Merged Continuation - Feminist Bullies Tearing the Video Game Industry Apart Part II

[colander]

Irony...



Thunderfoot was doxxed and threatened by anti-GG supporters. The pro-GG female blogger "Liz" which I linked you to before was doxxed and forced away from talking further about it. A blog post from Liz I linked you to talked about a developer who was doxxed and threatened when he got pissed off being put on a list of "harrassers". There's a #notyourshield video which has a lot of women and other non-white cis males saying they have been harassed and doxxed as well. Just because you are only aware of it when it happens to these high profile anti-GG women doesn't mean it doesn't happen from their camp, or doesn't happen to men.

None of that addresses what I said, though, which is that GamerGate's most frequent dox targets are women. Am I to understand that you concede this point?

 

[A'isha]

When Anita Sarkessian got the threat to her public talk the authorities found it was not a credible threat. You on the other hand apparently have determined that it is credible and think the police are incompetent.

The Utah State University police were planning to provide extra security measures for Anita Sarkeesian's talk, even before the specific threat you mentioned (there were more than one) was issued.

Why would they do such a thing, do you think?

 

[Edx]

None of that addresses what I said, though, which is that GamerGate's most frequent dox targets are women. Am I to understand that you concede this point?

I dispute that it's always "gamergate" supporters, but the point I made was that just because they are women doesn't mean they are being targeted because they are women. Pro-GG supporters have also been targeted for doxxing and harrassment. You said an anti-gg man has been swatted right? So it seems then that we have threats and harrassment to women and to men on both sides and a man was actually swatted. I'm not sure why you think this shows women uniquely face harrassment or that the harrassment these women in question faced is due to them being women

 

[Meadmaker]

I've already posted it. Good old Meadmaker not reading again. Hopefully it wont take over a page and a half of replies before you notice this time.

The graph from the Pew survey?

 

[Edx]

The Utah State University police were planning to provide extra security measures for Anita Sarkeesian's talk, even before the specific threat you mentioned (there were more than one) was issued.

Why would they do such a thing, do you think?

To make her feel safe? Why would they say it's not credible while also provide security anyway, if it wasn't for this reason? It seems like they were saying "look we and the police have determined the threat isn't credible but we are happy to provide extra security at the event if it will make you feel secure" Not sure what big point you think this shows

 

[Edx]

The graph from the Pew survey?

Yes. The one showing men suffer more online harrassment and more likely to receive physical threats. But now you'll say the couple of things women are more likely to suffer from means that we can ignore all the ways they arent.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The feminist bullies must be doing a terrible job, because the video game industry looks just fine.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes. The one showing men suffer more online harrassment and more likely to receive physical threats. But now you'll say the couple of things women are more likely to suffer from means that we can ignore all the ways they arent.

That's a bit presumptuous don't you think? Telling me what I'll say?

But no, that's not what I'll say.

What I'll say is that what the chart measures is the number of people who have ever had a certain type of harassment or threat directed at them. Since men are more likely to spend more hours online, they are more likely to encounter more situations, including more threats. Also, men are more likely to participate in simulations of violence (i.e. online wargames or other violent games) which tend to inspire people to threaten violence.

Plus, men are men. They tend to threaten violence against each other. Ape-like chest-thumping and dominance displays and all that. It's part of the territory.

So with all those factors, the fact that women are almost as likely as men to be threatened physically at least once must mean that a woman entering a particular environment must be more likely to be threatened on any given trip.

At least, that's the theory, and it fits with the available evidence, and it fits with anecdotal evidence I have encountered from women who refuse to play in certain areas, or from my teenaged son who says that very few girls play those games, and the ones who do almost always pretend to be men in order to avoid the harassment and threats. Perhaps someone has done a study which measures such things and has the data to confirm or refute the hypothesis.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin don't play dumb. The claim is that women like Wu, Quinn, and Sarkessian are being harassed because they are women and that this is something disproportionately/uniquely faced by women online.

Well, close. The claim is that they encounter more harassment than men who make equivalent claims about #gamergate, or indeed than anybody who actually takes part in unethical games journalism.

Sneaking in the word "uniquely" is your way of turning an uncontroversial claim into a convenient straw man for you to attack on that point.

If this wasn't the claim they wouldn't be making a big deal of their gender at all, but they do.

Pointing out that they are being singled out for harassment because of their gender is not what I would refer to as making a big deal of one's gender. If anything it's the #gamergaters making a big deal of their gender, is it not, by singling out their gender, and the political movement about their gender (feminism) for harassment?

Its because they are women and that's why people are being mean to them and harassing them and that men have the privilege of not having to face what women have to.

Apart from attempting to trivialise the matter by calling rape and death threats "mean", this seems to be simply a correct factual statement. It's factually correct that the #gamergate community single out women with feminist ideas for special harassment.

 

[cullennz]

I don't get it.

If it is annoying idiots hassle you for being a chick why tell them you are one?

 

[Ian Osborne]

I don't get it.

If it is annoying idiots hassle you for being a chick why tell them you are one?

That's right, blame the victim.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Interestingly, when a #gamergater harasses a women, the #gamergater talking point is "How can you prove it was a gamergater! False flag!".

When an anti-#gamergater gets doxxed, it's "Clearly this could only possibly be the work of evil anti-#gamergate activists! Who else could possibly have means and motive to do such a thing?!".

I wonder who is being naive here?

Naive or deliberately dishonest? It' pretty obvious the anti-GGs and SJWs (including our resident ones) are just incredibly hypocritical. We went on for pages when I asked anyone to tie Death to Brianna and Kevin Dobson threats to Gamergate. None did. Instead this pesky thing called evidence was just shoved out of the way and forgotten, and the witch hunt against Gamergate and its supporters continued.
Who needs proof? Pff! You ask me to prove how random trolls are GG supporters? Why should I? Prove that they aren't!
You ask me to explain how a handful of trolls who actually use GG hashtag represent the whole of a hashtag movement with some 30k supporters? Bah! Who needs logic!

It's somehow accepted a priori that there's an epidemic of harassment going on against women, yet we've seen zero evidence this being true, let alone evidence that this is confined in or coming from GG. What we have seen is the prominent GG detractors have lied again and again. And the extreme leftist, clickbaity press has a field day.

It pains me to read how uncritical people on this forum can be.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

That's right, blame the victim.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-fo5PzIAAA-jfG.jpg

 

[Edx]

Well, close. The claim is that they encounter more harassment than men who make equivalent claims about #gamergate, or indeed than anybody who actually takes part in unethical games journalism.

What men react in the dramatic way they do? Men that do react badly/dramatically to harassment or jokes etc end up getting even more mockery and derision, women are no different. They are perfect examples of what happens when you feed the trolls.

Sneaking in the word "uniquely" is your way of turning an uncontroversial claim into a convenient straw man for you to attack on that point.

It isn't a strawman. You really should stop using the word since you clearly don't know what it means.

Pointing out that they are being singled out for harassment because of their gender is not what I would refer to as making a big deal of one's gender.

They claim all harassment and abuse is due to them being female. The only way they can assert this is if they believe men do not get this kind of treatment. Otherwise they would have to accept that they are being treated as equally (as bad) as men would, and that goes against their worldview. But as we saw from our conversations about games like GTA and Hitman, it makes you "feel" bad when it happens to women, even if what happens to men is much worse.

According to people like Sarkessian you can only be sexist to women. By her logic then since black people now hold the power in South Africa and white people are a minority it's not possible for white people there to be racist to black people. Saying things like this is what attracts people to mock her and wind her up.

If anything it's the #gamergaters making a big deal of their gender, is it not, by singling out their gender, and the political movement about their gender (feminism) for harassment?

You're still operating on the assumption that the claims these feminists make are true. Gamergate is not singling out "women". It just so happens that so many of the hysterical people involved are women. They are not being targeted because they are female, they are being targeted because of their behaviour and ideas.Why do you think people are now turning to mock guys like Jonathan McIntosh? He doesn't complain about harassment and how people are only attacking him because they hate his gender (or whatever). He still says stupid things, but he isn't acting like a damsel parading his harassment around to promote his ideology. He doesn't create the hysterical drama that we see the women in question do and so the response to him isn't as great. He isn't feeding the trolls as much because he doesn't give them as much of a reaction.

Apart from attempting to trivialise the matter by calling rape and death threats "mean",

Apparently you missed the part where I said "and harassment". However these people do indeed characterise all mean things people say to them as harassment. They are so highly strung and paranoid that when they get any criticism they see it automatically as that person hates them because they are female. That is why Anita Sarkessian has never accepted there is any legitimate criticism of any of her work by people that are not misogynist women hating harassing criminals.

It's factually correct that the #gamergate community single out women with feminist ideas for special harassment.

If a group with ideological views has high profile male's at the front, and those high profile males get attacked and harassed, are they getting attacked for their views or are they getting attacked because they are male? You are claiming that just because people like Wu, Sarkessian and Quinn get a lot of abuse and harassment that they are getting this because they are female. You can believe that if you want, just don't expect anyone else to be impressed by following this logic.

 

[Edx]

That's a bit presumptuous don't you think? Telling me what I'll say?

But no, that's not what I'll say.

What I'll say is that what the chart measures is the number of people who have ever had a certain type of harassment or threat directed at them. Since men are more likely to spend more hours online, they are more likely to encounter more situations, including more threats. Also, men are more likely to participate in simulations of violence (i.e. online wargames or other violent games) which tend to inspire people to threaten violence.

Plus, men are men. They tend to threaten violence against each other. Ape-like chest-thumping and dominance displays and all that. It's part of the territory.

So with all those factors, the fact that women are almost as likely as men to be threatened physically at least once must mean that a woman entering a particular environment must be more likely to be threatened on any given trip.

At least, that's the theory, and it fits with the available evidence, and it fits with anecdotal evidence I have encountered from women who refuse to play in certain areas, or from my teenaged son who says that very few girls play those games, and the ones who do almost always pretend to be men in order to avoid the harassment and threats. Perhaps someone has done a study which measures such things and has the data to confirm or refute the hypothesis.

Right so once again you promote the idea that violent video games causes people to be violent. This was debunked over and over again years ago with Jack Thompson. When Anita Sarkessian says it, but says it hurts women, suddenly people find it credible. This is despite the fact that the ways games are meant to cause violence against women in real life would cause violence against men in a far more dramatic way. We already had a big argument about this and it all came down your "feelings" that sexualised violence makes you feel icky. I don't care about your feelings Meadmaker. Your feelings don't matter. If you want to claim that video game violence causes people to be violent in real life then prove it. Video games have only been getting more violent and more realistic and more popular, so the correlation should be rather easy to draw. Though if you do you'll merely have proved that video games cause an inordinate amount more violence against men than it does women.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Naive or deliberately dishonest? It' pretty obvious the anti-GGs and SJWs (including our resident ones) are just incredibly hypocritical. We went on for pages when I asked anyone to tie Death to Brianna and Kevin Dobson threats to Gamergate. None did. Instead this pesky thing called evidence was just shoved out of the way and forgotten, and the witch hunt against Gamergate and its supporters continued.
Who needs proof? Pff! You ask me to prove how random trolls are GG supporters? Why should I? Prove that they aren't!
You ask me to explain how a handful of trolls who actually use GG hashtag represent the whole of a hashtag movement with some 30k supporters? Bah! Who needs logic!

It's somehow accepted a priori that there's an epidemic of harassment going on against women, yet we've seen zero evidence this being true, let alone evidence that this is confined in or coming from GG. What we have seen is the prominent GG detractors have lied again and again. And the extreme leftist, clickbaity press has a field day.

It pains me to read how uncritical people on this forum can be.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but just to explore your interesting thesis, can you point to, say, the SJW equivalent of 4chan, or 8chan's /baph subforum, where such ratbaggery is openly organised?

I realise that part of the #gamergate talking points is to pretend as hard as you can that they aren't just a bunch of trolls who got chucked off 4chan for being too horrible even for 4chan, but I don't think anyone here is unaware of #gamergate's origins.

It seems to me that the parsimonious hypothesis is that the group of people who openly celebrate hoaxes and false flag shenanigans are more likely to perpetrate such actions.

 

[A'isha]

To make her feel safe? Why would they say it's not credible while also provide security anyway, if it wasn't for this reason? It seems like they were saying "look we and the police have determined the threat isn't credible but we are happy to provide extra security at the event if it will make you feel secure" Not sure what big point you think this shows

Again, they were planning increased security measures before this particular threat was even made. The security measures thus had nothing whatsoever to do with this threat that you keep harping on.

So why were they planning on increasing security before this particular threat was even made?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What men react in the dramatic way they do? Men that do react badly/dramatically to harassment or jokes etc end up getting even more mockery and derision.

Yet all the Literally Who hate targets are feminist women, not men who reacted badly to harassment. I think your hypothesis fails to explain the evidence.

It isn't a strawman. You really should stop using the word since you clearly don't know what it means.

Here's how it's going to be. If you keep misrepresenting other people's posts, they are going to keep calling your arguments straw men. If you want more variety in our posts try replying to them instead of ranting at imaginary feminazis.

They claim all harassment and abuse is due to them being female.

No. Straw man. They claim that the harassment is worse because they are female, but it's also because they are feminists with opinions about video games and #gamergaters can't stand that.

at happens to men is much worse.

According to people like Sarkessian you can only be sexist to women. By her logic then since black people now hold the power in South Africa and white people are a minority it's not possible for white people there to be racist to black people. Saying things like this is what attracts people to mock her and wind her up.

Believe it or not, I think the claim Sarkeesian is making is idiotic and I've challenged it more than once when it's popped up in my social media feed. However I challenged it by mounting a rational counter-argument not by threatening to rape people.

You're still operating on the assumption that the claims these feminists make are true. Gamergate is not singling out "women".

I don't use the laughing dog smiley. But if I did, this would be the time.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm curious about something.

Gamergate is all about ethics in journalism, right? Is there an lazy-person's summary of incidents of unethical behavior? A numbered list or bullet points of "here are some examples" compiled by gamergate supporters?

I've seen some discussions, but I haven't seen a specific, easy to read, list. Can someone point me to one?

 

[Edx]

Again, they were planning increased security measures before this particular threat was even made. The security measures thus had nothing whatsoever to do with this threat that you keep harping on.

So why were they planning on increasing security before this particular threat was even made?

You really are reaching here. If they thought it was a credible threat, why did they say that the university and law enforcement determined that it wasn't a credible threat? There are perfectly understandable reasons why they would want to increase security at the sort of event when we've seen the need for security before. CAFE in Canada had to raise funds to increase security due to the feminists protesting their events, pulling fire alarms, etc.