Swapping genderswapping

Cearbhall said:

Is this how you feel about all other movements, including religions? Just wondering. I know there are people who feel this way, and though I don't agree, I think it's a valid position. It just seems to boil down to attitudes towards semantics.

Click to expand...

If such a group finds vile behavior acceptable then yes I feel the same way.

It's very strange to me that people try to lump all feminists together. Anyone can claim the term. Is there any movement/religion/discipline in which all people agree?

Click to expand...

Then the term feminism is completely meaningless if all it takes to be a feminist is to call yourself one.

Cearbhall said:

What makes you assume that they're outside the community? It's mostly comic book readers and writers/artists who get sick of it and wanted to see things change. They're the ones who have to look at it. I'm not a reader of them myself, so I can't speak as to whether their assessment is accurate in the grand scheme of things.

Click to expand...

Because they are talking about issues that don't exist. They talk about sexualizing female charcters and say you would never do that to a male character, when it is done all the time to male charaacters.

It's like the latest sjw drama with the batgirl cover, they claimed that it was referring to an issue where batgirl was raped. When you go back and read the issue it's clear there was no rape and even the writer tells you there was no rape. So either these people are completely ignorant or believing what someone else it telling them.

Gadarene, I will get to your second and subsequent posts presently, but I've never been able to resist low-hanging fruit....

Skavau said:

A few things should be noted about the people you've listed there (I don't know about Helen Lewis) - they're all agitators.

Click to expand...

This is a clear indication that you did not read the articles linked, since Helen Lewis's article is a compilation of testimonies from nine other bloggers. By all means, take a closer look and let me know exactly what each of them did to deserve it.

Rebecca Watson is outright openly in favour of doxxing people she perceives to be fair game.

Click to expand...

People send her death threats, rape threats, and sexually harass her, all of which are illegal, and she deserves it because she doesn't protect the anonymity of her attackers when they use their own email addresses and IPs?

Yeah, she's totally asking for it.

Zoe Quinn openly attempted to blacklist a videogame developer, Brad Wardell and spent time encouraging her followers and to harass (amongst agitating herself) to this end. What was she trying to blacklist him for? He sent a tweet to an artist encouraging him to apply to Stardock. Unknown to him the person he sent a tweet to had previously posted a disparaging comic strip including Zoe Quinn.

She assumed, and I would argue deliberately that they were connected and accused him of trying to hire that person because of that comic. She unloaded on him, her followers did and he faced a barrage of abuse and attacks and even had a civil case against him, that he won, bought up. It was all done, all orchestrated because he was an unperson in their eyes, fair game, and needed to be intimidated into renouncing support for GG or hounded out of the industry. She's not an innocent flower and has not, to my knowledge, apologised to Brad Wardell.

Click to expand...

I don't know Zoe Quinn personally so I can't speak to her character, but I'm curious how you deduce that an action she took in December of 2014 (attacking Wardell) justifies the death threats, rape threats, and sexual harassment she received in August and September of that year. Are those people in possession of some miraculous future-sight technology, or was this just a preemptive attack?

Yeah, she was totally asking for it (in the future).

Anita Sarkeesian is a huckster of the most obvious variety. Originally endorsed Suey Park's #CancelColbert hashtag and then appeared on the show herself.

Click to expand...

#CancelColbert happened in 2014, Anita began getting harassed in 2012. More miraculous future-sight! Also, someone making a poor judgement call, then later changing their mind, completely justifies sending them death threats and rape threats right?

Yeah, she was totally asking for it.

Her producer, Jonathan McIntosh is an anti-gamer in the same way than Jack Thompson was. He appears to loathe violent video games in their entirety.

Click to expand...

She works with someone who holds a controversial opinion?

Yeah, she's totally asking for it.

In any case the vast majority of abuse that these figures receive are from anonymous egg accounts on Twitter that have an account lifespan of days if not hours. They retweet, sensationalise, create a moral panic and portray them as representative of their critics in an attempt to smear anyone who criticises them as misogynistic and hateful. In creating this atmosphere they do more harm for women in gaming than any 14 year old 8chan dork could. Do Zoe, Anita et al receive criticism? Of course, they're deliberately divisive and partisan figures. They receive a lot of criticism. They use this springboard as a basis to suggest they receive a lot of abuse and through their friends in the media and through the technological ignorance of the media receive positive headlines and guest writing slots about how progressive they are, how they're just trying to reform gaming's attitudes towards women and fight against harassment and threats towards women.

Click to expand...

Having your websites and personal accounts hacked = criticism.
Getting death threats mailed to your personal address = criticism.
Your parents and relatives getting called on their own phone lines to be told what an awful (insert sexualized expletive here) you are = criticism.
People telling your employers to fire you = criticism.
Not remaining quiet about the abuse you are receiving = attention whoring.

Yeah, no attitudes need to reformed here.

Underneath all of that they've done some nasty things and said some nasty things themselves that never get enough media attention.

Click to expand...

Baseless accusation without linked proof. If you weren't going to bring your best to the game, why show up at all? If any of them have truly done something so awful that it justifies the insults, harassment, death threats, rape threats, outright stalking, why not tell us all about that instead of bringing up a bunch of stuff that happened AFTER they started getting attacked?

Jessica Valenti is also a troll. Nothing more there needs to be said. She's a baiter.

Click to expand...

Baseless accusation without linked proof.

Did you actually read that page either? I'm thinking not. I included her on purpose.


But hey, no, you're right. Every single woman I mentioned (including the nine you neglected to even notice) totally deserved to be sexually harassed by hundreds of people. There's nothing misogynistic going on here folks! Just a guy casually dismissing hundreds of sexualized personal attacks against thirteen women and implying that they deserved it for stuff they hadn't even done yet.

[/sarcasm]

Jade Margery said:

This is a clear indication that you did not read the articles linked, since Helen Lewis's article is a compilation of testimonies from nine other bloggers. By all means, take a closer look and let me know exactly what each of them did to deserve it.

Click to expand...

I have never said, nor implied that anyone anywhere deserves to receive death threats or any threats of any kind.

People send her death threats, rape threats, and sexually harass her, all of which are illegal, and she deserves it because she doesn't protect the anonymity of her attackers when they use their own email addresses and IPs?

Click to expand...

I never said that she deserves death threats - I used the opportunity to point out that she's not a very nice individual. That article I linked you to either followed or came just before (I can't remember) her doxxing of an individual for making an unkind joke about her on another forum. I am unsure if I can link to the joke here, so I won't, but I don't see that as justified response to someone being nasty at all.

I don't know Zoe Quinn personally so I can't speak to her character, but I'm curious how you deduce that an action she took in December of 2014 (attacking Wardell) justifies the death threats, rape threats, and sexual harassment she received in August and September of that year. Are those people in possession of some miraculous future-sight technology, or was this just a preemptive attack?

Click to expand...

I did not say that it did. I was pointing out the media white-wash of these individuals that exist. They're portrayed as victims whose only crime is speaking up for women. In most instances it simply is not the case in the slightest.

#CancelColbert happened in 2014, Anita began getting harassed in 2012. More miraculous future-sight! Also, someone making a poor judgement call, then later changing their mind, completely justifies sending them death threats and rape threats right?

Click to expand...

What?

For the third time, I never said that it does justify them getting death threats - I was pointing out Anita's fair-weather activism and ideology.

She works with someone who holds a controversial opinion?

Click to expand...

Anita Sarkeesian is being presented, by the media as a reformer of video games. A progressive activist who wants to see video games mature as an artform. The reason, in part that she got involved in it at all is because of Jonathan Macintosh who is probably at least 50% of Feminist Frequency - a guy who the media ignores and a guy who appears to hold in contempt the majority of video games.

That needs saying more. He really is Jack Thompson, just from the puritan left side.

Having your websites and personal accounts hacked = criticism.

Click to expand...

I never said, nor implied that. In any case it only takes one person to hack an account or a website. It is not representative of objections towards Anita or Zoe or anyone who receives that. What incidents are you referring to by the way? Plenty of people and companies everywhere have been the victim of website hacks, d-dos and personal hacks.

Getting death threats mailed to your personal address = criticism.

Click to expand...

I never said that. Why are you making up things about me?

Your parents and relatives getting called on their own phone lines to be told what an awful (insert sexualized expletive here) you are = criticism.
People telling your employers to fire you = criticism.

Click to expand...

Ha!

That has happened to people who support GG. There's an ongoing campaign, waged mostly on Twitter by people who support people like ZQ, AS to actively encourage blacklists and have people who support GG fired.

Quick example: The creator of "Plebcomics", a satirical webcomic that mocks contemporary feminism got doxxed and fired from her job over mob outrage about her. Media reporting on the issue? About none, to my knowledge.

Not remaining quiet about the abuse you are receiving = attention whoring.

Click to expand...

No fair minded reader of what I said could interpret that as that. I said that they're misrepresenting the origin and objective of their abuse and painting it as something it is not. If Zoe, Anita etc want to wage a war on trolling and anonymous abuse they can do so if they like, but to characterise it as all of the criticism they receive is disingenuous and to inflate it beyond recognition is creating, whether they intend to or not, a moral panic over what is likely a small amount of no-life wonders who make account after account to troll people who react to getting trolled.

'Feeding the trolls' appears to be a huge problem systematic in online feminist activism.

Baseless accusation without linked proof.

Click to expand...

I gave you one example from Rebecca Watson and Zoe Quinn (Zoe Quinn's was far worse and she's done and said worse).

If any of them have truly done something so awful that it justifies the insults, harassment, death threats, rape threats, outright stalking, why not tell us all about that instead of bringing up a bunch of stuff that happened AFTER they started getting attacked?

Click to expand...

I never said that anything they did does justify that. I simply pointed out their behaviour as an example of how the media whitewashes them.

Baseless accusation without linked proof.

Click to expand...

1, 2

J. Valenti is like a more palatable Shanley Kane.

But hey, no, you're right. Every single woman I mentioned (including the nine you neglected to even notice) totally deserved to be sexually harassed by hundreds of people. There's nothing misogynistic going on here folks! Just a guy casually dismissing hundreds of sexualized personal attacks against thirteen women and implying that they deserved it for stuff they hadn't even done yet.

Click to expand...

I never said that at all.

Relatively mid-profile or high profile supporters or even neutrals towards GG have been threatened, insulted, trolled and had their places of employment contacted and even in a few cases actually fired or silenced into submission.

The only actual blacklisting that actually is known to go on in any tangible form is the Twitter Block Bot which outright openly lists people on there for being Pro-GG or even just skeptical of contemporary feminism. The reach of that is used as a tool by which to intimidate and threaten people into renouncing GG or talking about GG at all on Twitter. If it continues generating momentum then the chilling impact of that regarding free speech on there would not go unnoticed. You'd effectively have a little mafia running around threatening to cut them off if they say the wrong things.

Skavau said:

I have never said, nor implied that anyone anywhere deserves to receive death threats or any threats of any kind.

Click to expand...

Then what, exactly, are you saying?

That a certain victim of abuse is not a nice person? So what?

If the information you posted is not at all relative to whether they deserved to receive death threats then why did you post it in the first place? What relevance does it have to the conversation?

"I'm not saying he deserved to have his tires slashed, I'm just saying he cut me off in traffic last week."

"I'm not saying she deserved to have her house robbed, I'm just saying she gossips about her neighbors."

"I'm not saying he deserved to be beaten to a bloody pulp, I'm just saying he was hitting on straight guys."

"I'm not saying she deserved to be raped, I'm just saying she cheated on her ex-boyfriend."

Is your point that people are not perfect angels? We're all well aware of that already, thanks. My point was that there is a clear pattern of sexualized abuse against women who speak up or even just unintentionally come under the baleful eye of the trolls, and that said abuse makes the 'twitter mob' that Taylor endured look like a fluffy kitten tea party. Your point was to attack the character of the women who have suffered this abuse mostly for things that they did in response to being abused in the first place.

So no, you're not saying they deserved to be sent death threats or rape threats, you're just saying that they're awful human beings who want negative attention.

Jade Margery said:

That a certain victim of abuse is not a nice person? So what?

Click to expand...

Well, if I were to get into the specifics, nuances and depth of the GG fiasco I'd argue that far from being just not very nice, they're hypocrites who harass, intimidate people based on ideological differences and set off dogwhistles for others to do it for them.

Here's something that is apt here: By in large, the majority of threats, harassment and attacks from GG to people like Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu come from anonymous accounts or completely irrelevant individuals. Often affiliation is assumed rather than known. When it comes to Anti-GG, flagbearers and named individuals often partake and cause harassment. That's a key difference that the media ignores in their reporting of harassment if they even report on harassment that GG receives at all.

If the information you posted is not at all relative to whether they deserved to receive death threats then why did you post it in the first place? What relevance does it have to the conversation?

Click to expand...

It is a topic I know a bit about, so I replied. As for the death threats themselves, would you agree or disagree with my analysis of them? I said, originally:

"In any case the vast majority of abuse that these figures receive are from anonymous egg accounts on Twitter that have an account lifespan of days if not hours. They retweet, sensationalise, create a moral panic and portray them as representative of their critics in an attempt to smear anyone who criticises them as misogynistic and hateful. In creating this atmosphere they do more harm for women in gaming than any 14 year old 8chan dork could. Do Zoe, Anita et al receive criticism? Of course, they're deliberately divisive and partisan figures. They receive a lot of criticism. They use this springboard as a basis to suggest they receive a lot of abuse and through their friends in the media and through the technological ignorance of the media receive positive headlines and guest writing slots about how progressive they are, how they're just trying to reform gaming's attitudes towards women and fight against harassment and threats towards women."

That was not meant to justify them but to explain the context around them.

Is your point that people are not perfect angels? We're all well aware of that already, thanks.

Click to expand...

The media reports on them as if they were "perfect angels" and takes their partisan viewpoints as gospel. They receive abuse, indeed, but characterise that abuse as being representative of criticism.

My point was that there is a clear pattern of sexualized abuse against women who speak up or even just unintentionally come under the baleful eye of the trolls, and that said abuse makes the 'twitter mob' that Taylor endured look like a fluffy kitten tea party. Your point was to attack the character of the women who have suffered this abuse mostly for things that they did in response to being abused in the first place.

Click to expand...

How do you even define "troll"? Do you even know what motivates trolls, why they troll? There's a huge disconnect between what trolls are and what the media think they are.

It is also worth noting that in most cases the "eye of the trolls" is contained wholly on Twitter, or Tumblr or some Internet comment section. They are where most of these people conduct their online operations.

So no, you're not saying they deserved to be sent death threats or rape threats, you're just saying that they're awful human beings who want negative attention.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that they seek to characterise all objection to them as being misogynistic or hateful or trolling. They do so by amplifying the nasty comments they receive.

I don't think all of them are necessarily "awful human beings" but some of them are chronic attention seekers, by far.

Gadarene said:

Strawmanning again.

Click to expand...

I've been threatened by SJWs and feminists before.

It does annoy me how society tends to coddle more to women when they get standard vanilla trolling. Then again they tend to whine about it the most. Like I said feminists love sympathy and feeling sorry for themselves. Every little slight just blow up into a titanic struggle.

A big problem with feminism is the empathy gap. Women on average tend to excel at emotional empathy more than men. They can more easily glop onto victimhood.

Skavau said:

Well, if I were to get into the specifics, nuances and depth of the GG fiasco....

Click to expand...

The point, and I will make it a third time more, was to compare a 'feminist twitter mob' to a 'misogynist twitter mob'. The latter are far more common, vicious, invasive, and sexualized. The former could hardly be called a mob at all. I provided thirteen examples of women who have dealt with overwhelming and uncalled-for harassment, and your response was to say that those women were 'agitators' and 'not innocent'. Sure, that doesn't imply anything.

The specifics, nuances, and depth of a one particular example, who the abusers were affiliated with, the anonymity of the attackers or the media they chose to attack with, doesn't change the overall pattern. Acting like it's no big deal/they wanted it? That's part of the pattern.

Jade Margery said:

The point, and I will make it a third time more, was to compare a 'feminist twitter mob' to a 'misogynist twitter mob'.

Click to expand...

They both can send abuse, threats, contact your employers, doxx you. The argument can only go to comparing the amount of, the proportion of tweets if we're differentiating their impact.

The latter are far more common, vicious, invasive, and sexualized.

Click to expand...

The "feminist twitter mob" is by far more socially acceptable. Media doesn't have your back if you're targeted by that. The troglodytes that spend their hours harassing women on Twitter have no allies and seek only to gain attention and notoriety through proxy. That is why they're primarily composed of anonymous day-old egg accounts which makes their real numbers hard to gauge.

The former could hardly be called a mob at all.

Click to expand...

How would you know this?

I provided thirteen examples of women who have dealt with overwhelming and uncalled-for harassment, and your response was to say that those women were 'agitators' and 'not innocent'. Sure, that doesn't imply anything.

Click to expand...

I did not call those women anything. I specifically addressed Zoe Quinn, Anita and Rebecca Watson. I do not know who any of those women in that article are.

The specifics, nuances, and depth of a one particular example, who the abusers were affiliated with

Click to expand...

Assumed to be affiliated with. The vast bulk of harassment does not namedrop any ideology or affiliation whatsoever. As is often forgotten, the perpetrators of misogynistic trolling are almost always anonymous.

Jade Margery said:

People send her death threats, rape threats, and sexually harass her, all of which are illegal, and she deserves it because she doesn't protect the anonymity of her attackers when they use their own email addresses and IPs?

Click to expand...

And since she has never, ever once provided any evidence of an actual rape or death threat we only have her word for that. But knowing Feminist like we do, no doubt, "I disagree" is a rape threat.

Yeah, she's totally asking for it.

Click to expand...

Yes she is, when she make a video supporting a charity and begins it by attacking male atheist.

I don't know Zoe Quinn personally so I can't speak to her character, but I'm curious how you deduce that an action she took in December of 2014 (attacking Wardell) justifies the death threats, rape threats, and sexual harassment she received in August and September of that year. Are those people in possession of some miraculous future-sight technology, or was this just a preemptive attack?

Click to expand...

Ahhh yes, the mysterious Zoe Quinn "rape and death threats"! The hilarious thing about her is she and her boyfriend are now vacationing in europe, of course that's not what they are telling people. No.. they are totally on the run from the evil white menz! The only problem is before this whole thing kicked off she was on twitter talking about a multimonth trip to europe she was going to take in the new year.

#CancelColbert happened in 2014, Anita began getting harassed in 2012. More miraculous future-sight! Also, someone making a poor judgement call, then later changing their mind, completely justifies sending them death threats and rape threats right?

Click to expand...

Fun fact about the "harassment and death threats" that anita gets... the FBI has said nothing that has been directed at her was any reason for concern. It's just drama caused by a drama queen. As for her hate... what kind of reaction would you expect when you say that horrible things happen in the world because of white men? I mean I get that this is standard feminist dogma today but still. Sane people react negativly to it.

She works with someone who holds a controversial opinion?

Click to expand...

Her boyfriend writes all her scripts, he's the one in the relationship who comes up with all the propaganda.

Having your websites and personal accounts hacked = criticism.

Click to expand...

I realize that feminist believe this but it's actually a crime. One that mysteriously none of the anti-feminist detractors that you've brought up have gotten into trouble for... I wonder why...

Getting death threats mailed to your personal address = criticism.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

Your parents and relatives getting called on their own phone lines to be told what an awful (insert sexualized expletive here) you are = criticism.

Click to expand...

You do realize feminist have turned that practice into an art right?

People telling your employers to fire you = criticism.

Click to expand...

See above. They tried to destroy Brad Wardells career doing just that. Their problem was he is his own boss.

Not remaining quiet about the abuse you are receiving = attention whoring.

Click to expand...

It is. Given that the FBI tells you when you receive a death threat to not talk about it to inspire copycats. But you can't stay quite about faux threats and still pimp out your patreon! I mean sure daddy has cut you off and you've wasted your trust fund but you can still pimp yourself out for sympathy dollars!

Baseless accusation without linked proof. If you weren't going to bring your best to the game, why show up at all?

Click to expand...

You've just described the first half of your post. Why was it ok for you but not him?

Baseless accusation without linked proof.

Click to expand...

So basically the first half of your post.

[/sarcasm]

Click to expand...

If feminist didn't have that they'd not have an argument in the first place.

Gadarene said:

The reason why this misogyny and sexism oh my schtick isn't convincing is because most accusations of misogyny and sexism flung around aren't anything of the kind.

Goodness, in one exchange I had recently I saw a feminist claim that a board that permitted numerous men to repeatedly disagree with her claims constituted misogyny on the part of the board operators.

The 'that's misogynist!' line has been overplayed so much, no wonder people are starting to doubt it. Maybe if it wasn't being sent towards gamers who aren't feminists or scientists wearing doubleplus ungood shirts it might be taken more seriously.

Click to expand...

And when they can't find any actual harassment to get those patreon bucks they fabricate it.

Look at brianna wu going to her greenlight page and trying to get people to harass her, the moron didn't log out of her own account to do it. After she got called out she quickly deleted the page.

Then with a recent game dev convention one of the people that were being told are the defenders of women tweeted that he was going to target the confrence to kill as many "gamer gaters" as he could. What was Wu's reaction? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] GAMER GATE IS TRYING TO KILL ME!