Don't act surprised that the Social Justice vision of the future dominates fan views of what should get rewarded.
This makes NO sense whatever. It's a free vote. And anybody is free to sign up for it (try searching google to confirm this). You don't have to go to WorldCon to vote. If the majority of people voted against the Puppies' nominations, that's because the majority of people who took the trouble to register voted against them. I have no idea why this is so hard to understand or why so many people feel the need to invoke "SJWs" to explain the outcome. If somebody wanted a different outcome, they should have registered and voted.
Nope. This was a free vote of everyone who wanted to register to vote. You don't have to go to WorldCon to vote. Anybody who wants to register gets a vote. So there is no question of "SJWs" getting butthurt. There were a series of votes on the various works that were nominated. In the categories where serious nominations were made, Hugos were awarded. In the categories that only had non-serious nominations, no awards were made. If the puppies had wanted to win the votes, they should have recruited more people to vote for their nominations. They didn't (or couldn't), so their nominations did not win.
WHAT are you talking about? The voters ARE the supporters! There are no judges. The voters are ordinary sci-fi fans. In fact, if you had wanted to vote, you should have just registered to do so. Anybody can and you don't have to go to WorldCon. Of course, if you'd rather just complain and blather on about SJWs, you clearly are not interested enough in sci-fi to take part.
This is the most ignorant story summary I can ever remember reading on Slashdot.
I don't believe that it is worth engaging with it, but readers should understand that there has always been a "No award" option. Furthermore, anyone can join up and vote in the Hugos. There is no "cabal" of "SJWs" who are taking over anything. Anybody can sign up to vote in the Hugos. If the majority voted "No award" in some categories, that reflects a democratic view of those people who bothered to register to vote.
That is not censorship. If you want to comment, you host it and link back to the article. You are not being "censored" if somebody else doesn't allow you to write in their notebook.
Slashdot's moderation and "Anonymous Coward" account also prevented bandwagoning on the Brianna Wu Interview despite her trying to get her twitter followers to do exactly that.
Did Brianna Wu try to get her followers to "bandwagon" the Slashdot discussion in some other tweet? The one that you linked to does not do that or anything like it. Perhaps you could clarify?
1. I simply do not believe you, but if that is true, it might be worth doing a quick search to see what sort of organisation they are; 2. It is my understanding that Robert Rosario was taken out of the blocklist; 3. I have no idea who Chris von Csefalvay is, nor Clairek Schumann; 4. It is ludicrous to say that Vivek Wadhwa was "harassed into no longer advocating for women in tech", just as it's ludicrous to suggest that the ggautoblocker "censors" or "silences" people.
I have no idea why you are bringing up RH's alleged "harassment" - what does this have to do with ICANN's new policy?
The ggautoblocker DOES NOT censor! Can you identify a single person who can no longer tweet because they are included in the blocklist? Of course not. Everybody on the blocklist can continue to tweet. ggautoblocker allows people to not listen. That is not censorship.
the coordinated silencing of individuals that present uncomfortable, narrative-breaking facts
For those people who are unaware what this poster is talking about, Randi Harper set up ggautoblocker, which helps GamerGate harassment victims. The poster seems to think that this is "silencing" people. Of course nobody is "silenced". ggautoblocker just helps other people not to have to listen to them.
Randi Harper has done an excellent job of bringing to the wider Internet's attention ICANN's plan. I know I had not heard about it until I read the page that she set up.
You can't dismiss her just because she set up ggautoblocker.
This is nonsense of course. The objection that you and the others here have to Randi Harper is that she set up the ggautoblocker, thus thwarting the attempts by many gamergate supporters to dogpile their victims.
I think you're confusing your targets here. The summary is nonsense of course. Clanlib is obviously not a competitor to Unity or UE4. However, it's not really trying to compete with them. It's an alternative to SDL, which also is no sort of competitor to Unity or UE4. The fact that Clanlib is nothing like Unity or UE4 is not really something to criticise. This does not say anything about the developers, who are clearly aiming for something else. You should feel free to criticise the submitter, who clearly hasn't understood what Unity and UE4 are.
Surely it's their site and their policy? At the moment they are drawing a comparison between gamergate-style intimidation and normal social discourse out in the real world. Some interactions on Twitter do not feel like the real world to me and I guess Twitter wants that to change. But its up to them.
Don't be so stupid. Really, if you don't like twitter's policies, find another site to use. If you're right about this being a slippery slope, their business will collapse as millions of users drift away because they believe they are being oppressed. I don't think that's going to happen but maybe it will.
In the mean time, the rest of us will be able to guess with a high degree of accuracy what Twitter will and won't tolerate. If you're unable to do that, that's fine too. You can get banned or suspended or not.
Taking quotes out of context like that is just appalling. Normal people do not do that. The video you linked to is from one of the more vociferous gamergate leaders. Why not find the same quote of femfreq?
However, to answer your point:
"Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time, in nearly every facet of our lives" - this statement is hardly even remarkable. It's a standard feminist idea, which is discussed seriously all over the world. I can't imagine why you think the statement is odd or unusual. Here is a hint: there is feminist critique of every art form. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it or pay any attention to it. The problem here is that she has been receiving rape and murder threats because of what she says. Hopefully you can understand that that is not really appropriate.
The way you talk to your best friend is not the same as the way you talk to strangers on the internet. Nobody cares what you say to your friends, apart from you and them. Twitter feels that it needs to take a specific and direct interest in the invective directed at some of its users. This is a different thing altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes NO sense whatever. It's a free vote. And anybody is free to sign up for it (try searching google to confirm this). You don't have to go to WorldCon to vote. If the majority of people voted against the Puppies' nominations, that's because the majority of people who took the trouble to register voted against them. I have no idea why this is so hard to understand or why so many people feel the need to invoke "SJWs" to explain the outcome. If somebody wanted a different outcome, they should have registered and voted.
Nope. This was a free vote of everyone who wanted to register to vote. You don't have to go to WorldCon to vote. Anybody who wants to register gets a vote. So there is no question of "SJWs" getting butthurt. There were a series of votes on the various works that were nominated. In the categories where serious nominations were made, Hugos were awarded. In the categories that only had non-serious nominations, no awards were made. If the puppies had wanted to win the votes, they should have recruited more people to vote for their nominations. They didn't (or couldn't), so their nominations did not win.
WHAT are you talking about? The voters ARE the supporters! There are no judges. The voters are ordinary sci-fi fans. In fact, if you had wanted to vote, you should have just registered to do so. Anybody can and you don't have to go to WorldCon. Of course, if you'd rather just complain and blather on about SJWs, you clearly are not interested enough in sci-fi to take part.
This is the most ignorant story summary I can ever remember reading on Slashdot.
I don't believe that it is worth engaging with it, but readers should understand that there has always been a "No award" option. Furthermore, anyone can join up and vote in the Hugos. There is no "cabal" of "SJWs" who are taking over anything. Anybody can sign up to vote in the Hugos. If the majority voted "No award" in some categories, that reflects a democratic view of those people who bothered to register to vote.
That is not censorship. If you want to comment, you host it and link back to the article. You are not being "censored" if somebody else doesn't allow you to write in their notebook.
Can you explain how it is broken?
Did Brianna Wu try to get her followers to "bandwagon" the Slashdot discussion in some other tweet? The one that you linked to does not do that or anything like it. Perhaps you could clarify?
You have to follow more than one specified user. There's no point trying to make stuff up. This isn't #GamerGate.
"I know nothing about Breitbart".
1. I simply do not believe you, but if that is true, it might be worth doing a quick search to see what sort of organisation they are;
2. It is my understanding that Robert Rosario was taken out of the blocklist;
3. I have no idea who Chris von Csefalvay is, nor Clairek Schumann;
4. It is ludicrous to say that Vivek Wadhwa was "harassed into no longer advocating for women in tech", just as it's ludicrous to suggest that the ggautoblocker "censors" or "silences" people.
I have no idea why you are bringing up RH's alleged "harassment" - what does this have to do with ICANN's new policy?
Quoting Breitbart to back up your views is not exactly going to convince normal people now, is it?
But what do you think of the proposal?
The ggautoblocker DOES NOT censor! Can you identify a single person who can no longer tweet because they are included in the blocklist? Of course not. Everybody on the blocklist can continue to tweet. ggautoblocker allows people to not listen. That is not censorship.
For those people who are unaware what this poster is talking about, Randi Harper set up ggautoblocker, which helps GamerGate harassment victims. The poster seems to think that this is "silencing" people. Of course nobody is "silenced". ggautoblocker just helps other people not to have to listen to them.
Randi Harper has done an excellent job of bringing to the wider Internet's attention ICANN's plan. I know I had not heard about it until I read the page that she set up.
You can't dismiss her just because she set up ggautoblocker.
This is nonsense of course. The objection that you and the others here have to Randi Harper is that she set up the ggautoblocker, thus thwarting the attempts by many gamergate supporters to dogpile their victims.
Of course you can provide evidence for all of this? Also, why did you not just say, "Zoe Quinn"?
I didn't know that. Criticism is perfectly justified in that case..
I think you're confusing your targets here. The summary is nonsense of course. Clanlib is obviously not a competitor to Unity or UE4. However, it's not really trying to compete with them. It's an alternative to SDL, which also is no sort of competitor to Unity or UE4. The fact that Clanlib is nothing like Unity or UE4 is not really something to criticise. This does not say anything about the developers, who are clearly aiming for something else. You should feel free to criticise the submitter, who clearly hasn't understood what Unity and UE4 are.
Surely it's their site and their policy? At the moment they are drawing a comparison between gamergate-style intimidation and normal social discourse out in the real world. Some interactions on Twitter do not feel like the real world to me and I guess Twitter wants that to change. But its up to them.
Don't be so stupid. Really, if you don't like twitter's policies, find another site to use. If you're right about this being a slippery slope, their business will collapse as millions of users drift away because they believe they are being oppressed. I don't think that's going to happen but maybe it will.
In the mean time, the rest of us will be able to guess with a high degree of accuracy what Twitter will and won't tolerate. If you're unable to do that, that's fine too. You can get banned or suspended or not.
I think that person's argument is that gamers are being oppressed by Anita Sarkeesian's well-written and argued videos.
Or some such drivel.
Taking quotes out of context like that is just appalling. Normal people do not do that. The video you linked to is from one of the more vociferous gamergate leaders. Why not find the same quote of femfreq?
However, to answer your point:
"Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time, in nearly every facet of our lives" - this statement is hardly even remarkable. It's a standard feminist idea, which is discussed seriously all over the world. I can't imagine why you think the statement is odd or unusual. Here is a hint: there is feminist critique of every art form. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it or pay any attention to it. The problem here is that she has been receiving rape and murder threats because of what she says. Hopefully you can understand that that is not really appropriate.
The way you talk to your best friend is not the same as the way you talk to strangers on the internet. Nobody cares what you say to your friends, apart from you and them. Twitter feels that it needs to take a specific and direct interest in the invective directed at some of its users. This is a different thing altogether.
No doubt you can link us to these people. I'm sure many people here would be interested to see some examples.
Can you point to this incident on twitter?