What percentage? Because it's going to be way less than 1%. In fact it will be approaching 0%. But I guess 0 is a percent? How many targeted threats on the Internet that actually resulted in anything can you name?
I'm not mad and I don't take anything she has said as an "attack" on me. All that I think is that she oozes stupid (this is a game dev that can't even write an if statement apparently). One minute she'll be saying how afraid gamergate makes her and the next she'll be antagonizing them. This is not normal or intelligent behaviour. She was never even part of the discussion in the first place; she injected herself into it. She brought the trolls down on herself for standing on a soapbox and shouting idiocy. I have never trolled her or anyone else. I am not a part of gamergate and the only place I have even discussed it is right here.
She never "laughed at all the trolling". She inserted herself into it by saying the trolling was all about keeping her and other women out of game dev. Which is laughably wrong.
It's "funny" how you will rationalize clearly dumb behaviour based purely on which party line it comes from. I really don't think it is me that is "prejudiced to take everything" a certain way. She's free to say dumb shit all she wants. And I'm free to call it dumb shit. She is nothing but an attention troll.
That's not what it is like at all. You and her act like this is something that only happens to her. This kind of thing happens literally constantly. That doesn't make it alright, that doesn't mean I agree with it and that doesn't mean it doesn't suck. But it does mean there is precedent for it being "non credible".
All she has done is found a way to encourage more. Feeding trolls isn't strength. Laughing at them may be but giving them what they want is definitely not. The death threats have nothing to do with her "speaking out". She latched onto the attention Anita was getting and attempted to gain some of that attention for herself. It worked; trolls are predictable.
Does the world need more Jack Thompsons too? He got death threats for "speaking out" and fought back against the group he decided was responsible as well.
Good she started her own studio. So what does she have to complain about? That no one liked her game before she got threatened online? She has her own studio and employs only women. I guess the industry isn't so bad; no one even cared let alone tried to stop her.
The issue is she never did speak reasonably about it. She went off and blamed all kinds of things for it. And yes, she blamed men and gamers for it many times. Keep in mind this woman owns a company that only hires female developers so I wouldn't call her fair or balanced. And as many people have said: she didn't get death threats for any of those things. She got death threats because the trolls knew she was a good target. There's a non-trivial amount of people that think she injected herself into the controversy simply for exposure for her game because of this.
Underwhelming how? Were you expecting the GNAA or APK? I'm not going to endure thousands of Twitter posts to find anything else when you know full well those posts would get ripped apart here (and rightfully so). She is saying absurdly stupid shit and trying to insult a group of people numbering in the many thousands on Twitter that is known for mocking and shit talking. It would be like Mitt Romney or Mitt Romney supporters posting stupid shit to Jon Stewart fans. It's just a bad idea. Not to mention Twitter is really only good for two things: saying stupid things and saying mean things, so I couldn't imagine it going any other way.
That's what has happened. She calls it a targeted harassment campaign. Which is exactly why she advertises threats so loudly. Now just because I have criticized her you lump me with threateners even though I have never said a word to her.
That's not victim blaming; it is stating a fact. If you get a threat and continuously go on about it and advertise it to the world you will attract more attention seekers to make threats. No one is saying she deserves them we are just identifying the cause and effect. A cause and effect that no one knows any way to avoid. An effect that has always proven to be >99.99% without consequence so some people tell her it is no big deal. Unfortunately that doesn't go over well with someone that is pretty histrionic. Stop calling everything victim blaming. It is damaging and enables actual victim blaming.
Yes, someone announcing on twitter the moment they receive any threats, retweeting any negative comments and publicly announcing how scared for their life they are is pretty much the definition of histrionic. It's also indicative of someone going out of their way for attention. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is what it is.
She hasn't been a continuous target. She fans the flames constantly. You can't claim to be a target of something you are also constantly antagonizing.
My point is she conflates the two to deflect criticism (of which she deserves a lot) and to garner sympathy and attention. Citation. This is in response to doing an interview and claiming the interviewer was doing a hit piece for asking questions. Not threatening her, not harassing her, not being mean or negative.
I definitely want the threats against her to end and the people to be caught. But I also want her to receive the criticism she deserves. Right now that is impossible because she jumps lumps it all together as "harassment".
Twitter has a horrible interface so I'm not going to look anymore but the best example of abrasiveness I have seen was during an interview going off on the reporter: video. At around the 20:40 (I think the link should go there) mark she tries to tell him he's making a hit piece then says the guy is making it all about him for taking offense to that.
My personal favourite: Trolling and stupid all in one. This is a game developer writing a C++ joke and getting everything about it wrong.
I'm guessing you see nothing wrong with any of this. But definitely not due to "projecting your prejudices" I'm sure.
People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead
And many many many more have gotten killed without death threats. And many many many more have not had anything bad happen to them after getting death threats.
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
I recommend you read through this woman's tweets... She is extremely abrasive, histrionic and goes out of her way to get attention. On Slashdot she would be modded troll or flamebait constantly. She would consider that targeted harassment. She uses a few instances of actual threats plus a lot of people calling her an idiot for saying moronic things to say she gets nonstop threats. I am not a twitter person; I went to it solely to research this whole hoopla and neither her nor any of her sycophants would be able to handle Slashdot discourse.
She says these threats are targeting her for this or that reason (outspoken woman blah blah) but it is because she has made a spectacle out of herself. This has been brought up time and again but is labeled as "victim blaming". She wants to make it about "being a woman on the Internet" (that gets media attention) but anyone well versed in the ways of the Internet try to tell her it's just about being an idiot on the Internet. Unfortunately anybody that makes a spectacle out of themselves will attract people sending death threats. Those people are doing it for attention too so they will latch on to whoever will make it the loudest. No amount of stroking her ego will change that fact.
Unfortunately anyone that wants to warp what an encyclopedia looks like to fit their preconceptions will ultimately attempt to alter what it looks like to other people as well. Opposing opinions cause cognitive dissonance.
Fascinating.. I didn't even think there would be a market for such a place. Wouldn't think the clientele would be able to keep it afloat. Still doesn't sound like the kind of place mentioned in TFA though.
Am I wrong to assume that they will be selling other non-alcoholic beverages? I can understand having beer and not liquor but what I meant was there wouldn't be a place that sells only beer and no coffee, juice, pop, food, etc.
There is no such thing as a place that serves "beer and only beer" (would that even be legal in the US?). This isn't Australia according to The Simpsons.
You think that everyone that wants to go to a pub after work is an "identikit clone"? Every type of person goes to pubs buddy; even women and black people. People are not bad because they like going to the pub with their coworkers.
The only "asshat" here is you. Maybe you should take your own advice and strive not to be one from now on.
Equally, if dressing provocatively is allowed then no-one can blame you for looking.
I'm pretty sure the "male gaze" is a cited reason for lack of women in male environments. So lots of people would blame and I am sure you would be one of them the moment a woman complained about feeling uncomfortable.
It's not about assigning blame. It's about telling these companies that they're doing something wrong. We're not "blaming" them just telling them their lack of (sufficient) diversity is indicative of them being part of the problem.
I would count that as pretty annoying at ~3 or 4am while drunk or accompanied. Or even if you just want to find a bed; you don't end up with a dead phone from a short day.
At that point it's pretty much just a novelty. If I have to carry the key-card as a backup anyway (which would be smart) I'd rather just have an RFID enabled card and wave my wallet in front of the lock. If I have the card there is no security bonus form the more programmable phone since the card has to work also.
Although having redundancy on your person does have its benefits if you did happen to lose one or the other while out and about.
I said it would be offensive to them. Maybe I'm projecting here but I would find it a little offensive to be told my ancestors that were kept ignorant, whipped, killed, and forced to toil in the fields for little to no personal benefit were pretty much at the same level as a white, free wife that probably ordered around the man of the house quite a bit. You think a wife would trade places with a slave? It is insulting to me, as a man, however. Mostly I just think you're an idiot for asserting that marriage and slavery are or were the same in any way shape or form.
It is interesting how before it was a "truth". Now I cannot know it is not a "truth" because I was not there. You were I take it? I think you're just full of shit. You made a moronic comment, got called out on it and decided your reaction was going to be back-pedaling and goal-post shifting.
Slashdot Mirror
What percentage? Because it's going to be way less than 1%. In fact it will be approaching 0%. But I guess 0 is a percent? How many targeted threats on the Internet that actually resulted in anything can you name?
Trolling rarely happens in a vacuum.
That's really funny. Oh wait you're serious.
You have also stated a solution that A: hasn't been shown to work and B: is easily vulnerable to its own trolling.
I'm not mad and I don't take anything she has said as an "attack" on me. All that I think is that she oozes stupid (this is a game dev that can't even write an if statement apparently). One minute she'll be saying how afraid gamergate makes her and the next she'll be antagonizing them. This is not normal or intelligent behaviour. She was never even part of the discussion in the first place; she injected herself into it. She brought the trolls down on herself for standing on a soapbox and shouting idiocy. I have never trolled her or anyone else. I am not a part of gamergate and the only place I have even discussed it is right here.
She never "laughed at all the trolling". She inserted herself into it by saying the trolling was all about keeping her and other women out of game dev. Which is laughably wrong.
It's "funny" how you will rationalize clearly dumb behaviour based purely on which party line it comes from. I really don't think it is me that is "prejudiced to take everything" a certain way. She's free to say dumb shit all she wants. And I'm free to call it dumb shit. She is nothing but an attention troll.
That's not what it is like at all. You and her act like this is something that only happens to her. This kind of thing happens literally constantly. That doesn't make it alright, that doesn't mean I agree with it and that doesn't mean it doesn't suck. But it does mean there is precedent for it being "non credible".
All she has done is found a way to encourage more. Feeding trolls isn't strength. Laughing at them may be but giving them what they want is definitely not. The death threats have nothing to do with her "speaking out". She latched onto the attention Anita was getting and attempted to gain some of that attention for herself. It worked; trolls are predictable.
Does the world need more Jack Thompsons too? He got death threats for "speaking out" and fought back against the group he decided was responsible as well.
Good she started her own studio. So what does she have to complain about? That no one liked her game before she got threatened online? She has her own studio and employs only women. I guess the industry isn't so bad; no one even cared let alone tried to stop her.
The issue is she never did speak reasonably about it. She went off and blamed all kinds of things for it. And yes, she blamed men and gamers for it many times. Keep in mind this woman owns a company that only hires female developers so I wouldn't call her fair or balanced. And as many people have said: she didn't get death threats for any of those things. She got death threats because the trolls knew she was a good target. There's a non-trivial amount of people that think she injected herself into the controversy simply for exposure for her game because of this.
Underwhelming how? Were you expecting the GNAA or APK? I'm not going to endure thousands of Twitter posts to find anything else when you know full well those posts would get ripped apart here (and rightfully so). She is saying absurdly stupid shit and trying to insult a group of people numbering in the many thousands on Twitter that is known for mocking and shit talking. It would be like Mitt Romney or Mitt Romney supporters posting stupid shit to Jon Stewart fans. It's just a bad idea. Not to mention Twitter is really only good for two things: saying stupid things and saying mean things, so I couldn't imagine it going any other way.
That's what has happened. She calls it a targeted harassment campaign. Which is exactly why she advertises threats so loudly. Now just because I have criticized her you lump me with threateners even though I have never said a word to her.
That's not victim blaming; it is stating a fact. If you get a threat and continuously go on about it and advertise it to the world you will attract more attention seekers to make threats. No one is saying she deserves them we are just identifying the cause and effect. A cause and effect that no one knows any way to avoid. An effect that has always proven to be >99.99% without consequence so some people tell her it is no big deal. Unfortunately that doesn't go over well with someone that is pretty histrionic. Stop calling everything victim blaming. It is damaging and enables actual victim blaming.
Yes, someone announcing on twitter the moment they receive any threats, retweeting any negative comments and publicly announcing how scared for their life they are is pretty much the definition of histrionic. It's also indicative of someone going out of their way for attention. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is what it is.
She hasn't been a continuous target. She fans the flames constantly. You can't claim to be a target of something you are also constantly antagonizing.
My point is she conflates the two to deflect criticism (of which she deserves a lot) and to garner sympathy and attention. Citation. This is in response to doing an interview and claiming the interviewer was doing a hit piece for asking questions. Not threatening her, not harassing her, not being mean or negative.
I definitely want the threats against her to end and the people to be caught. But I also want her to receive the criticism she deserves. Right now that is impossible because she jumps lumps it all together as "harassment".
Sure I am buddy. A quick glance brings this tweet up: I enjoy your gamergate tears. That's definitely how normal people react to a group they are "afraid for their life of". Antagonize them. Totally not trolling or flamebait.
This tweet isn't attention seeking at all: link. Here's some stupid: link. Here's somemore: alcohol + men is unsafe for women.
Twitter has a horrible interface so I'm not going to look anymore but the best example of abrasiveness I have seen was during an interview going off on the reporter: video. At around the 20:40 (I think the link should go there) mark she tries to tell him he's making a hit piece then says the guy is making it all about him for taking offense to that.
My personal favourite: Trolling and stupid all in one. This is a game developer writing a C++ joke and getting everything about it wrong.
I'm guessing you see nothing wrong with any of this. But definitely not due to "projecting your prejudices" I'm sure.
People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead
And many many many more have gotten killed without death threats. And many many many more have not had anything bad happen to them after getting death threats.
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
It's a crime on the Internet too. So I guess all is good?
I recommend you read through this woman's tweets... She is extremely abrasive, histrionic and goes out of her way to get attention. On Slashdot she would be modded troll or flamebait constantly. She would consider that targeted harassment. She uses a few instances of actual threats plus a lot of people calling her an idiot for saying moronic things to say she gets nonstop threats. I am not a twitter person; I went to it solely to research this whole hoopla and neither her nor any of her sycophants would be able to handle Slashdot discourse.
She says these threats are targeting her for this or that reason (outspoken woman blah blah) but it is because she has made a spectacle out of herself. This has been brought up time and again but is labeled as "victim blaming". She wants to make it about "being a woman on the Internet" (that gets media attention) but anyone well versed in the ways of the Internet try to tell her it's just about being an idiot on the Internet. Unfortunately anybody that makes a spectacle out of themselves will attract people sending death threats. Those people are doing it for attention too so they will latch on to whoever will make it the loudest. No amount of stroking her ego will change that fact.
Unfortunately anyone that wants to warp what an encyclopedia looks like to fit their preconceptions will ultimately attempt to alter what it looks like to other people as well. Opposing opinions cause cognitive dissonance.
Fascinating.. I didn't even think there would be a market for such a place. Wouldn't think the clientele would be able to keep it afloat. Still doesn't sound like the kind of place mentioned in TFA though.
Am I wrong to assume that they will be selling other non-alcoholic beverages? I can understand having beer and not liquor but what I meant was there wouldn't be a place that sells only beer and no coffee, juice, pop, food, etc.
How do the laws line up to result in that? I am pretty confident such a place would not be possible here in Canada.
There is no such thing as a place that serves "beer and only beer" (would that even be legal in the US?). This isn't Australia according to The Simpsons.
You think that everyone that wants to go to a pub after work is an "identikit clone"? Every type of person goes to pubs buddy; even women and black people. People are not bad because they like going to the pub with their coworkers.
The only "asshat" here is you. Maybe you should take your own advice and strive not to be one from now on.
Equally, if dressing provocatively is allowed then no-one can blame you for looking.
I'm pretty sure the "male gaze" is a cited reason for lack of women in male environments. So lots of people would blame and I am sure you would be one of them the moment a woman complained about feeling uncomfortable.
It's not about assigning blame. It's about telling these companies that they're doing something wrong. We're not "blaming" them just telling them their lack of (sufficient) diversity is indicative of them being part of the problem.
Good doublespeak.
I would count that as pretty annoying at ~3 or 4am while drunk or accompanied. Or even if you just want to find a bed; you don't end up with a dead phone from a short day.
At that point it's pretty much just a novelty. If I have to carry the key-card as a backup anyway (which would be smart) I'd rather just have an RFID enabled card and wave my wallet in front of the lock. If I have the card there is no security bonus form the more programmable phone since the card has to work also.
Although having redundancy on your person does have its benefits if you did happen to lose one or the other while out and about.
Also means much less chance of leaving the card in the room
But now having a dead phone after a late night of drinking/whatever just got a whole lot more annoying.
I said it would be offensive to them. Maybe I'm projecting here but I would find it a little offensive to be told my ancestors that were kept ignorant, whipped, killed, and forced to toil in the fields for little to no personal benefit were pretty much at the same level as a white, free wife that probably ordered around the man of the house quite a bit. You think a wife would trade places with a slave? It is insulting to me, as a man, however. Mostly I just think you're an idiot for asserting that marriage and slavery are or were the same in any way shape or form.
It is interesting how before it was a "truth". Now I cannot know it is not a "truth" because I was not there. You were I take it? I think you're just full of shit. You made a moronic comment, got called out on it and decided your reaction was going to be back-pedaling and goal-post shifting.