a missile gap, a mineshaft gap, and declare that the only way to win is to blow up the village.

      They seem tough and all, but they fuck things up every time. Just look at Grant and Eisenhower, even Harrison and Jackson.

    3. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're not the left. In fact their constant demands for censorship and outright historical revision tend to sicken most of those "lefties" you speak of. Technically the 'left' has always been pro-worker-conditions, it's why communism is what lies at the extreme of that part of the spectrum.

      If there's one thing the center (or as you Americans call it "the far left") and the right can very much agree on, it's that those creeps like Brianna Wu have no interests beyond screwing everyone over while they laugh to the bank with their made up "virtue"

    4. Re:Gamergate? by quantaman · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wu? really, what's needed in Congress right now is an ex-General whose ACTUALLY been under fire and under a death threat.

      Well she did experience death threats.

      Really when the core defence of America is at stake, you have bigger problem to fix than misogyny. You need cold headed military and hard nosed politicians in Congress and Senate. Trump's men will call you a terrorist, threaten your life with actual police state, and you'll go crying, and that's no help to anyone.

      You don't think defending the rights of half of the population is a worthwhile part of the struggle?

      And why do you assume she'll be weak and cowardly? She stood up to a vile hate mob, had the opportunity to retire back into obscurity, and now is coming back for more. That's a lot more than I can say for a bunch of congressmen that come from a certain party that starts with R and ends with Trump.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What "half" of the population you moron? About 7% of the US population supports or agrees with the current feminism movement. The "womans" march after inauguration disallowed and dis invited anyone who was not pro choice, excluding at least half the women in the country. It was propaganda, and 93% of the women in the country that don't agree with feminism want people like you to fuck off and die.

    6. Re:Gamergate? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      What "half" of the population you moron? About 7% of the US population supports or agrees with the current feminism movement. The "womans" march after inauguration disallowed and dis invited anyone who was not pro choice, excluding at least half the women in the country. It was propaganda, and 93% of the women in the country that don't agree with feminism want people like you to fuck off and die.

      Nope.

      The poll conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that more Americans have a favorable opinion of the women who marched during Trump’s inaugural weekend – 50 percent – than they do of the new president, who only 44 percent of respondents support. Trump’s disapproval rating – 50 percent – is also historically high for a new president.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think defending the rights of half of the population is a worthwhile part of the struggle?

      It's the WRONG half, obviously.

    8. Re:Gamergate? by Raenex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well she did experience death threats.

      Supposedly. On the Internet. Along with a lot of other people that nobody gives a fuck about because they don't go running to the media or the media wouldn't care if they did, because they aren't female or transgender.

      You don't think defending the rights of half of the population is a worthwhile part of the struggle?

      What rights do they not have or are under threat?

      She stood up to a vile hate mob

      Played opportunistic politics for attention and victim bucks.

      had the opportunity to retire back into obscurity, and now is coming back for more

      Translation: Need more attention and victim bucks.

      That's a lot more than I can say for a bunch of congressmen that come from a certain party that starts with R and ends with Trump.

      I imagine quite a few of them actually achieved something before entering politics.

    9. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly. On the Internet.

      This excuse of "It's just the internet" is retarded. Being an asshole online just means that you're an asshole in real life, just that you probably don't have the balls to act how you feel without anonymity. People should be held accountable for their online behavior, not given a pass because "it's just online lulz."

    10. Re:Gamergate? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hate to side with this guy, but one thing is true: The last decent president the US had was a general...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think defending the rights of half of the population is a worthwhile part of the struggle?

      Err, which half or the population?
      Is there any mandate from that "half of the population" stating yes, she/he/it is defending our rights.

      I did not knew, that people in the US above age 37.9 (median) need such champion/championette/whatever of their rights.

      other half of the population thinks that "Second" is best protection of the "First" .. they also do not need such defender ...

      Self proclaimed defenders of X are a dime dozen.

    12. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you really use politicususa as a legit source? thats like using huff po or breitbart

    13. Re:Gamergate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mentioned that, in the game Warframe, the resource Nitain isn't a problem since it's just time-gated and not-grind based. Got a death threat because of that too. Where is my tumblr poutrage?

    14. Re:Gamergate? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      " just that you probably don't have the balls to act how you feel without anonymity"

      so by your definition these death threats were by default not credible or serious.

  7. Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What do serious politicians want? Exposure.

    He doesn't even have his picture on his campaign website. Nothing about this is serious.

    1. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you're trying to make a statement, or just stupid and can't parse gender pronouns...

    2. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably realised nobody's been talking about him for a couple of months and needs to get some more of that sweet, sweet, attention. Another couple of months worth of "news" stories and Twitter rants should do it...

    3. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't police his speech. He is free to use whatever pronoun he want.

    4. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Get punched fascist.

    5. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical reaction from Lefists: Advocating violence against anybody who commits Thoughtcrime.

    6. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      Get punched fascist.

      The irony is rich.

    7. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Funny

      Get punched fascist.

      Keep it up that attitude from the left is what created the Alt-Right

      At the rate you all are going you will be begging for conservatives to return to the scene

    8. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slowly rot away inside, no one loves you, and all the virtue signalling won't get slutty Sarah to touch your tiny beta pecker.

    9. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod this guy to five please

    10. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't advocate violence against fascist Trumpy morons. I think they advocate that against themselves already as-is, by picking a fight with the entire world.

    11. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just think, all this insanity from the regressive left was just barely brewing under the surface, only held back because of their delusion that the rest of the world agreed with them.

    12. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Shia will nut inside of him, though.

    13. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatism is dead. Fascism is about to die again. Nobody is concerned with your petty whinging, Trumpy.

    14. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, Crashmarik, you conservatives have been denying responsibility since your love affair with the anti-communists and segregationists in the 1950s.

      But we know you are Spartacus, and Spartacus is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    15. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, yes, Crashmarik, you conservatives have been denying responsibility since your love affair with the anti-communists and segregationists in the 1950s.

      But we know you are Spartacus, and Spartacus is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

      Tell me whats the difference between segregation and the quotas of affirmative action ?

    16. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      At the rate you all are going you will be begging for conservatives to return to the scene

      Can't I just press Alt-left in my browser?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you go play a nice game of solitaire?

      Jump into a ditch.

    18. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.

    19. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-communists.
      Oh, you mean anti-Russians just like Democrats are today?
      KEK.

    20. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One reduces the degree with which races mix, and the other increases it.

      They are literally the exact OPPOSITE of each other.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    21. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      Future fascists will call themselves anti-fascists.

      Grow up and act like an adult.

    22. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 1

      But we know you are Spartacus, and Spartacus is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

      Woah dude, we just met.

    23. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me whats the difference between segregation and the quotas of affirmative action ?

      Why, Crashmarik, Why? What are you looking for?

      You have some message you want to promulgate?

      Just come out and say it, don't try to hide, be forthright and bold.

    24. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-communists.
      Oh, you mean anti-Russians just like Democrats are today?
      KEK.

      Nope. Anti-communists. I'm sure if you had had a history lesson, you'd realize who they were and what they did. They even transcended party, as this was back when each party still had factional disagreements, as opposed to being a mostly monolithic block.

      In terms of Russians today, nope, they're not at all similar.

    25. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not much of a prediction.

      Current fascists call themselves anti-fascists.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Yea, that is what I meant. I guess, future as in today from yesteryear. Welp, that is one butchered comment from me.

      Thanks for the correction.

    27. Re:Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      he was using pronouns for a man, that's probably why you were confused.

    28. Re: Why doesn't he have his picture on website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh

  8. Re:Who gives a fuck what he thinks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's gotten harder and harder now that even gay or interracial marriage is allowed and women can go vote. Being the oppressed victim is no longer as simple as being Irish.

    They're really digging below the bottom of the barrel with "microaggressions" and "I identify as my gender fluids" crap.

  9. Oh, god, why is this here?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one cares about Wu or whatever she believes. She's crazy and always has been.

    1. Re:Oh, god, why is this here?! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Your average newspaper has the funnies section, /. has the SJW news section.

      Everyone needs a little entertainment in his life.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Oh, god, why is this here?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone needs a little entertainment in their life.

      Fixed that for you... don't want you to be branded sexist!

  10. So.... by tsotha · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nothing actionable? What a shock, I tell you! What a shock!

  11. An Inanimate Carbon Rod 2018! by Noishkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... would be a better choice than Wu ever could have been. Even if she hadn't got fully blown victim narrative as a way of life.

    1. Re:An Inanimate Carbon Rod 2018! by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Aww, I was hoping rod would run for president in 2020.

    2. Re:An Inanimate Carbon Rod 2018! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she

      top kek

    3. Re:An Inanimate Carbon Rod 2018! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      We're not big fans of A-Rod here in Seattle.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  12. What's next? by Pezbian · · Score: 0

    Is this nobody going to look for ways to make 9/11 solely about her?

    "I slipped and spilled some of my Venti-Three-Quarters-Plasma-NoWhip-MochaChokaBullshit when I heard about it and got a scald on a finger! #Patreon #BooHoo"

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    1. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Is this nobody going to look for ways to make 9/11 solely about her?

      Pfft, that's nothing. I heard she was complaining about not being mentioned in the White House Holocaust Remembrance Day statement.

    2. Re:What's next? by Pezbian · · Score: 1

      Aww I hurt someone's feelings and got modded down as a troll. If only that were true...

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  13. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? If the FBI going to follow every "lead" in every harassment case? There aren't that many FBI agents. Get a grip on reality people. The FBI isn't there to fix every issue.

  14. Those who ignore history... by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Trump has just removed the military and NSA from the security council, and placed his PR man...

    See: Obama/Susan Rice. Did you complain then? No. Can we ignore you as another partisan thug? Yes.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Those who ignore history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read the post... It was only a couple sentences. You can't string together two brain cells.

      Since when did Obama disallow NSA and military intelligence from his security council meetings? This was the complaint. Ok comrade, our propoganda is getting too obvious! You have to come on less strong.

    2. Re: Those who ignore history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you complain then? Are you ignoring it now? Then we can treat you as a partisan hypocrite.

    3. Re:Those who ignore history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're in denial I can see.

      Obama did NOT demote the military Generals from the security council, or the Spooks from the security council.

      Flynn was in the pee memos (page 15, August 10th), he was groomed by Putin for the role back in August, yet he wasn't plucked from obscurity by Trump until November. Clearly he was pre-chosen by Putin. Flynn use to work in a company with a man who was convicted of espionage for Russia. But he claims he never talked to him. Flynn has made 20+ trips to Russia, only a few of which he'll talk about. Flynn was the man with the secret Internet connection installed into his DOD office, he claimed he thought the rule was stupid. etc.

      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

      And the spies arrested in Russia the day after Trumps men went into the CIA fit the profile of the sources for the pee memos. i.e. the memos are real. Trump *did* have a backchannel to Putin, he *did* co-ordinated with Putin's hack of the US elections, and *is* trading US security for Trump personal gain.

      What next? Well 6 eyes is next. He'll agree "information sharing" with Russia to defend against the terrorist threat. i.e. he'll give access to surveillance on US and 5 eyes politicians to Putin so Putin can rig other elections too. That will be done under cover of terrorist threat. You can see him doing that rhetoric already as prep-work.

  15. Wu who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Are you with me Doctor Wu?
    Are you really just a shadow
    Of the man that I once knew?
    Are you crazy, are you high
    Or just an ordinary guy?
    Have you done all you can do...?"

    -- Steely Dan

  16. Self sacrifice? by stratzvyda · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't he caught harassing himself on his own game developer account on steam?

    1. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same chair and same pockmarks and dirty spots on the walls in his "escaped safehouse" and his original "I had to run away from here because death threats" home as well.

      Not sure if it was on steam or twitter though, for your question. But he DID misappropriate a good chunk of his kickstarter money.

    2. Re:Self sacrifice? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      yup. and also lied about graduating college, instead attended for like 8 years with nothing to show for it

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Self sacrifice? by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. The Encylopedia Dramatica article on Wu is probably the most informative thing out there. But yes, harassing themselves on Steam from their dev account. Also when they claimed they "fled their home" they were suddenly back, and giving interviews. Then there was the times they tried to claim "gamergate was going to use sarin gas at pax." Funny thing about that, it was one of their own anti-gg supporters who made the threat. You can find all that in the ED article.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Self sacrifice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      You are actually using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source?!

      I read slashdot for entertainment, so keep up the good work, bro.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. and the FBI files themselves mentioned that he was "harrassed" from a telephone number that he regularly held long conversations with.

    6. Re:Self sacrifice? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You upset that they actually have a more in depth article on the actual batshit insanity of Wu then you care for? It's pretty hard to fake their own craziness.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be really butthurt, at around page 74 or so in the report, the FBI agent directly alludes to Brianna Wu and her cronies being found out on making false accusations in regards to the Sarin gas shit to fight their enemies.
      Making false accusations of Sarin gas attacks? I guess Brianna Wu will fit in comfortably among the same people who made up WMD's in Iraq.

    8. Re:Self sacrifice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Why would I be upset: i didn't read it. It IS however very funny that you use it as a source!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      way to stick it to her by not using her preferred gender pronoun, you fat slimy neckbeard!

    10. Re:Self sacrifice? by aevan · · Score: 2

      ED is a great source for chan-related info, if you translate it to english, strip away hyperbole, rotate the facts 90 degrees, pour a kilo of salt over it and don't take what's left at face-value. It's like Jedi Truths, on acid.

    11. Re:Self sacrifice? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      i didn't read it.

      You should. Let me know when you get the intellectual strength to read something that is going to show the worst of what Wu actually is. It'll be amusing when you see that it's right as well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Self sacrifice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Intellectual strength ... Encyclopedia dramitica. You're on unusually fine form today, I must say. Keep up the good work!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *him*
       
        capcha - defect

    14. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't sift through the BS on ED to find the kernel of truth (probably completely unrelated to the topic of the article), why even live. :P

    15. Re:Self sacrifice? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      and by dismissing his source without in anyway giving examples that it is not factual, you prove you know it is a good source of information.

      why?

      because the only thing you can do is try to discredit it and him with ad-hominems.

    16. Re:Self sacrifice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Yes the internet: where even the most silly of sources shift the burden of proof. In the real world, if you quote a source noted for its interesting interpretation of events (e.g. Breitbart) the conclusion people will draw, reasonably I might add, is not that you have a point, but that you're very silly.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Self sacrifice? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You are actually using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source?!

      I read slashdot for entertainment, so keep up the good work, bro.

      Okay, ignore his source for the claim that Wu fabricated attacks against herself and use my source instead - page 74 of the linked PDF.

      Happy now?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    18. Re:Self sacrifice? by Exophase · · Score: 1

      Wu made a thread for personal criticism in the hopes that it would be contained there. When this didn't do anything and instead resulted in people accusing her of false-flagging she didn't stop and explain but did the same dumb thing she always does: erase everything and pretend it never happened.

    19. Re:Self sacrifice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Okay, ignore his source

      Oooh another person who thinks "Encyclopedia Dramatica" is a source. The crazies are out in force today!

      page 74 of the linked PDF.

      You must be looking at a different page 74 to me. Are you talking about 74 as the PDF reader counts, or one labelled "74" in the scanned text. I looked at the former (I couldn't find the latter in a cursory search) and it says:

      SA ***** sent a letter to ***** to document the telephone call with the legal department regarding the ****

      checkmate femenists!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:Self sacrifice? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Okay, ignore his source

      Oooh another person who thinks "Encyclopedia Dramatica" is a source. The crazies are out in force today!

      page 74 of the linked PDF.

      You must be looking at a different page 74 to me. Are you talking about 74 as the PDF reader counts, or one labelled "74" in the scanned text. I looked at the former (I couldn't find the latter in a cursory search) and it says:

      SA ***** sent a letter to ***** to document the telephone call with the legal department regarding the ****

      checkmate femenists!

      Sorry, page 120, quoted in full:

      "[REDACTED] but this is the first time i have genuinely feared for my life at the event. Lot's of people are going to be there, and a bomb threat is sure to drive many people away."

      Agent's addendum: "This woman previously said she was bringing a gang of personal bodyguards to PAX and FALSELY ATTRIBUTED A SARIN GAS ATTACK THREAT AT PAX TOWARDS A GROUP OF HER ENEMIES, SHE (AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE'S LIVES, HER CLAIMS) NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED IMMEDIATELY."

      So, basically, yeah, at least one investigating agent officially reported that at least one claim was made up and that the claimant needs to be investigated immediately.

      Kinda destroys your narrative, doesn't it? Maybe you should have read the entire report when I gave you the wrong page number (to be fair, I expected you to not read the report when I gave you the wrong page number).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    21. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda like we had Trump reading out facts on everything, but it being facts is the *only* difference. Same exaggerations and vitriol, same elaborate references and expressions.

      One other difference; he'd have to be *equal-opportunity* and universal in the bigotry: It doesn't matter whether you're straight, gay, faggot, woman, white, black, yellow, green, red, blue, megazord, lesbian, porno-movie-lesbian or have between just one and seven nipples. You will be insulted, and have at least a page on why you or those like you deserve it.

    22. Re:Self sacrifice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Sorry, page 120, quoted in full:

      Right. First time, it's an honest mistake. Second time, you're being a plonker.

      Page 120 has nothing except for a header on it.

      EMPTY PAGE! CHECKMATE FEMINISTS WHERE IS YOUR NARRATIVE NOW?

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm not going to follow your page references a third time because you're clearly yanking my chain and too lazy to find something actually damning.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    23. Re:Self sacrifice? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Sorry, page 120, quoted in full:

      Right. First time, it's an honest mistake. Second time, you're being a plonker.

      Page 120 has nothing except for a header on it.

      EMPTY PAGE! CHECKMATE FEMINISTS WHERE IS YOUR NARRATIVE NOW?

      Anyone reading your comment now actually know that you're full of it - page 120 which I quoted above says very clearly that the complainant made up the threat themselves.

      It's going to be very difficult in the future to make claims about the guilt of gamergate when the FBI report says that the complainants made up the threats themselves (yeah, on page 120).

      Good luck with that cognitive dissonance of yours; this report is probably going to remain on the internet forever.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    24. Re:Self sacrifice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      page 120 which I quoted above says very clearly that the complainant made up the threat themselves.

      Yeah no it doesn't. It's empty, ya plonker.

      Here's a picture of the PDF in Okular on page 120:

      http://imgur.com/a/nmngS

      It's going to be very difficult in the future to make claims about the guilt of gamergate when the FBI report says that the complainants made up the threats themselves (yeah, on page 120).

      Actually according to the text you quoted from some other page (or just made up, who knows, since you can't seem to be able to provide a source), it doesn't say she made up the threat. It said it was falsely attributed to a group of her enemies. That means it didn't come from the group of people she said it came from. That further means it came from someone else, the who being not specified and certainly not given as her.

      The FBI agent then notes that for the sake of everyone's lives the claims need to be investigated. In other words, he's taking the claim of the threat seriously but notes the threat has been attributed to the wrong people.

      Seriously dude if you're going to make shit up, you should at least make up shit that supports your point, not that says the exact opposite.

      Funnily enough that actually makes me think you haven't made it up. It could well be somewhere other than page 120, because surely no one could be that dim.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    25. Re:Self sacrifice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ad hom attack is all you have in the way of response to a deeply researched article that actually contains a large amount of FACTS. That in itself speaks volumes.

      It's the case all too often in this world gone mad with PC nonsense that disguising the truth as satire is the only way it will be allowed to be disseminated to the world.

  17. Re; ..."he thinks?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pronouns-ment....

    "HE" who?
    Brianna Wu?
    If Wu it be...
    then she -not- he.

    If he not Wu...
    then who?

    thanks for your attention
    to grammatical convention

    so please, would you
    say just who (Wu?)
    "HE"
    might be?

    1. Re:Re; ..."he thinks?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google, define "he".

      "pronoun, used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified"

      Google, define "male".

      "adjective, of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring"

      Or did I mistakenly cite some regressive troglodyte patriarchy-supporting anti-choice corporation?

    2. Re:Re; ..."he thinks?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly, Wu used to be known as "John Flynt".

    3. Re:Re; ..."he thinks?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judge for yourself

      (disclaimer: anything on Breitbart should be taken with a huge grain of salt)

  18. "She fought the alt-right and won" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    If you go to her web page (which does look rather impressive), it has the imposing slogan, "She Fought the Alt-Right and Won." Did she? Presumably she fought against gamergate (is that the alt-right?), did she win? It seems like the FBI is saying that nothing needed to be done.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

      Presumably she fought against gamergate (is that the alt-right?),

      Tricky to say. A lot of GG members seem pretty broadly left wing. They dislike the extremists who focus on identity politics though, and are more likely to see Republicans as people with political opinions they strongly disagree with, rather than evil.

      As such it seemed like a reasonable alliance from the point of view of right wingers (including the alt-right) who are staunchly opposed to the identity politics extremists; and they can broadly get on board with a message of "journalistic ethics".

      did she win?

      Also hard to say. A lot of gamergaters say that all they wanted was disclosure of personal interest in articles. In this case GG won, but Wu wasn't opposed to that. I'm not sure what her view of GG's goal was. Presumably to prevent the number of female programmers going up to 8%... Not sure she's won here.

    2. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      barely even knows she exists.

      Seriously?

      You are seriously saying that the alt-right, sites like Breitbart, "barely even knows she exists."

      These 85 stories mentioning her count as barely knowing that she exists in your opinion.

      Well okay then.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by aevan · · Score: 2

      From my experience, gg was somewhat mocked on pol, and 'keep that shit off our board'. Meanwhile gg was 'keep your redpill to yourself'. Some overlap, some spergs, etc. Some felt brethren, some felt the other useful idiots. Fun times.

      A key note would been how there was a point in the autumn where it seemed GG won and journos had new policies up: those in it for 'the right to not be vilified/left alone and get honest reviews' were sated, while another faction went on to now try to crusade in other fields. Those were probably more right-wing. Maybe. Or just lonely, or trolls.

      I do note every time that silly political spectrum graph was posted a high majority were left of center.

    4. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, and who gives a shit about Breitbart?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She will succeed in politics in the same manner as Sandra Fluke.

      Bitching about someone criticizing or insulting her is not a campaign slogan.

    6. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Yes, and who gives a shit about Breitbart?

      The alt-right. According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia Breitbart has aligned itself with the alt-right and is now at the centre of their movement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Alt-right, for all those that haven't already been pissed off enough by the old-right...

      I know I repeat myself but ... who gives a shit about them? Let's be honest here, yes, they're loud and obnoxious on the internet and they sure are loud and obnoxious wherever you happen to meet them, but they are an insignificant group in the grand scheme of things. Right now they feel important because they think that Trump "sides" with them. Let's just wait 'til they, too, learn that the only one Trump sides with is Trump.

      Quite frankly, I can't think of a less important group than them. Except maybe the equally loud and obnoxious group on the left.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ah, okay, I thought you meant who gives a shit about Breitbart, but you meant the alt-right in general.

      Well, since they are pretty much running things now... Trump's favourite news site is Brietbart, Bannon is replacing experienced generals heading up the military etc. I'd say that most Americans should give a shit. Today's Brietbart headlines are tomorrow's policy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And could you possibly think of a way to get the general population faster fed up with it?

      Quite frankly, anyone who can muster two brain cells can easily see where this is heading, and let's put it mildly, it ain't quite in sync with the "anti-establishment" agenda that Trump was riding on.

      If that ain't enough to open a few eyes... well, then it's time to leave the sinking ship and let them go down. You can't save them all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I really, really hope you are right about that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So do I. I like the US. It's a fun country. A bit insane on the edges, but that's what's likable about it.

      But let's face it. The fringe groups do not represent the majority. The majority wants peace, safety and most of all they want to be left alone, enjoy their life, have a BBQ or two and watch the Superbowl. They're not interested in groundbreaking changes in society, actually, they oppose them. At least if forced upon them.

      Most of all, people don't like being told that they cannot or mustn't do something. And all fringe groups will eventually piss everyone else off by demanding just that. In other words, just give them enough rope to hang themselves and they'll dutifully comply.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And the "alt-right" that sort of exists now has nothing to do with feminist gaming shit, either.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:"She fought the alt-right and won" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "which does look rather impressive"

      Does it? I went there and found it rendered as a plain white page. I do not view any content that depends on JS for display.

    14. Re: "She fought the alt-right and won" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you John. If everybody would just Google John Flynt Brianna Wu, they would have all the information they need to ignore the fuck out of this spoiled nut.

  19. The last thing we need right now ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... is another goddam non-politician with an axe to grind.

    Her personal shit is not on my to do list.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  20. oh, I have to donate to her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You go, girl! You show those evil RethugliKKKans how the country should be run! I'm sure you'll be terribly effective at promoting liberal causes!

    And if arguments fail you, you can always claim that Paul Ryan sent you death threats!

  21. Learn what that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actionable lead simply means that they may want to follow up. Considering the number of fake and self inflicted "threats" it becomes silly to take any more seriously. Besides, it's name calling. The FBI has more important things to do than worry about hurt feelings.

    Me telling you to pound sand up your ass until you die is not a crime. Action can be a crime, not words. Study basic justice principles and the US Constitution. After that, go pound sand up your ass until you die.

    1. Re:Learn what that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admitting to call someone and threaten to kill them at least 40 times is generally considered to be "actionable".

      Maybe you should actually study case law.

    2. Re:Learn what that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "someone" was Wu and her friends setting up fake accounts. Maybe you should check the facts of the case, water head!

    3. Re:Learn what that means by Demena · · Score: 1

      So, someone releasing your phone, number, address and tax records is free speech protected by the constitution is it? I am not American but the constitution is (In my not so humble opinion) about the third greatest political document in history. I suggest to you "Study basic justice principles and the US Constitution". Be ashamed because a foreigner knows better than that. But, hey, that is not an uncommon thing...

    4. Re:Learn what that means by Demena · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should. The 40 referred to one little terminal monkey (who apologised) not to Wu.

    5. Re:Learn what that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name, phone number, and address are all public record. Depending on where and how the tax records were acquired they may or may not be public. If not that would be an actionable offense, a felony iirc.

    6. Re:Learn what that means by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      So, someone releasing your phone, number, address and tax records is free speech protected by the constitution is it?

      Yes? Shitty thing to do, but in the US we go to extremes to protect free speech. I'd say it's one of the few things actually still working as intended after all the judicial fuckery we've had going on over the last 50 years.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Learn what that means by Demena · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your retraction. Words can be crimes.

    8. Re:Learn what that means by Demena · · Score: 1

      So please send me Trump's tax records. Words can be crimes under US law (and most if not all other states). To state otherwise is to propagate falsehood.

    9. Re:Learn what that means by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      So please send me Trump's tax records.

      I don't have them, but if I did it wouldn't be a crime to send them to you.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:Learn what that means by Demena · · Score: 1

      I think that you will find that not to be the case. Unless Trump releases them they remain a private matter between he and the IRS.

      Words have legal impact. There are privacy laws. There are also laws about hate speech. It is illegal to make threats. Cry fire in a theatre. Etc.

      You are simply mistaken.

    11. Re:Learn what that means by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      There are privacy laws

      Trump could sue me if we had a non-disclosure agreement. But I don't have any such arrangement, so if I had his tax returns there's nothing criminal about me releasing them, and only possible civil penalties if the release of said returns damaged Trump in some way.

      There are also laws about hate speech

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Maybe in your shit euro country, but there's no such thing as "hate speech laws" in the US. I can spew whatever hate and bile I want and the government can't do a thing to me. My employer might not like it so much, and I might lose friends, but I can straight up advocate for gassing ethnic minorities if I want and there's nothing the government can do.

      It is illegal to make threats

      Read up on "true threats" in the US. You have to be really, really credible in order for death threats to be illegal in the US. Anonymous internet threats over video games never meet that criteria.

      We take free speech very seriously in the US, to an extent Europeans do not understand.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Learn what that means by Demena · · Score: 1

      Get your facts correct.

    13. Re:Learn what that means by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You're the one who thinks there are hate speech laws in the US. Could you link me one?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    14. Re:Learn what that means by Demena · · Score: 1

      No. I am more than fed up with you and your silliness. Since you are so silly, I suggest you go somewhere very public and start talking to everyone about how Trump, should be, must be assassinated and see how long you last before you are arrested. The stupid is strong in you.

  22. They are all a disgrace by gravewax · · Score: 0

    Neither side of this fight is innocent. All parties need to be thrown in jail for wasting FBI time, that includes Brianna and her cry wolf corrupt friends and that adolescent morons that enable them with their childish attacks.

    1. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [T]hat includes Brianna and her cry wolf corrupt friends

      Just to provide us with a canonical example of victim blaming ... but I'm confident you can improve on it.

    2. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spend 10 seconds googling moron, you would immediately find the details of her fake accounts she used to abuse herself to claim she was attacked. that is just for Brianna, this whole mess also started over faked reviews created by supposedly independent journalists.

    3. Re:They are all a disgrace by gravewax · · Score: 1

      have you been living in a bubble? their are no victims here except maybe the authorities that have to deal with it. Briana was caught creating fake accounts to post fake attacks. This whole mess started with corrupt journalism which escalated into the corrupt individuals successfully turning it into an sexism issue which was enabled by the idiots that attacked them in that fashion. You don't have to believe me though their are a thousand articles out their detailing the whole saga from start to finish, you just need to avoid any that directly support one side or the other as ALL sides have acted shamefully.

    4. Re:They are all a disgrace by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      [T]hat includes Brianna and her cry wolf corrupt friends

      Just to provide us with a canonical example of victim blaming ... but I'm confident you can improve on it.

      haha you just did the same thing you were decrying?

    5. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha you just did the same thing you were decrying?

      No, not at all.

    6. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was confident and you didn't disappoint.

      have you been living in a bubble?

      Oh the irony!

      Briana was caught creating fake accounts to post fake attacks.

      You know I did the 10 sec google search the AC above suggested and I came up with this. Now I don't know if this is any more accurate than weakly evidenced claims floating around that Wu self-attacked via fake accounts. However, given the extreme vitriol directed against Wu, the idea of setting up false-flag accounts to do what scores of haters were already doing willingly doing already seems far fetched in the extreme. Circulating these unsubstantiated rumours, accusing victims of victimising themselves, really does take Victim Blaming to a new level.

      I was confident and you didn't disappoint.

    7. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet another apologist. always making excuses for others actions or pretending they didn't happen. you are truly a sad individual. Perhaps before trying to defend the indefensible you should try doing your research.

    8. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your evidence refuting is someones blog saying nah uh not true lol and you are claiming he is the one with the issues lol

    9. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But I did the research. Just a bunch of people screaming at each other and making ridiculous claims of faked accounts the evidence for which can only be bought if you are already drunk on the alt-right conspiracy kool-aid. It's a ridiculous idea that Brianna Wu would even need to do this, just look at the hate here!

      The very simple truth here is that #gamergate was a co-ordinated hate attack, all else is just to excuse that. In supporting these flakey claims, and thus attempting to exonerate the about the actual trolls, you are the apologist. Next thing you tell me this was all about "journalistic integrity"!

    10. Re:They are all a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your evidence refuting

      Evidence refuting an extra-ordinary claim?

      someones blog saying ...

      ... is also a good description of the "evidence" supposed to prove the assertion as well.

  23. I'm getting old by guruevi · · Score: 0

    Millenial snowflakes running for congress... I'm getting old, only a few years ago I was not even eligible to run, now it seems I'm too old to even start.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  24. We give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lady, no one gives a fuck.

    You think? You just watch our donations rolling in dude.

    1. Re:We give a fuck by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You think? You just watch our donations rolling in dude.

      Because that worked so well for Crooked Hillary. Have fun throwing your money away at an unstable, unlikable tranny.

    2. Re:We give a fuck by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      If she wins, I'm going to decide I'm a gender, age, and race fluid opposer of rape culture and despite having the outward physical appearance of a 40 year old chubby white man, I'm actually a gender fluid intelligence that identifies as younger than my physical projection and am black - and that on behalf of trans-gender and oppressed races everywhere, I'm running for Congress as well. #SJW2018

    3. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      Why the conditional?

      You say you can decide things about your identity. I simply do not believe you. You can not decide these things. You can claim to choose but you can not. These things are or they are not. Possibly except for the younger bit. We all identify as younger than we are at some stages in life. SO it seems to me that you are one who believes that gay, trans, whatever is something you choose rather than something you are inflicted with.

      That does not seem to be the case for the information we have. Best guess at the moment is that it is not a choice. Is it a choice for you? If "she wins" (wins what I don't know) could you really live up to your claim and become a "gender, age, and race fluid opposer of rape culture". Could you do it and make it stick? Could you be happy with those choices?

      I would really be interested in your reply if it is a serious one.

    4. Re:We give a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      For a million, I'll be whatever you want.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      I do not believe that for one minute. I doubt you do either.

    6. Re:We give a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      For a million, I'd fuck a girl. Well, enough Viagra and a few pics of a hot guy provided. Close your eyes and think of England.

      It's not like I have to pretend for long. Only long enough to get the donations rolling in.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      You are answering the wrong question. I am trying to get Notabadguy that he would not, could not change is lifestyle as a matter of choice. He knows it but he will not admit it.

    8. Re:We give a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That offer only good to him but not me? Is it because I'm gay?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:We give a fuck by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      What? Good grief.

      We're talking about political power. If someone as disastrous as Brianna Wu can get elected to Congress running on a platform of "The FBI should have jailed that kid that made threatening phone calls" then ...

      You know what? Just nevermind. My point has flown over your head.

    10. Re:We give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gay is either a choice or a defect. Either way, it flies in the face of evolution.

    11. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      No, stop being a dick. I have no problem with gay. But are you trying to say (as a gay person) that it is a personal choice and you could choose not to be gay? Because my response is to say that that is bullshit. Ans that is what this thread is about.

    12. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      Yep (sarcasm) just like grandmothers. Choice or defect? Well, we know it is not a choice because you cannot choose to be gay or straight. So, by your statement it must be a defect. Hope you are not one of those crazy religious people who you have a huge problem with your worldview.

      It is not a choice and it is not a defect. It is just the way the world is. You know, like reality.

    13. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      And mine over yours apparently.

      The USA seems to have become polarised beyond any degree I have ever seen before. I am not sure how things will pan out. I have no respect for Brianna WU but attacking her for being trans and going out of the way to use gendered terms offensively is beyond the pale. Criticise her for what she has said or done wrong by all means but not simply for existing.

    14. Re:We give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's saying she capitalized on sjw buzzwords. sarcasm much? no, you abviously have a mission here

    15. Re:We give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't have to change his lifestyle.
      He only has to pretend that he does.
      As the left has taught us, race, gender, and everything else that makes up a person are all just social constructs that can be changed at will.
      Who are you to say what a young black gender fluid intelligence should act and look like?

    16. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      I dunno if you are the same AC or not. But this ends here. You are not arguing in good faith and indeed, counter to your own interests if you are indeed gay. Being gay or transgender is not a fucking choice and anyone who is gay or transgender knows that.

      Thus the only logical possibility remaining is that you are a troll. Farewell.

    17. Re:We give a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If it's a choice, you should have no problem fucking a guy (provided you're a straight guy). You can choose to, so go ahead and do it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:We give a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I could easily pretend to not be gay for the right money, that's what I said and that's what the whole sub-thread is about. What Notabadguy said a few posts up the hill was that if she wins this, he'll go ahead and pretend to be some genderfluid opponent of rape culture. He chose to word it in such a way that he would actually be this, but the context makes it very obvious that he would pretend for the money.

      That's what the whole deal is about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:We give a fuck by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Please re-read the subthread.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:We give a fuck by Demena · · Score: 1

      And my point is that you can't pretend. His point is that she is pretending. He does not know, can not know and the only reasonable assumption is that she is not lying as who would wish that on themselves?

      Look, I do not like the person but aim at the target not the person. He is just arguing ad hominem. That is both worthless and worthless behaviour.

      Anyway I am done on this topic. (I hope)

  25. Meine Ehre heisst Treue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then we can treat you as a partisan hypocrite.

    C'mon, when has SuperKendall ever denied being a partisan hack? Check his posting record, 100% party loyalty, on every issue. Nothing hypocritical about that kind of ideological devotion.

  26. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the shit is this zero information post getting upvoted as informative?

  27. Sign of the times by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder where Brianna Wu got the strange notion that an internet troll could run for office and possibly win.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Sign of the times by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I wonder where Brianna Wu got the strange notion that an internet troll could run for office and possibly win.

      Like most of the far-left, she got this impression from the echo-chamber the far-left insists on living in. It's why Brexit and Trump were surprises - when you're surrounded by yes-men who agree with your (flawed) ideology it's very easy to get blind-sided by the silent majority.

      Most of the far-left behaviour is as unacceptable as the far-right behaviour. Shaming language, name-calling, attempts to silence opposing viewpoints, etc are all despicable behaviours that the centrists like myself find repugnant, while both the far-right and the far-left (like yourself) far too often find this behaviour acceptable (depending on the speaker of course).

      You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

      (Oh, yeah, pissbabies, manbabies, etc, etc, ad nauseum ... all those lovely things you previously said about the now-exonerated gamergaters).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Sign of the times by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Please let that Milo guy run against her, OH PLEASE $DEITY let that Milo guy run against her.

      Politics is rarely something that has any entertainment value, but their debates could be on pay per view and still get millions of views the world over.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Sign of the times by aevan · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't Milo actually have to be a resident? Last I knew he was still British, hence his suit for information from twitter under their laws. Twitter claimed it didn't apply to him because he was in the united states, while Milo pointed out his address was british ('else why would you have mailed it to britain' or something to that effect).

      That said, I'd love to watch it.

    4. Re:Sign of the times by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      He is? Gee, hope he ain't a Greek citizen, with the Brexit and all... ;)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Sign of the times by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      now-exonerated gamergaters

      Heh.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Sign of the times by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I agree that would be highly, highly entertaining, but Milo is a citizen of the UK.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Sign of the times by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So? Need to be a citizen of the US to run for an office? I know you have to be born there to become Prez, but otherwise I thought it's fair game?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Sign of the times by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, you need to have been a citizen for at least 7 years before you're allowed to run for Congress.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Sign of the times by Exophase · · Score: 1

      Political trolls are going to be in for a rude awakening if they think they can Trump their way through entrenched congressional districts, especially if they aren't wealthy celebrities like he is.

  28. Republican? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With that level of mistrust in federal government, she must be running as a Republican? No, maybe a Libertarian?

  29. STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I gave numbers of women who support the current "Feminists", and my numbers are not contrived by current political pandering propaganda polls. I also gave numbers on pro-life women, who you chose to ignore. Those numbers are also not propaganda motivated polls. Continue living in your bubble, fucking idiot.

    1. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I gave numbers of women who support the current "Feminists", and my numbers are not contrived by current political pandering propaganda polls. I also gave numbers on pro-life women, who you chose to ignore. Those numbers are also not propaganda motivated polls. Continue living in your bubble, fucking idiot.

      I'm sorry, your 7% number was pretty obviously made up or talking about something completely different. I mean 10% of American men consider themselves strong feminists.

      You really expect me to believe you found a legitimate poll that suggested only 7% of Americans support the feminist movement?

      As for abortion they don't have the exact question to match the direction of the Trump administration, but only 19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal.

      I don't know where you think the goalposts are, I'm not even sure if you're on the right field.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I think that abortion should be legal to anyone, but should only be paid for by the tax payers if it is needed to save the life of the mother or if the mother was a rape victim. Otherwise - pay for it yourself, I do not want to pay for the result of your conscious and consensual act (after all, you could have used protection etc).

      Just like I think that the government (I live in a country with national health care) should pay when somebody has to fix his tooth, but if you just want to make your teeth look whiter or implant a gold tooth, then you get to pay for it yourself.

    3. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The 10% of men number you pulled out of your ass can be explained by "dudes that can't get laid any other way" pretty easily. Yes, it's higher than women who don't see the current feminism as beneficial or helpful for society (and that poll is from a mostly leftist site!). Why not search for the number I gave you instead of trolling you twat!

      The poll you gave on abortion being illegal is also skewed, but dumb fucks like you can't figure out the game. Try this one. Making abortions criminal as a general rule is not the same as making them illegal especially when there are circumstances where most pro-life people have no problem with abortion. Pregnancy from rape and incest for example, or in cases where the mother's life is at risk. Quite a different from people who have the perspective that "I can't afford the baby" is not a good enough reason to have an abortion, let alone "I don't feel like being responsible for my choices.

      I won't answer any more of your dumb ass trolling, you dumb fucking troll. You can go find facts if you really want to, but like most useful idiots you won't.

    4. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I think that abortion should be legal to anyone, but should only be paid for by the tax payers if it is needed to save the life of the mother or if the mother was a rape victim.

      I'd add health of the mother and serious foetal abnormalities to that list or you're going to end up with a lot of very necessary abortions uncovered.

      Otherwise - pay for it yourself, I do not want to pay for the result of your conscious and consensual act (after all, you could have used protection etc).

      Just like I think that the government (I live in a country with national health care) should pay when somebody has to fix his tooth, but if you just want to make your teeth look whiter or implant a gold tooth, then you get to pay for it yourself.

      Obesity, smoking, drunk driving, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of health care spending is caring for conditions that are the result of people's "conscious and consensual" acts. And an abortion isn't a cosmetic procedure like tooth whitening.

      At the same time people don't have lasting health consequences from having non-medically necessary abortions. There's not a great metaphor either way.
      I'm not sure there's a good metaphor

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you support financial abortions?

    6. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by Demena · · Score: 1

      No, you gave nothing. Some Anonymous Coward did several posts above yours. But even that person gave nothing. An apocryphal "about 7%" with no support at all is giving less than nothing. You have not even defined terms. What is this "Feminism" that you speak of? Who comprises it? Are there any internal divisions?

      You gave nothing. Except negativity. Bubbles, bubbles, every where, Nor any drop to think.....

    7. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by Demena · · Score: 1

      You poor, pool fool. So in love with your own image of your mentality that you do not even see the traps you are walking into.

      Next, women will have prove rape to get an abortion.

      We will get a lot more false rape reports.

      What will happen to someone who obtains an abortion on false statements? A murder charge?

      That is just off the top of my head. I am sure there is much else. How you going to handle all that oh-so-smart one?

      It is not smart to call someone dumb and an idiot when you make dumb and idiotic statement yourself. You have to do better, not worse.

    8. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >but should only be paid for by the tax payers if it is needed to save the life of the mother

      Well that would be MORE progressive than the law BEFORE Trump took office. Current US law in this regard is the Helm's act which prohibits use of tax funding for abortions. Period. No exceptions allowed.

      This applies both to foreign aid and domestic funding (for example for planned parenthood). They have to use OTHER funding sources if they want to offer abortion and limit the tax money to non-abortion services (of which they supply a multitude), and are subject to audits to prove their compliance with this.

      So what the fuck exactly do you think Trump did ? Because what he SAID he did "prevent tax money from funding abortions" has nothing to DO with what he did and is an act of congress over which the white house has no say to begin with. Even if we elected Germaine Greer president she couldn't allow tax money to be used for abortions because it's prohibited by an act of congress.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >I'm not sure there's a good metaphor

      The best I've found is organ donation. Like organ donation - we're talking about saving other people's lives (in fact stopping an abortion saves ONE life, organ donation saves many). Yet organ donation requires your consent. WE have so much respect for bodily autonomy that we will not interfere with it EVEN AFTER YOU ARE DEAD to save lives unless you agreed to it while you were alive.
      So why the hell should your bodily autonomy STOP existing when the life that could be saved is a fetus ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      >I'm not sure there's a good metaphor

      The best I've found is organ donation. Like organ donation - we're talking about saving other people's lives (in fact stopping an abortion saves ONE life, organ donation saves many). Yet organ donation requires your consent. WE have so much respect for bodily autonomy that we will not interfere with it EVEN AFTER YOU ARE DEAD to save lives unless you agreed to it while you were alive.
      So why the hell should your bodily autonomy STOP existing when the life that could be saved is a fetus ?

      But you just wiped out the bodily autonomy of the prospective mother by forcing her to go through with an unwanted process.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re: STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood me. My post is about why abortion must be kept legal.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      As I understand, he again removed the funding from foreign organizations (that is, the USA does not have to fund them at all anyway, but does so out of good will or for publicity) that offer abortions. As I understand, this is what all Republicans do when they assume office and all Democrats reverse it when they assume office.

    13. Re: STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No he removed funding from organisations that even talk about abortions. Every republican since reagan has - but its no less evil for that. It would be better if they just stripped aid altogether. That would kill less people than this does.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  30. It's over, but they didn't win by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The election *is* over and time to move on. Hillary won't be running again, so it's a bit pointless to be talking about her, agreed. However:

    > I've never seen people who's canddates win,

    People who dislike scumbags like Hillary didn't see their candidate win. The US elected a different style of bad. Kasich, for example, dropped out in May, so no, "their" candidates didn't win.

    Only amongst very uninformed people who treat national policy as like a ball game, where they root for "their team" does acknowledging Hillary's serious faults equate to rooting for Trump.

    Now, all Americans live in a country where Trump is in fact President. Those of us who voted against him, such as myself, have Trump as our president - even though I voted against him twice. Those who favored Trump now have him as President. Hillary's speech about this was right on the money. She said all of us will now, if we're smart, will try to support good policies that he proposes and oppose bad ones. The election is over, Hillary has moved on. Now we press for good policy, the best policies we can from our President. A few years from now we'll have a chance to discuss who the next President should be.

    1. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Hillary's speech about this was right on the money. She said all of us will now, if we're smart, will try to support good policies that he proposes and oppose bad ones

      Yeah, I really wish we were more focused on the policies. Here is what Trump said about his recent executive order. Instead of just calling him a big baby, or racist, or narcissistic whatever, I'd like to see some actual analysis of his policies. For example, here are some questions worth discussing:

      1) Is there a better to way to keep terrorists from entering the country? Is that a worthy goal? How would you do it?
      2) Is Trump aware of the problems he's caused to some immigrants stuck in the airport? (I think the answer is yes)
      3) Will immigration really resume in ~90 days, when "we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies?"

      At this point there's no reason to continue hating on Trump. Yes, he seems rather despicable, but dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective (the protests are falling on deaf ears).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective

      I used to think that way too. But intelligent people dispassionately analyzed his policy statements during the election, and arrived at two conclusions:
      1. The few concrete policy statements he made, would never work. (Ex: Building a wall, tax plans, etc.)
      2. He made so few coherent statements that it was hard to figure out what his policy objectives are.

      Even now, most of his executive orders are nonsense. Hiring freezes don't work (gee, if only we had a businessman at the helm who knew such things...), an executive order can't build a wall or conjure up more border agents. Not that more border agents is what we need.

      Ultimately, it didn't matter what he said. A large group of people voted for him because of the (R) next to his name, and because he spoke powerfully. It really didn't matter *what* he said, more like *how* he said it and *who* he is.

    3. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The election *is* over and time to move on. Hillary won't be running again, so it's a bit pointless to be talking about her, agreed. However:

      > I've never seen people who's canddates win,

      People who dislike scumbags like Hillary didn't see their candidate win.

      How does any of what you wrote address my statement that the angry Pro-Trump people are getting angrier every day?

      Perhaps this will be the administration that restores America to th eposition it held right after World War two, and all will be well.

      But political groups that use anger as their core principle don't often work out very well.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I used to think that way too. But intelligent people dispassionately analyzed his policy statements during the election, and arrived at two conclusions: 1. The few concrete policy statements he made, would never work. (Ex: Building a wall, tax plans, etc.)

      Here's the thing. You didn't even read what he said. Here it is again. If you don't want to read it, that's fine, but be aware that if you don't, you're not contributing to the conversation, you're detracting from it.

      2. He made so few coherent statements that it was hard to figure out what his policy objectives are.

      That might have been an excuse during the election, but actions speak louder than words, and it's pretty clear that he meant some of the words he said during the election. Do you really think he didn't mean it when he said he would block Muslim countries from coming into the US? Or that he wouldn't build the wall?

      I'll be honest, I didn't particularly take him seriously during the election, but at this point, it's a lot easier to see what his policy objects are because he's actually implementing them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly because you made arguments against them that they wouldn't work.

      Obama approved a very large border wall expansion in 2013 (oh, right, a fence isn't a wall ? When it's a metal fence with barbed wire it sure seems like ) - but he's a special snowflake, so it's cool if he does it. He does it for peace prize. Trump does it for racismz.

      All the arguments that Mexico wouldn't "pay for it" ? Of course they wouldn't literally write a check - and what's the first thing that happens ? Trump negotiating how they will pay in other ways.

      I'm not saying it's right to do, but the arguments put forward by the left were fucking retarded.

    6. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be honest, I didn't particularly take him seriously during the election, but at this point, it's a lot easier to see what his policy objects are because he's actually implementing them.

      Do not confuse overt actions with underlying objectives. I have no idea if he implemented the Muslim ban because he wants to block Muslims or he selected the countries he did (ignoring Saudi-Arabia, the primary source of Terrorism worldwide) because he wants to block poor people whilst supporting Islamism.

    7. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Those are good questions. What have you seen in Trumps actions (and words) that would give you an indication one way or another? That is the kind of analysis that starts to get interesting.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be honest, I didn't particularly take him seriously during the election, but at this point, it's a lot easier to see what his policy objects are because he's actually implementing them.

      Do not confuse overt actions with underlying objectives. I have no idea if he implemented the Muslim ban because he wants to block Muslims or he selected the countries he did (ignoring Saudi-Arabia, the primary source of Terrorism worldwide) because he wants to block poor people whilst supporting Islamism.

      Ummm, the selection of countries was done by OBAMA, not Trump.
      I expect the list would have been pretty much the same, though.

      Saudi Arabia and some others were excluded for economic and political reasons. This afternoon the Trumpster had a several-hours long
      conversation with the leader of Saudi Arabia and got them to agree to provide a safe haven for refugees on middle-eastern soil, rather
      than import them into the USA. He also got commitments for them to cooperate in fighting ISIS. We have always had an uneasy alliance
      with the Saudis, because: oil (of course). It is our mutual interest to stabilize the oil situation. Even though that kingdom is one of the
      most oppressive and dangerous.

    9. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Oddly that's not what I see. What I see are liberals who are getting angrier every day. You seem to be projecting.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    10. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      concrete policy statements

      Building a wall

      Heh! Will the wall be built out of concrete, like in Berlin? That would be lovely. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well then, here goes.

      >Is there a better to way to keep terrorists from entering the country?
      About a million of them, which were already being used.
      > Is that a worthy goal?
      Nah, the vetting process on refugees is already a hugely stringent thing that takes many years. Terrorists would not generally use that way - it's so much easier and more effective to spread propaganda to people ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY. Trying to smuggle new ones in is much more difficult. On the other hand there is a massive payout in SAYING you are doing that, because it means the people you want to kill tomorrow have fewer places to run to.

      > How would you do it?
      Definitely NOT by being a dick and giving ISIS more propaganda fuel (as John McCain put it), I would keep them out by replacing the drone program with a much bigger food aid program. If I want to keep terrorists from attacking me, I would make them very unpopular back home - and the best way to do that is to make myself very popular. I would refuse to use incendiary phrases like "radical islamic terrorism" because I want to maintain solid friendships with the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism even MORE than we do (seeing as they make up the vast majority of victims) - I want them on my side, I want them to tell me if their neighbour is planning a bomb plot. Basically - everything Obama did. Would I go any further ? No, because I can't actually kick out the group which both the FBI and the NSA has rated the single greatest terrorist risk in the USA: rednecks who join "militia" movements. If Trumps actions were about kicking out terrorists - he'd kick out those fuckers... trouble is most of them voted for him.

      > Is Trump aware of the problems he's caused to some immigrants stuck in the airport? (I think the answer is yes)
      He for damn sure is aware NOW. I'm pretty sure he was informed of his first major court loss. A more important question is: should he have foreseen that ? Well yeah. Traditionally EOs that change something like this do NOT take "immediate effect". Both Obama and Bush had, at times, limited immigration ban orders (much more limited than this) but they all gave the airports a bit of fair warning. "With effect 4 days from now" kind of thing, so the world's airports have a chance to implement the new rules, understand them, and ensure that nobody affected by the ban is in-transit when the ban goes in effect. What this speaks to is Trump's known complete lack of policy experience, his clearly not paying for people who DO have experience to advise him (or ignoring their advice) and resulting in a flagrant display of flagrant incompetence that make even the usual legendary government incompetence look like sterling successes.

      >At this point there's no reason to continue hating on Trump. Yes, he seems rather despicable, but dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective (the protests are falling on deaf ears).
      No, those are not mutually exclusive actions - we need BOTH. Even if no protest changes his mind on anything - the protests are galvanizing and uniting the opposition and allowing us all to keep each other energised and motivated. And that is going to be decisive. Just ask any general how good your odds are at winning any fight with a demoralised army. The protests are providing morale, even if they do nothing else - they are worth it just for that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by radl33t · · Score: 1

      We are witnessing a poorly and hastily conceived attempt to fulfill campaign promises from a team that doesn't understand public policy.

    13. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, Trump alone knows how the hell he expects DHS to hire 5000 new staff while obeying the hiring freeze he instituted.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      One of Trump's policies that rarely gets discussed is his insistence that there was widespread voter fraud and his determination to have it investigated.

      The report he often cites as evidence looked at the 2010 election and found no evidence of fraud. There were lots of errors, like people who had died or moved away remaining on the register, but no evidence of actual fraud. Similarly, the only confirmed case from 2016 was a Trump voter who voted twice. In fact there have already been investigations and partial recounts of the 2016 result, which also found no evidence of widespread fraud.

      What this appears to be a is an attempt to solidify his power. Come 2020, perhaps the election will be cancelled or the result rejected because of imaginary voter fraud. At the very least, this is the standard excuse used by Republicans looking to introduce voter registration laws that target Democrat voters.

      This is an assault on American democracy. People should be outraged by it, even more so than the Muslim ban.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing. You didn't even read what he said. Here it is again

      You linked to the Muslim ban tweet, but this thread of discussion wasn't about the Muslim ban. I was responding to your statement that logically analyzing his goals and policies was a useful approach. It didn't work during the election. He goes against his own advisors. He event says that they agree with him when their written statements and testimonies in congress say the opposite. He doesn't listen to anyone, and the voters didn't care.

      So let us talk about this travel ban.

      First, I appreciate that Trump's "tweets" now consist of sane-sounding statements instead of just shouting. That's good.

      Trump is going to have a hard time getting me to believe his policy isn't racist or religous-ist (is that a word?). He uses the term "Muslim countries" and during the election he talked about how "The Muslim's have to work with us." He blamed domestic terrorist attacks on Islam even if they were conducted by non-Muslims. Bah, there's so many examples of his blatent racism that I won't bother recanting them. He has a big hill to climb to get someone to believe he isn't racist.

      Trump's tweet doesn't mention that his actual executive order specifically allows for travel by people of other religions. The truth is, this probably actually makes sense, because in many of those countries minority religions are persecuted. Our existing visa process makes openings for people who are fleeing a country for religious protection though. Despite his claim, his actions seem different from Obama's, because Obama blocked issuing new visas, not blocking people who already had visas. And when Obama blocked Iraq, it was a country we were actively at war with, that had no government. Obama didn't stop family members who were returning home from getting on their planes like Trump did. This fits with Trump's general "blanket" approach to things. No time for nuance or subtlety here.

      I think radl33t (900691)'s comment below is spot-on. This, like his executive order about the wall, was just a hasty attempt to fulfill a campaign promise without any actual thought into what would be fair and effective.

    16. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      The stated reason for choosing those seven countries (the same ones Obama selected for increased scrutiny in 2011) is because they lack functioning governments that can provide meaningful information that can be used for security screening. It's hard to get someone's criminal record from the "government" of Somalia. Saudi Arabia has a functioning government with government records, so their citizens can be screened.

      This all appears to be objectively true. If it were about "banning muslims" he would have included, as you say, nations like Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, etc. I hate Islam and would much prefer an actual muslim ban, but this appears to be security and documentation related, not part of any effective anti-Islamification plan.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    17. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      "Ignoring Saudi-Arabia"

      Like it or not, they are our ally. When have we ever barred travel from allies?

    18. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an assault on American democracy.

      You should be ecstatic, given all the shade you threw at democracy after Brexit.

    19. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Oddly that's not what I see. What I see are liberals who are getting angrier every day. You seem to be projecting.

      A lot of people are not happy about the election. But then losers often do become angry. That's part of losing. Winners are not supposed to be angry.

      As for myself, well, I don't think this is going to end well at all, but I'm at an age where I don't care a whole lot what happens to me, and if this is what America wants, well - they voted for it.

      But angry? No. I guess I would describe my thoughts as kind of gallows humor, and part of that I feel a llittle guilty about, because a lot of people might be losing their lives soon, as I think there is a better than 50 percent chance that we might have another civil war. But killing each other is a core competency of humans, it's in our genetics, so not much we can do about it.

      So that is the essence of my thoughts.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's a much better post, keep it up. We need more rational people like you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What this appears to be a is an attempt to solidify his power. Come 2020, perhaps the election will be cancelled or the result rejected because of imaginary voter fraud

      Seriously, this "cancel the election" line again? Don't remember when everyone was saying the same thing about Bush?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, those are not mutually exclusive actions - we need BOTH. Even if no protest changes his mind on anything - the protests are galvanizing and uniting the opposition and allowing us all to keep each other energised and motivated. And that is going to be decisive

      I doubt it, protesting is too emotional. Protestors aren't going to be able to keep up their energy for the next two years until the next election.

      Incidentally, there's a fun quote at the bottom of the page right now:

      "This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon." -- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by kuzb · · Score: 1

      This makes sense to me, thank you for explaining your position. If we're being honest Americans did have poor options for their choices. I do think Trump was the better choice though. I'm not sure it will end in quite the doomsday scenario you're describing. Change is probably the scariest thing for people, but we've beaten the odds before. Then again, it's not like I can see the future.

      I just find it odd that Liberals keep trying to make it look like Conservatives are raving lunatics who use any excuse to be provocative. Their effort to do so speaks more about them than it does about anyone else.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    24. Re:It's over, but they didn't win by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can only speak for the Trump supporters I know, but I haven't seen any of them getting angry. I see many people shaking their heads at all the stupid riots and destruction, but that is far and away from angry.

      I voted for Johnson, I couldn't support either Hillary or Trump.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  31. Slashdot be more nerdy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you love watching unhinged people self destruct, Wu never dissapoints. However I come to Slashdot for tech, updates on Tesla, latest light Linux and NASA news, not a parade of the delusional.
     

    1. Re:Slashdot be more nerdy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Every newspaper has a cartoon section, Slashdot has SJW news.

      Hey, we all need something to chuckle about in our day.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. So Mr. John Flynt wants to double down on failure. by sethstorm · · Score: 2

    It didn't work the first time around for her, it's only going to be worse to think he's any more important by being a Congresscritter.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  33. College degree needs FBI investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fairly certain Mr. Wu has lied about attending college, as someone running for congress I believe this warrants investigation by the FBI, or a simple google search.

  34. Gaymergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is all thanks

  35. Re:"Actionable leads" by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    There were plenty of "actionable leads" in the report, but either the FBI or one of the more local DA's all just refused to prosecute. Several people admitted to doing it (death threats), but "promised not to do it again". I don't know anything about this woman, but the report says that the FBI simply failed.

    That is the EXACT opposite of what the report says. They weren't actionable leads. That's why they weren't acted upon.

    In fact, this report pretty much exonerates GamerGate and proves exactly what we've been saying all along. There may have been "death threats," but they weren't actually threats of harm, and they were mostly sent by idiots from the chans or other young kids. In fact, the only one they had to do any major investigative work on was the false flag targeting MrRepzion. Others, like the one Antia used to steal from that college, were outright hoaxes.

    Oh, and mentioned on page 163 is that Brianna got harassed by about 40 phone calls. The only GamerGate chat Brianna has ever been in is GamerGhazi's mod chat. (Before they banned her for being a batshit insane loser.) In other words, that was a Social Justice Warrior harassing Brianna because Brianna is such an insufferable idiot that even the more asinine of the regressive left can't stand her.

  36. No credible threats by ezdiy · · Score: 2

    The report quality is adequate to run of the mill federal cases of bomb threats and swatting investigations.

    It is nice to see a nod given to SA in the report (though it does not go into much detail) - goons, true to their name, were the ones often pitting reddit/chans vs wu/sarkeesian against each other (by false flagging both camps) just for the sake of spectacular flamewars such internet cockfights tend to generate.

  37. GamerGate's discussion about this. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some Gamergate threads about it:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...

    The new narrative from the Regressive Left is "Waah, the FBI didn't do enough work to find the harassment we KNOW simply MUST be there."

    The reality is the FBI investigated GamerGate and exonerated us. The harassment was either kids being stupid, obvious 4chan memes, or strangely enough True Blood fans getting pissed.

    Turns out it actually is about ethics in games journalism. (But really is about a Culture War in Gaming that the Left has soundly lost.)

    1. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I make sweeping political generalizations based on reddit posts, take me seriously as an INTELLECTUAL!" - lol? Go to bed, nazi. You have a big day of getting struck down tomorrow.

    2. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Not finding something actionable isn't exoneration - its being unable to find enough that would likely result in a (meaningful) conviction or is out of jurisdiction.

    3. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Technically correct, which is why I said exoneration, not "nothing actionable."

    4. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Put it this way, the FBI found stuff linked to Something Awful and 8chan's /baphomet boards than anyone associated with posting to Gamergate forums. A fact which Gamergate had been claiming all along -- that 3rd party trolls were the ones stirring up trouble.

    5. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a culture of "innocent untill proven guilty" not finding any evidence of guilt pretty much means you have been exonerated of guilt, doesn't it?

      Or do you think because someone has been accused of something they are therefore guilty and only evidence of innoncence can exonerate them?

    6. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by naturjunge · · Score: 1

      FBI "exonerates" gamergate = it was all just a lol FBI "exonerates" hillary = shes guilty and should go to jail! Remind me again its the regressive left that has the double standards?

    7. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I don't get how this is about "the left". Harassment is wrong. But someone may have created their own attacks. What one person does, isn't representative of any group. And 11 links to the same reddit thread -- I thought this was slashdot; "news for Nerds" remember? Besides, It's redundant. I have to say; "I don't give a shit" 11 times.

      And as for Progressives and the Left -- I concede the culture wars. Have your pyrrhic victories but brush your teeth before bed because marshmallows cause cavities.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    8. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FBI "exonerates" gamergate = it was all just a lol

      FBI exonerates gamergate = it was one 15-year-old kid from Brianna Wu's chatroom, an "over 9000" copypasta job that Something Awful took credit for, and somebody false-flagging a gamergater. Those were the most serious incidents that were most closely connected to gamergate. That was the worst of the "gamergate harassment" that the media has been screaming about, and it wasn't even them.

      FBI "exonerates" hillary = shes guilty and should go to jail!

      FBI "exonerates" hillary = the head of the FBI outlines exactly how Hillary broke the law and then decides not to file charges against her.

      Remind me again its the regressive left that has the double standards?

      Sure, just ask "could Richard Spencer's crew of sieg-heiling Nazis get away with doing the same shit that the regressive leftists are doing?"

      Could the alt-right get away with beating the hell out of their political opponents throughout the election season without the FBI or DHS trying to put a stop to it? Could the alt-right walk around with dicks on their foreheads in an event organized by Hamas and be praised as heroes by the media with no one ridiculing them? Could the alt-right get away with occupying airports and demanding the overthrow of the government?

    9. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by TehHustler · · Score: 1

      "us" heh. that says a lot about today's fractured world

      --

      TheHustler
      http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
      http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
    10. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by radl33t · · Score: 1

      (But really is about a Culture War in Gaming that the Left has soundly lost.)

      I don't follow any of GG as in I know very little of what it means, but your statement seems like a fairly insane and premature conclusion.

    11. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out it actually is about ethics in games journalism. (But really is about a Culture War in Gaming that the Left has soundly lost.)

      Do you kids realize how ridiculous you always sound when you pull that line? Nobody gives a fuck about gaming journalism, the ethical standards for it are minimum at best, and making it somehow a left-right issue makes you a bigger idiot than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's campaign manager combined.

    12. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >and exonerated us
      >us

      Read: hip deep in bullshit that doesn't matter fighting a war nobody cares about

      Congrats, the FBI didn't paint in a bad light some melodrama you are free to walk away from at any time.

    13. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True Blood fans getting pissed

      What's this about?

    14. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Or do you think because someone has been accused of something they are therefore guilty and only evidence of innoncence can exonerate them?

      Yes.

      Literally yes.

      Just take a look at their horrific treatment of sexuality on college campuses. Two people get drunk, have sex, girl regrets it a few weeks later? You're a rapist and will have to prove yourself innocent. BTW, you're not allowed legal council, you're not allowed to involve the police (because the accused have rights when criminal justice courts are involved), you're not allowed to ask questions, you're not allowed to examine or submit evidence, and even if somehow you're found innocent, they'll still expel you from college and leak your name so your life is ruined out of spite.

      In the world of the regressive left, the accusation IS the crime. They even have a term for it. "Listen and Believe." Because when you're demonizing an entire gender, an entire sexuality, and an skintone, it's all too easy to fall into the trap that they don't deserve basic human rights.

      Or, as the nutjobs on the left have started to say... "I'm ok with punching [people who disagree with us.] [People who disagree with us] should be afraid to leave their homes."

    15. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      The reality is the FBI investigated GamerGate and exonerated us. The harassment was either kids being stupid, obvious 4chan memes, or strangely enough True Blood fans getting pissed.

      Wait, what? True Blood fans? There has to be an interesting story here, what's going on??

    16. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, Anita Sarkeesian, the con artist who has ran two wildly successful kickstarter scams, went after True Blood for some reason. One of the investigated death threats supposedly came from a True Blood fan who got pissed off at her.

    17. Re:GamerGate's discussion about this. by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Haha, that's hilarious! Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

  38. Re:I don't think we have that long by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    The silly histrionics and theatrics are actually pretty funny. So, what is the mechanism by which you imagine this is going to happen? Specifically. What did you have in mind as the means by which the (what, military? which branch exactly?) executive branch was somehow going to suddenly overthrow the legislature and the courts, and all of the law enforcement agencies and people in the DoD were suddenly going to drop their personal sensibilities? Really, be specific, instead of delusional.

    Which part of the democracy has been dismantled in the last week that has changed in any way, structurally, from Obama's reign? Other than, of course, many of Obama's over-reaching executive orders being reversed or headed to reversal, and a the likelihood of a constructionist being placed on the SCOTUS instead of the pro-executive-power type that Clinton said she'd place.

    Is it the temporary immigration order you're worried about? Were you predicting the end of democracy when Obama did it? No? Why not?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  39. Streisand Effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Streisand effect. Blown out of proportion by the attention that too many people gave to one little snowflake.

  40. Re:"Actionable leads" by DogDude · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There may have been "death threats," but they weren't actually threats of harm, and they were mostly sent by idiots from the chans or other young kids.

    Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?

    Kid, get your head out of your ass. The report clearly explains clearly illegal behavior. People should have been arrested.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  41. She has some of the necessary qualifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess she'd fit in since she's a liar. For instance, her video of how she'd "left" her home recorded in the same room in her house as a previous video.

  42. Alt-Right 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If anything, this report proves that's what SHE did ... her victims

    Great technique! Take this as an example guys.

    Remember always portray the targets of our harassment as the aggressors while we paint ourselves as the victim. Invent improbable stories, such as them creating accounts to harass themselves, accuse them of being "the biggest bullies" on the web (actual examples not needed), and then turn around and accuse them of cultivating a "professional victim-hood." You won't believe how easily the masses lap up our alternative facts. And above all never admit defeat and never feel shame. We shouldn't have any shame arguing, for example, that the Jews framed Hitler for gassing themselves in the so-called "Death Camps." Tomorrow belongs to us.

    1. Re:Alt-Right 101 by NoZart · · Score: 2, Informative

      That sounds a lot like those third wave feminists.

    2. Re:Alt-Right 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh stop whining and grow the fuck up. Someone said something that hurt your feelings? Join the fucking club, snowflake.

    3. Re:Alt-Right 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds a lot like those third wave feminists.

      Actually no, it sounds a lot more like old-school man-hating RadFems, those 3rd wavers are just so wishy-washy ...

      But the issue here is this: there's huge difference between my wife complaining about being a victim when I bash her, and my claiming to be the victim when I bash her. A woman with a public voice who receives (even non-true) rape and death threats and the troll making those threats might indeed, as you say, "sound a lot like" each other when they claim victim-hood. The difference behind this similarity is that the woman is the actual victim the troll is the victimiser.

      It's amazing though how effective this false victim-hood is at garnering support for the haters.

  43. Re:I don't think we have that long by PaulRivers10 · · Score: 1

    It's hard to have a peaceful revolution, because there's no non-facist party. Trump is nutty, but just look at the left here - we have a power and attention hungry man, who changed into a woman, so he could complain that women were horribly oppressed and harrassed and things are so hard - as a woman, and things would be better if women were treated like men are. I'll try to lay this out. - He's a man - Chooses to become a woman - Once a woman - Spends all his/her time complaining that women are "oppressed" and harrassed and mistreated and the only reason he/she has problem is because they're a woman - It's been widely showed and rumored that this person created accounts to harrass themselves so they could continue playing the victim This person is nuts. They make Trump look sane and safe in comparison. You know how pissed some people are that Trump banned immigrants from certain countries? In Canada they something similar, they just banned single males: https://www.theguardian.com/wo... I see no difference in philosophy between these 2 kinds of facists.

  44. Re: "Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question: should the FBI start monitoring Xbox live, and immediately arrest all the prepubescent children making death threats on there?

    If not, why not?

  45. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. Arrest someone for this?
    (actual death threat in report)

    Subject: Calling all freaks (feminists!)
    My name is [redacted] of GamerGate.

    It is my understanding that a lovely young woman named [redacted sentence]

    At this moment, we have over 9000 bombs that we will use to blow up the TSC
    auditorium when [redacted sentence] You dun goofed by inviting that
    stupid feminazi to give a lecture. You're fucking dead, kiddos.
    We of GamerGate, or GamerGators, as We prefer to call ourselves, are sick and
    tired of you stupid feminists mining everything by saying it's sexist. You all need
    a hug, some tea, and maybe a gentle back massage, and what better way to pacify
    you than by burning your faces off with high-ordinance explosives?
    You can try calling the FBI to come arrest me, but I'm behind 7 proxies and you'll
    never be able to backtrace this IP. Can't Iulzback the [redacted]

    Oh, and I'm also fapping to all of your pictures right now. You‘re hot. It‘s a shame
    y0u’re about to get blown up.

    Sincerely,
    [redacted]

  46. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SJW MODS IN DA HOUSE!

  47. Meanwhile... by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One day of typical work of Roberta Williams was more important for gaming than the whole life of this prick.

    1. Re:Meanwhile... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing on that. You know that the usual social justice clique likes to scrub her out of history because she likes to make things that cater to her audience. Much like how they like to scrub Mari Shimazaki who was the artist and character designer for so many AAA games, and how she not only likes "sexy female characters" but has no problems designing male ones to pander or give fan service. Or they like to complain about manga's which have a very high level of female storyboard writers or lead-artists/illustrators.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Meanwhile... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      They're probably not fans of people that put effort into their things in general.
      Specially people they can't dismiss as having some sort of special magical privilege.

    3. Re:Meanwhile... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Or another favorite of mine who was also at Sierra--Lori Cole (the writer half of husband/wife team Corey and Lori), designer of the Quest for Glory games. She's also currently working on a Kickstarter game Hero U.

    4. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that they mean to "ignore" these people and their efforts. It's that often their topic is the things that they feel are in need of change. If something is acceptable, then it doesn't get mentioned in those cases.

  48. Re:"Actionable leads" by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To be fair, 99.9999% of the SJWs screeching about the FBI not deciding to send in jack booted thugs to arrest anyone with a Twitter account who has ever criticized Saint Anita or BatWu never even opened the PDF once. The narrative is "the FBI didn't do their jobs" and they're relying on confirmation bias to uphold it.

  49. Ah, the Gamergate derailment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to take a movement that was about journalistic integrity and respect and derail with with "Muh Femunizms!"

    Gamergate had fuck-all to do with anyone's sexual or social proclivities.

    It was about how members of the mainstream "gaming media" were basically involved in an incestuous "old boy's club", giving props to people who were nice and gave them shit, and ignoring everything else. As well as simply having ZERO respect for their own goddamn demographic, essentially characterizing gamers as, one and all, parental basement dwellers with no social skills and inherently creepy stalker behavior.

    Cue understandable outrage. Which some (not all) too way, way too far.

    Cue intersectional scumbags smelling blood and social currency in the victim hierarchy...

    Basically I find myself sometimes wishing that the entire episode had just not happened. Simply because of the disgusting people (like Sarkeesian and Wu) who managed to create a platform from it.

  50. Re: I don't think we have that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the likelihood of a constructionist being placed on the SCOTUS

    Please, the delusions of the right that they're actually following the Constitution have been exposed since Scalia threw a hissy-fit in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

    And poor Thomas couldn't understand the difference between that case and Obergefeld v. Hodges. Which fair enough, Kennedy didn't explain, but the guy is on the Supreme Court, one of his clerks should have heard of the full faith and credit clause.

    Trump wants a guy like Taney, who will rubberstamp whatever idiocy suits his needs.

  51. You know the difference between campaign speech &a by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Surely you know the difference between a campaign speech, which is designed to rally supporters, vs the federal budget request a sitting President submits to Congress? Like the budget Trump will submit next week.

    Yes, while campaigning, candidate Trump made a lot of noise while saying very little. The campaign is over. Now is the time President Trump is submitting a budget to Congress - it's due in a week (though it's sometimes delayed when the White House switches parties). The budget request isn't a bunch of nothing said loudly, it's a very specific document listing actual actions the federal government intends to take, and the costs of each.

    After the budget, other actual bills will be debated, bills which will become law. The President will advise Congress (via Twitter) on what he wants to have in those bills (new laws) to get his signature. That's real stuff.

    > an executive order can't build a wall or conjure up more border agents.

    Surprisingly, perhaps, it *can* start building a wall. The 2006 Secure Fence Act, with support from Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, authorized the 700 miles of border barrier. Only some of that has been built so far - Trump can in fact order the executive to go ahead and build the rest. To build the big wall he depicted in his campaign speeches he'll need Congress to approve more money. What will actually happen will likely be halfway between the pictures he conjured up on the campaign trail and what we already have. Even while campaigning he pointed out that much of the border is rugged country, with natural barriers already existing, so no wall is needed in many areas, he said.

  52. Re:"Actionable leads" by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    There may have been "death threats," but they weren't actually threats of harm, and they were mostly sent by idiots from the chans or other young kids. Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere? Kid, get your head out of your ass. The report clearly explains clearly illegal behavior. People should have been arrested.

    You don't appear to understand what "actionable" means. It literally means "there is nothing to do". It's what LEO say when they determine that something/someone isn't credible.

    They've literally said "there is nothing here", and you want someone to be arrested? For what? Death threats that the report (with one exception) literally calls non-actionable?

    Or do you want them to go and arrest the 10 year old who was identified as sending the threat?

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  53. "She fought the alt-right and won" by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "She fought the alt-right and won" - that is apparently her campaign slogan. That would also be news to the alt-right, that (a) didn't exist when GamerGate happened and (b) barely even knows she exists.

    It's like saying: "she beat her fists against a brick wall - left blood flecks everywhere - she must've won".

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  54. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They seem oblivious to just how many law enforcement agencies were involved in the investigation

    Here's a list that I got from the report in no particular order

    Office of Vice President of Student Services USU
    Utah State University Campus Police
    Utah State Police
    Salt Lake City FBI office
    San Francisco PD
    San Francisco Federal Grand Jury
    San Francisco FBI office
    Indiana State Police
    Seattle PD
    Counterterrorism DG_OP_support (FBI Counterterrorism Unit, I think)
    FBI Cybercrime Task Force
    Palantir
    Seattle FBI office
    Massachusetts State Police
    Arlington Police
    U.S Consulate Sydney, Australia
    New South Wales Police, Australia
    Office of Legal Attache US Embassy Cannaberra, Australia
    Franklin County Prosecutor Office Ohio
    Massachusetts Attorney General
    US Attorney's Office for Massachusetts

    I think that's it.

  55. If Jack Thompson and the Devil had a Child... by KalvinB · · Score: 3, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    He lost his law license over his stupidity.

    Wu doesn't have anything of value to revoke she's so worthless.

    The FBI probably looked at what was sent to Jack Thompson and what was sent to Wu, had a good laugh and then went home to play Call of Duty.

  56. because the threat were not credible by aepervius · · Score: 1

    That was what i was saying from the start , those desth threat amounted to idiot chatter and after investigation the fbi probably came to the same conclusion ,, and found it not worth the time to charge. Possibly some ogf those were underage too, if not mentally.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  57. Oh PLEASE let her get elected by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just in case you thought Trump wasn't enough of a show, but THIS should be awesome entertainment.

    I'll stand by with popcorn and coke. I mean, I thought Trump was already gold for satire news shows, but this woman is a platinum encrusted jewel.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well, at least you got her gender right.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      She's a woman, where's the problem?

      She looks like a woman, self identifies as a woman, anything else that matters?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, I completely agree. It's just that a lot of people on Slashdot seem to have a problem with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      My problem with her is that she's a narcissist loudmouth who takes herself far too serious and considers herself far more important than she possibly could be. How the hell is that a (trans)gender issue?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      It's not a transgender issue, they just use it as a lame excuse.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      when she proclaims herself to actually be a woman (born) and rallies against anyone who isn't a "born" woman and tells others how to live based on her life as a woman when she was born a man? yes there is an issue with it.

    7. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how confusing a single line of text can be.

      In other words, is there a chance that you might elaborate, so I have a chance to actually understand what you're saying?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Oh PLEASE let her get elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The penis?

      Why doesn't the penis matter anymore?

  58. Shall I read the comments on this? by TehHustler · · Score: 1

    No, no I shouldn't. Because it will be an exercise in self-harm.

    --

    TheHustler
    http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
    http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
    1. Re:Shall I read the comments on this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Do it! Seriously, grab a bag of popcorn and dig in! It's comedy gold.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Shall I read the comments on this? by TehHustler · · Score: 1

      Welp, there's a certain stereotype on /. that seems to be fully on display so I'm glad I haven't bothered.

      --

      TheHustler
      http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
      http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
    3. Re:Shall I read the comments on this? by TodPunk · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't blame the comments. I'd blame the fact that this was ever posted as news in the first place. Even if it was for nerds, it certainly doesn't matter.

      --
      This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
  59. Re:"Actionable leads" by DogDude · · Score: 0

    I read the PDF, you dumb fuck. Death threats are illegal.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  60. Re:"Actionable leads" by DogDude · · Score: 1

    RTFA. The FBI tracked down several Gamergate kids in their parents' basements and decided not to arrest them because the dweebs said "they were sorry".

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  61. Re:"Actionable leads" by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    RTFA. The FBI tracked down several Gamergate kids in their parents' basements and decided not to arrest them because the dweebs said "they were sorry".

    You still don't appear to know what "actionable" means. A child posting a death threat over the internet to an adult is hardly a credible death threat, hence not actionable.

    Let me repeat that in case you are slow - the gamergate "threats" were found to be from kids, hence not credible, hence not actionable. What did you expect them to do to kids?

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  62. Re:I don't think we have that long by Demena · · Score: 1

    Transgender is not a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. Or are you claiming otherwise? If you are then show me how you can "close" to be gay and tell me how it affected you after the event.

    You are as silly as she is.

  63. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only when credible... Which the FBI found them to not be, hence not illegal.

  64. #thirdwavefeminist #chicksformerlywithdicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that sums up the issues right here.

  65. I'd rather not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not BALANCE to demand kneejerk idiots from "the other side" to run against a kneejerk idiot. It just means we have more kneejerk idiots trying to get more power. Lets hope someone SENSIBLE runs against Wu and just curbstomps her, indicating that people see through her manipulations. THEN we may see fewer kneejerk idiots in power and the grand-daddy of kneejerk precious snowflakes, Oranginer herself, won't happen again.

    Seriously, people looked at Trump and thought "I can manipulate the fuck out of a large number of peole and insist that only I can make the world safe for them too", and want to run. Want to complain Wu is running? Blame fucking trump winning giving her ideas.

    1. Re:I'd rather not by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm not looking for balance, I'm looking for an end to this madness. Maybe an end with horror, but better than this horror without end.

      Politics today is a freak show. There is zero integrity, and it seems people don't expect any anyway. They want flashy, loudmouthed narcissist assholes who promise to unhinge the world for the sake of fighting for or against something that doesn't matter at all.

      I say let them.

      Give the people their narcissist idiots. And Wu and Yannwhateverhisname are the perfect candidates. Both over the top self absorbed and egoistic, filled with eternal hate against anyone who don't fully support their insane agenda and relentless in pushing it, above and beyond all sanity.

      And then I want people to realize that ONE OF THOSE TWO idiots is going to rule them!

      And I can only hope that this serves as the much needed wakeup call.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  66. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow you can read. Apparently law enforcement and prosecutors are stupid, and you are so smart.

    Go fuck yourself snowflake.

  67. Re:"Actionable leads" by bsolar · · Score: 1

    Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?.

    Kinda. Check Supreme Court decision in Elonis v. United States

  68. Re:"Actionable leads" by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    You don't appear to understand what "actionable" means. It literally means "there is nothing to do". It's what LEO say when they determine that something/someone isn't credible.

    Umm, no. Actionable means that they can take action. If something is actionable, there is something that can be done. Not saying in this case they should/shouldn't have anything but you're basically using the opposite of what the word means.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  69. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the FBI handed the (credible) evidence to the state of Massachusetts, which in turn decided not to prosecute one stupid child, and said child hopefully learned an important lesson after shitting himself.

    If that's not enough for you, keep in mind that faking death threats and then reporting them to the police is also a criminal act, and this one was perpetrated by an adult knowing full well the gravity of said actions.

  70. Re:"Actionable leads" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    Credible death threats are illegal. A toddler telling someone else in kindergarten that they're going to kill them is a mean child who probably needs a teacher to explain a few things to them, but not actually a felon. If I tell you that I'm going to launch a nuclear ICBM at every city in the western hemisphere, just to make sure that I get you, then it's a comment in poor taste, but there's a pretty slim chance that I have access to that many nukes, so it's not a credible threat. If I post a photo of you walking to work and a caption saying that it's the last day that you'll make it alive, then I'd expect a visit from law enforcement agents with no sense of humour at all and to spend a lot of time trying to convince them and possibly a judge that I didn't really mean it.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  71. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should have prosecutors go after every person they can with the fullest force of the law! Child throws rocks at someone? Assault and battery! 7 years!

    Please note: I wrote this without calling you a dumb fuck. It's possible to make a point without being a child.

  72. *groan* by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    Go to hell, Brianna Wu. You never answered our questions about why you're shy about being assigned the male gender at birth. Afraid that might cost you some SJW cred?

  73. Man Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Man up already, Brianna. Oh, wait.

  74. Re:"Actionable leads" by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    There may have been "death threats," but they weren't actually threats of harm, and they were mostly sent by idiots from the chans or other young kids.

    Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?.

    Your so fucked up I hope you die. I just sent a bomb to your house disguised as a poodle. Not a stuffed toy animal, a real poodle. So, just keep that in mind the next time someone walks by your house "walking their dog". Because, IT'S A BOMB! Ha Ha Ha.

    So, it that a real "death threat"? Or just the usual online crap we all have to read all the fucking time from internet trolls?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  75. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So fucking mad.

  76. We don't want to sell to half the population! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    said no game developer, ever.

  77. gamergate proves that when some people look for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an enemy, eventually they can find it basically anywhere.
    if i had to think on a bunch on people that was more focused on their own thing, and not bothering anyone else, that would be gamers, i mean, real gamers, the ones that actually are gaming, not doing something else like getting their hair colour green and stuff like that, just gaming because they love it. And here comes a group that starts picking on them and their hobby when they were minding their own effing business

    and as a result everybody starts to get pissed, and now thanks to wu and people like that you have president trump, congratulations on your massive epic fail

  78. Re:"Actionable leads" by unclethursday · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read the PDF, you dumb fuck. Death threats are illegal.

    Yes, they are. Non-credible threats, however, have about as much of a chance of being prosecuted and achieving jail time for the person making the non-credible threat as Wu has of winning that seat in 2018.

    If I threaten you by telling you some outrageous bullshit, like "I'll rip your head off like Sub-Zero!" the FBI is going to look at that and know it isn't actionable. Now, if I threaten with something much more credible, like having taken pictures of you going in and out of your house, and saying "watch your back, you never know when I'll attack", then the FBI (or local law enforcement) will see that as a much more credible threat, especially since it appears I'm already stalking you, and know where you live.

    Those differences are what separate SJW logic from real logic. SJW logic dictates that even the most outrageous thing said to them ("I'll shove a nuclear bomb up your ass and detonate it!") is a real and credible threat to their special snowflake lives; and that they now deserve money from strangers because they're a victim. Real logic says: yeah, that threat is so toooooootally real. Like, fer sure, dude. *laughs and walks away knowing the threat is a fake*.

  79. Wu's response? "All this report does for me is show how little the FBI and most of the civilized world cared about me and the investigation".

  80. Re:Who gives a fuck what he thinks? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    I can't wait until we win the war on microaggressions so we can move on to those pesky nanoaggressions.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  81. Re:You know the difference between campaign speech by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Yes, while campaigning, candidate Trump made a lot of noise while saying very little.

    It appears that way because the media only focused on some manufactured outrage. He could speak for two hours about plans for immigration or trade reform and it doesn't matter because the media is going to spend the entire news cycle screaming about whether or not he made fun of a disabled reporter. Trump's actual plans are clearly written on his website, that's what his voters read and voted for, and he is carrying out those plans at a rapid pace. At this rate he'll have his entire platform wrapped up in a few weeks. I wonder what he'll do for the rest of his presidency?

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  82. LOL, GamerGate by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    GamerGate holds a special place in my heart.

    It is the only issue where I fervently hope that both sides lose.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  83. Roberta is part of gaming history by phorm · · Score: 1

    Yup. Even today those games have a warm place in my heart. Certainly I hold RW in higher regard than the "Two Guys from Andromeda", which - despite half a million bucks and a "delivery date" of Feb 2013 - still have yet to produce anything more than some tiny side-games.

    If you look at some of the history of her games, she's been producing since 1980 (despite a "retirement" in 99), and when other companies were still dropping a few hundred k to produce she managed to pull through with big-budget Phantasmagoria (4.5x the original budget but they kept plugging, ultimately making more than double their spend back in profit and producing a damn cool game for the time).

  84. Re:"Actionable leads" by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Here's one of the threats in the report, as posted elsewhere in this thread. Can you tell where it loses all credibility?

    Subject: Calling all freaks (feminists!)
    My name is [redacted] of GamerGate.

    It is my understanding that a lovely young woman named [redacted sentence]

    At this moment, we have over 9000 bombs that we will use to blow up the TSC
    auditorium when [redacted sentence] You dun goofed by inviting that
    stupid feminazi to give a lecture. You're fucking dead, kiddos.
    We of GamerGate, or GamerGators, as We prefer to call ourselves, are sick and
    tired of you stupid feminists mining everything by saying it's sexist. You all need
    a hug, some tea, and maybe a gentle back massage, and what better way to pacify
    you than by burning your faces off with high-ordinance explosives?
    You can try calling the FBI to come arrest me, but I'm behind 7 proxies and you'll
    never be able to backtrace this IP. Can't Iulzback the [redacted]

    Oh, and I'm also fapping to all of your pictures right now. You‘re hot. It‘s a shame
    y0u’re about to get blown up.

    Sincerely,
    [redacted]

    Over 9000 bombs. GOLLY GEE, that's not an obvious meme or anything. Clearly, we need to call in the national guard immediately. I hear they might be calling in an ex navy seal with over 300 confirmed kills to go after Batwu next. The fiends!

    The fact of the matter is these are obvious memes without any credibility. That makes them non-actionable shitposting, at least in the realm of law enforcement. In addition, it matches EXACTLY what GamerGate has been saying all along -- that these were trolls from baphomet, somethingawful, GNAA, kiwi farms, and other chan groups that were jumping in because people like BatWu are absolutely unhinged idiots that react hilariously to trolling.

  85. Re:"Actionable leads" by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?

    Essentially, yes. In the United States a death threat is only illegal if it's a "true threat." The definition of "true threat" varies by jurisdiction, but essentially there must be reason to believe the person making the threat has the ability and intent to carry it out. Otherwise it's really awful speech but protected under the first amendment. There is no reason to believe an anonymous threat over the internet about fucking video games is a true threat. If .00001% of the daily death threats that are spewed by 12 year olds on Xbox Live were carried out the streets would be ankle deep in blood.

    Is it a shitty thing to do to send someone death threats over the internet? Absolutely. But only a complete moron or a politically motivated shitbag looking for sympathy points from complete morons would take them seriously. Wu doesn't seem like a complete moron, so I'm guessing it's the latter.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  86. But what about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what about the (Clinton) emails!?!?!?!

    The FBI is a laughingstock, persecuting and trying to dig up non-existent dirt on HRC for a non-crime, while covering up an active investigation into Russian influence in our election on the other, and finally throwing the election for Trump in the 11th hour. Misogyny runs deep in the FBI, perhaps even deeper than in our society at large, and nowhere is it more apparent than in the last election.

    That they would willfully fail to investigate or prosecute other cases of misogyny such as gamergate should come as absolutely no surprise from Comey's FBI.

  87. It's 2017... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even after reading the Wikipedia page several times over the years, articles and asking people in the know...I still don't know what GamerGate is actually about.

  88. "Death threats", my ass. by jcr · · Score: 2

    I've had plenty of Internet Tough Guys pull that shit on me too, including a couple who mentioned where I was living or working at the time, and my response has always been "bring it on". None of them has ever shown up.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  89. Mutilated Dude is not a woman. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HIs opponents may be misogynists, but how anyone feels about women in general is irrelevant here, because Wu is NOT A WOMAN. He is a delusional male (can't say "man", doesn't really apply), who has decided to pretend that he's a woman.

  90. is she running on other issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't flame bait - no I'm not new here - I'm just curious what the rest of her campaign is about. If memory serves the seat is held by a relatively liberal elected already. And in the grand tradition of comment threads I'm doing none of my own research and hoping someone will do it for me.

  91. Who is this Brianna Wu anyway? by Spelli · · Score: 1
  92. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he simply left off the "not" prior to actionable. if you read the whole thread his point makes sense

  93. Massachusetts is a Commonwealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. That is all.

  94. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats best is that one of the few threats directed at Wu came from their allies at somethingawful.com.

  95. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is up with that? Someone needs to pay! The children need to be incarcerated. Lock them up in a youth correctional facility. Those boys will learn the error of their ways pretty quickly, when paired with an older cell-mate. (It's a sad commentary about our society that male prison rape is considered 'justice').

    While they're at it, why not arrest the parents? Those parents need to be taught a lesson! Toss them in jail for a year or two! If they don't have time to watch their children, they should not have any, or be fully responsible of the consequences of their actions until they are no longer minors. And yes, that includes capital punishment. If they don't have the time to teach their special snowflakes that melting someone else's snowflake is bad, I've no sympathy for them.

    And take the all the computers, phones, and spare cash away from the family as 'evidence' to be dumped into a locker. In five years, they can get them back if they fill out the appropriate paperwork in time. No paperwork, no stuff. Assuming they've filled out the paperwork correctly, then they'll have a 30 day window to pick up the stuff. If they fail to do any step right, the government will auction it off. Remember, possession is 9/10 ownership.

    </sarcasm>

  96. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly insane. Brianna Wu "Hot"?

  97. never ever ever trust an asian cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on top that, many say her cunt smells bad too

  98. Re:"Actionable leads" by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Kids get arrested every day. There are police officers in most public schools in the US today.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  99. Brianna Wu for Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol. No.

  100. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you probably think that is a good thing. Sad!

  101. Re:Who gives a fuck what he thinks? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    I love how all of the people saying Wu is a female are AC.

  102. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, congrats on being out of the 99.9999%. Achievement Unlocked?

  103. Re:"Actionable leads" by theArtificial · · Score: 1

    Perhaps advocate their own brand of justice: doggy style justice, if you will.

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  104. Re:"Actionable leads" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Death Threats are Death threats, this is more or less an admission of guilt.

    You know when Ted Nugent made a death threat against Obama? The cops investigated him

    you know when Madonna made a death threat against trump?
    the cops investigated him.

    Some fucking kid on 4chan needs to be taught a fucking lesson.

    captcha: swatted

  105. Re:Who gives a fuck what he thinks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some have outright called him Flynt and they're ACs as well, though.

  106. Re:I don't think we have that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Transgender is not a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. Or are you claiming otherwise?

    If GP doesn't, I will. It IS a choice. Until 50 years ago, it was not an option and people survived just fine.

  107. Re:I don't think we have that long by Demena · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight (no pun intended).

    You believe "transgender" is a choice. Is that correct?

    You believe "gay" is a choice. Is that also correct?

    What is this "50 years ago" stuff? You are talking about characteristics that the human race has had since before it was human. That's reality. So what are you actually saying? What claim are you actually making?

    I do not know why I am giving you the courtesy of a reply when I will not know if any response actually comes from you. Do not think this is dialog. Unless you use an identifier it is not dialog.