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

[Edx]

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.

Again, where are the men that react as dramatically to criticism, harassment and mockery? Feeding a troll dramatically vs not feeding trolls is going to entail very different reactions from those trolls.

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.

I'm not misrepresenting anyone, I asked you over and over several pages ago to back up your claim that I was misrepresenting you and you refused.

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.

Sorry no, the claim is that it's because they are female they are being harassed and that men do not have to worry about it. Go watch FF's 25 benefits of being a male gamer video. Men don't have to worry about this, women do. It's something women face online that men don't, its a male privilege that they don't, and even if they did, it's never sexism, in fact it's impossible to be sexist to men no matter what, according to them.

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.

So you can call her views "idiotic" and Meadmaker said she misrepresented Hitman by presenting one aspect of the game, and treating it as if that's the whole game. And that's all okay, but all the supporters of GG have never offered any criticism like this that didn't include telling her they are going to rape her? You're off your rocker. If I say her views are idiotic and she misrepresents the games she talks about, I'm going to get called a criminal harassing misogynist. If that wasn't the case she'd differentiate between the legitimate criticisms and the harassment. Don't tell me she's that stupid that she can't do that.

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

Uh huh. So I ask you a second time... 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?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again, where are the men that react so dramatically so criticism, harassment and mockery? Feeding a troll dramatically vs not feeding trolls is going to entail very different reactions from those trolls.

Gamergaters have been an anti-feminist group harassing women from the very beginning with Wu. If you want us to believe that it's nothing to do with femininity and feminism you had better present extraordinary evidence to back that hypothesis up. It's not our job to disprove beyond unreasonable doubt every silly alternative hypothesis you come up with.

I'm not misrepresenting anyone, I asked you over and over several pages ago to back up your claim that I was misrepresenting you and you refused.

Do you remember how I repeatedly pointed out to you that your were attacking straw men? Now I realise you might be confused about what a straw man is, because you earlier claimed I didn't know what one was, but the fact is that each and every time I pointed out to you that your were attacking a straw man that was me pointing out an instance of you misrepresenting me. That, you see, is what a straw man means.

Sorry no, the claim is that it's because they are female they are being harassed and that men do not have to worry about it.

Yes, yes, "the claim" is whatever you want it to be. What I have posted is irrelevant. You decide what "the claim" is, and you post an attack on "the claim" as if it were a response to me.

You do know what a straw man is, right?

So you can call her views "idiotic" and Meadmaker said she misrepresented Hitman by presenting one aspect of the game, and treating it as if that's the whole game. And that's all okay,

Absolutely. We are free to disagree and to express that disagreement without making rape threats.

but all the supporters of GG have never offered any criticism like this that

Yet another straw man? Who exactly claimed GG supporters have never done that? I don't remember saying that. Nobody is saying #gamergaters are cowardly, misogynistic trolls because of the civil things they have posted, it's for the doxxing and the death threats,

Uh huh. So I ask you a second time... 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?

If it was radfemhub attacking them, I'd kind of suspect that it was because they were male to a significant extent.

In the same way if #gamergate are attacking someone, it's a pretty good bet that someone is a female feminist who has dared to express an opinion about video games. As opposed to them being a corrupt male video game company PR executive, for example, the people who you would think they would be going after all the time if their lies about "it's about ethics in games journalism" had any substance.

 

[A'isha]

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?

Either you have incredibly poor reading comprehension, trouble with causality, or believe the USU police department is run by psychics, since (for the third time) the increased security measures came before the threat was even issued, and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with that 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.

So your explanation for the police deciding to increase security in advance of Sarkeesian's talk was to prevent feminists from pulling fire alarms at the event?

Okay...

 

[Edx]

Gamergaters have been an anti-feminist group harassing women from the very beginning with Wu.

"Anti-feminist" does not mean anti-woman. I realise you don't see it this way, but it just doesn't follow. It's not really even anti-feminist necessarily either, since people like Wu's feminism is not the only kind of feminism. Christina Hoff Sommers says she is a feminist but doesn't support them. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone defending feminism and say that people like Sarkessian are not real feminists and are just appropriating the label.

If you want us to believe that it's nothing to do with femininity and feminism you had better present extraordinary evidence to back that hypothesis up. It's not our job to disprove beyond unreasonable doubt every silly alternative hypothesis you come up with.

Lol! You have it backwards. You're the one making the positive claim that they are being harassed because they are female.

Do you remember how I repeatedly pointed out to you that your were attacking straw men? Now I realise you might be confused about what a straw man is, because you earlier claimed I didn't know what one was, but the fact is that each and every time I pointed out to you that your were attacking a straw man that was me pointing out an instance of you misrepresenting me. That, you see, is what a straw man means.

When you accuse someone of attacking a strawman it is customary to explain in what way it is a strawman. I asked you over and over to explain how what you are saying is different to what I'm saying you're saying. You refused every single time to explain this, all you did is keep repeating that it's a strawman.

Yes, yes, "the claim" is whatever you want it to be. What I have posted is irrelevant. You decide what "the claim" is, and you post an attack on "the claim" as if it were a response to me.

You do know what a straw man is, right?

It might not be what YOU want the claim to be, but that is the claim that these people are making. I am fully aware it's indefensible so you want to move goal posts and pretend they are saying things less ridiculous than they are

Absolutely. We are free to disagree and to express that disagreement without making rape threats.

So you must accept that there are a vast number of legitimate criticisms of people like Sarkessian that have no threats of any kind. She doesn't seem to see it that way, and represents them all as being hateful misogynist harassment.

but all the supporters of GG have never offered any criticism like this that

Yet another straw man? Who exactly claimed GG supporters have never done that? I don't remember saying that. ,

Of course you have. You did it just now. You said that you criticise Anita without threatening rape, which implies GG supporters do not criticise her without rape threats. Thunderfoot and The Amazing Atheist are quite well known youtubers that have made a lot of videos on her, presumably then you can find them threatening rape and death. Care to show me? And please, be specific.

And btw, you snipped the rest of my sentence. "And that's all okay, but all the supporters of GG have never offered any criticism like this that didn't include telling her they are going to rape her? ".

If it was radfemhub attacking them, I'd kind of suspect that it was because they were male to a significant extent.



In the same way if #gamergate are attacking someone,

Lol so this is how you see it. The difference is radfemhub's relatively small community literally endorsed murdering men and eugenics to get rid of them. All you have with gamergate is a hashtag. It never started with women hating, it started because of how the media treated these incidents.

it's a pretty good bet that someone is a female feminist who has dared to express an opinion about video games.

Except of course Jack Thompson years before was jumped on and mocked and harassed for saying basically the same thing. The only difference was he didn't have the pull that those like Anita did or try and capitalise on his victimhood. When it happened to Thompson it has nothing to do with him being male, when the same thing happened to Anita, it's obviously because they hate her because she is female. When a woman is treated equally as harshly as a man, suddenly it's because she is female that she is being treated this way. Anita makes a big deal about how people made a flash game where you can beat her up, saying that it shows how we normalise violence against women, yet the same things happened to Thompson as well. Rockstar even represented him in their game where you have to kill him.

 

[A'isha]

Again, where are the men that react so dramatically so criticism, harassment and mockery?

Whigh hashtag "movement" is still all bent out of shape about the "gamers are dead" articles again?

Oh, right.

 

[Edx]

Whigh hashtag "movement" is still all bent out of shape about the "gamers are dead" articles again?

Oh, right.

Context A'isha. We're talking about individuals being trolled mocked and harassed here and how when individuals feed trolls they tend to get more of it.

Though I do find it amusing your comparison makes the writers of those articles trolling the gaming community for lulz.

 

[Edx]

Either you have incredibly poor reading comprehension, trouble with causality, or believe the USU police department is run by psychics, since (for the third time) the increased security measures came before the threat was even issued, and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with that threat.

How does this support your idea that the threat's were credible? They were going to have increased security anyway, and then when it came to the threat determined it wasn't credible. The evidence points against your idea but you're trying to use to support it, it's quite incredible.

So your explanation for the police deciding to increase security in advance of Sarkeesian's talk was to prevent feminists from pulling fire alarms at the event?

Okay...

No, my explanation is that due to the controversial nature of the event there was a need for extra security compared with a talk on the benefits of being vegetarian or something, based on historically recent precedents. If they were so concerned for her welfare and those at the event, then it stands to reason they would be even more paranoid about a threat, and yet they said it wasn't credible. This would mean it was even less of a credible threat if what you're saying about the security being legitimately worried about her safety at the event were true.

 

[Aepervius]

I think there's a significant difference in credibility between, say, an anonymous male Call of Duty player threatening to rape you when you are safely anonymous and male yourself, and a man threatening to rape a specifically known woman and also stating her real home address.

Even if the percentage of rape threats in the second category that get carried out is very low, I think it's still rational to think it is higher than the percentage of rape threats in the first category that get carried out.

Elliot Rodger is proof that the risk of a sexually frustrated young man with a perceived grievance against women going on a killing spree is non-zero, and I personally would not care to be at the top of the likely hit list for the next Elliot Rodger if and when they come along. Possibly I should be more worried about car crashes, but that's not usually how the human mind works. We are wired to be more worried about personal attacks than impersonal accidents.

No there is no difference of quality. This happens in forum, this happen everywhere. Again my address was posted too, then later removed, but frankly as I am not on red list anybody can find it if they know my real name. I repeat : if somebody find it, then everybody can find it. That somebody post "I will kill you" (or rape you) with the address does not make the threat more credible. In fact i would hold that if somebody *really* wanted to do such vile act, they would not warn the victim in advance thus leaving a trace for the police to follow. Only an idiot, a teenager or a psychopath would do that.

That's why there has been so far no arrest so far despite pretense that there has been threat : the police simply saw the threat for what they were : vile banter on the internet. Otherwise they would have by now contacted provider and arrested somebody.

 

[A'isha]

Context A'isha. We're talking about individuals being trolled mocked and harassed here and how when individuals feed trolls they tend to get more of it.

Right, right, it's all trolls and the people being trolled deserve it.

Though I do find it amusing your comparison makes the writers of those articles to be trolling the gaming community for lulz.

Not really, no. It does highlight what thin-skinned hypocrites gamergate really are, though.

How does this support your idea that the threat's were credible?

You appear to have me confused with someone else.

They were going to have increased security anyway...

...

No, my explanation is that there is precedent that due to the controversial nature of the event that there was a need for extra security compared with a talk on the benefits of being vegetarian or something.

Oh, you're so close! You've almost got it!

EDIT:

If they were so concerned for her welfare and those at the event, then it stands to reason they would be even more paranoid about a threat

Which, y'know, they were. That's why they spent time thoroughly investigating the threat before making their determination, precisely because they were concerned about her welfare and the safety of those attending the event.

Now why do you think they were so concerned in the first place?

 

[Edx]

Right, right, it's all trolls and the people being trolled deserve it.

I didn't say they deserve it. I said that factually speaking if you feed trolls you are more likely to get more of it. These women we're talking about pretty much do everything you shouldn't do when it comes to feeding trolls. When Roberto Rosario was doxxed and threatened he went silent. Do you think he would have got more or less harassment if he didn't?

Not really, no. It does highlight what thin-skinned hypocrites gamergate really are, though.

Yes really. If your comparison is accurate it means the ones writing those articles were trolls. But I guess I cant expect you to understand how analogies work

Oh, you're so close! You've almost got it!

Why don't you just make your point? How am I "close"? It's a controversial subject and in the past we've seen clashes with opposing views, which demanded extra security. This doesn't mean they wanted extra security because they were legitimately worried someone might go on a killing spree because they hate women.

Which, y'know, they were. That's why they spent time thoroughly investigating the threat before making their determination, precisely because they were concerned about her welfare and the safety of those attending the event.

They did the right thing and investigated it. They did so and determined it wasn't a credible threat despite Sarkessian still acting like it is. If the police and university were so worried about her safety why did they think this threat had no credibility? How does this support the idea that the threats are credible?

 

[Meadmaker]

So you can call her views "idiotic" and Meadmaker said she misrepresented Hitman by presenting one aspect of the game, and treating it as if that's the whole game.

See "Equivocation, fallacy of".

 

[Edx]

See "Equivocation, fallacy of".

What is it with you guys throwing out names of logical fallacies and then not backing them up with any explanation?

 

[Meadmaker]

Again, where are the men that react as dramatically to criticism, harassment and mockery?

I'm having trouble understanding this point. Men and women are, in my humble opinion, different. I know some feminists seem to disagree about this point, but I would be surprised to find that you agree with them.

The bottom line is that a lot of people are harassing these women. Is it "because they are women?" Or is it, "because they react in a certain way, and men don't react that way."

It's a distinction without a difference. You contention above seems to be that harassment occurs because of dramatic reaction to criticism and that there are no men who react dramatically to criticism. If we accept this contention, then we must conclude that it is only women who will be so harassed. Now everyone agrees. Only women are the target of the harassment.

Now that we agree that only women are the targets of that sort of harassment, was there a point you wished to make?

 

[newyorkguy]

I think there's a significant difference in credibility between, say, an anonymous male Call of Duty player threatening to rape you when you are safely anonymous and male yourself, and a man threatening to rape a specifically known woman and also stating her real home address...

I have never understood how these people get away with making these kinds of threats. Why they aren't subject to criminal charges. If you wrote the same kinds of menacing messages to public officials you'd probably be prosecuted.

I'm also baffled by people defending the threats by only responding to the reaction to them. As if it's okay to threaten people with rape, mutilation and murder. As if that is rational speech. I see a big difference between "trolling" and threatening to rape and kill someone.

If it's so harmless why shouldn't people be allowed to make the same comments here?

 

[Edx]

I'm having trouble understanding this point. Men and women are, in my humble opinion, different. I know some feminists seem to disagree about this point, but I would be surprised to find that you agree with them.

To be clear not all women react the same as people like Wu, Sarkessian and Quinn. A woman very Pro-GG known as "Lizzyf620" who ran a blog "Feals and Reals" was doxxed and her family personally threatened. She wrote a few messages about it and then went silent saying she wouldn't be talking about Gamergate again. This is rather different behaviour. I think people like Sarkessian, Wu and Quinn, are enabled to keep feeding trolls the way they do because if they were men they wouldn't get the support they get and they wouldn't get taken seriously. Jack Thompson would have been laughed at even harder if he had tried to act the way they do.

You contention above seems to be that harassment occurs because of dramatic reaction to criticism and that there are no men who react dramatically to criticism. If we accept this contention, then we must conclude that it is only women who will be so harassed. Now everyone agrees. Only women are the target of the harassment.

This is incredibly jumbled. I didn't say men don't ever react dramatically. I said the opposite, that when men are harassed/mocked and ridiculed on the Internet and react dramatically they tend to get a lot more of it. Scientologists got a lot of harassment, hate and mockery precisely because of their ridiculous reactions. If they didn't people wouldn't have been so interested in winding them up, and some people do just like seeing the world burn.

Now that we agree that only women are the targets of that sort of harassment, was there a point you wished to make?

Just to be clear, I never said "only women" are the targets of this. I said the biggest names involved here that are getting the harassment are women and when you look at their behavior it's not difficult to see why. As I said, which you apparently didn't read, Sarkessian will use the example of people making a flash game where you beat up an image representation of her as evidence of the misogyny and normalisation of violence against women. She totally ignores the fact that Jack Thompson who was making the same kind of claims she makes not only had the same kind of games made about him, but Rockstar even put his likeness in their game as a character you're meant to kill. So in so far as this example she uses, she was treated better than Thompson was treated. Yes it happens to men too, and if men react dramatically to it they get more of it as well. The only difference here is the women in question here claim it's because they are women that it's happening to them, that it's male privilege that they don't have to worry about this kind of thing. Then they are supported in this delusion with people agreeing with them and giving them lots and lots of money to keep saying it.

 

[erwinl]

To be clear not all women react the same as people like Wu, Sarkessian and Quinn. A woman very Pro-GG known as "Lizzyf620" who ran a blog "Feals and Reals" was doxxed and her family personally threatened. She wrote a few messages about it and then went silent saying she wouldn't be talking about Gamergate again. This is rather different behaviour. I think people like Sarkessian, Wu and Quinn, are enabled to keep feeding trolls the way they do because if they were men they wouldn't get the support they get and they wouldn't get taken seriously. Jack Thompson would have been laughed at even harder if he had tried to act the way.



This is incredibly jumbled. I didn't say men don't ever react dramatically, I said the opposite. When men are harassed/mocked and ridiculed on the Internet and react dramatically they tend to get a lot more of it. Scientologists got a lot of harassment, hate and mockery precisely because of their ridiculous reactions. If they didn't people wouldn't have been so interested in winding them up.



Just to be clear, I never said "only women" are the targets of this. I said the biggest names involved here that are getting the harassment are women and when you look at their behavior it's not difficult to see why. As I said, which you apparently didn't read, Sarkessian will use the example of people making a flash game where you beat up an image representation of her as evidence of the misogyny and normalisation of violence against women. She totally ignores the fact that Jack Thompson who was making the same kind of claims she makes not only had the same kind of games made about him, but Rockstar even put his likeness in their game as a character you're meant to kill. So in so far as this example she uses, she was treated better than Thompson was treated. Yes it happens to men too, and if men react dramatically to it they get more of it as well. The only difference here is the women in question here claim it's because they are women that it's happening to them, and then they are supported in this delusion with people agreeing with them and giving them lots and lots of money to keep saying it.

And this is not evidence that there is something wrong in that business? Where people, because of their opinions, are put in games, with the purpose of beating them up, or killing them?
Or is that normal?

 

[Edx]

And this is not evidence that there is something wrong in that business? Where people, because of their opinions, are put in games, with the purpose of beating them up, or killing them?
Or is that normal?

If there is a problem it wouldn't be about women. Once we get past that maybe we could have a discussion that doesn't try and make women out to be unique victims. But that won't happen because as we've seen over and over from this thread they only care if it happens to women, because feelings. So if the same thing happens to a man as it happens to a woman it will only be visible and relevant to talk about the woman, and then they'll totally ignore the man and claim what happened to her happened because she was female. If a man and a woman are both treated just as harshly, we'll still only care that it happened to a woman.

 

[erwinl]

If it was a problem it wouldn't be about women. Once we get past that maybe we could have a discussion that doesn't try and make women out to be unique victims here. But that won't happen because as we've seen over and over from this thread they only care if it happens to women, because feelings.

I take it the people at GG have taken action against the ones that made the game with the likeness of Anita Sarkeesian and against Rockstar?

 

[Edx]

I take it the people at GG have taken action against the ones that made the game with the likeness of Anita Sarkeesian and against Rockstar?

The flash games made of Thompson were just considered stupid harmless mockery/satire but when Sarkessian got the same treatment for saying the same kind of BS suddenly it was evidence of misogyny, sexism and the normalisation and acceptance of violence against women. You also don't seem to understand what GG is based on if you think there is anyone "at" GG.

 

[erwinl]

The flash games made of Thompson were just considered stupid harmless mockery/satire but when Sarkessian got the same treatment for saying the same kind of BS suddenly it was evidence of misogyny, sexism and the normalisation and acceptance of violence against women. You also don't seem to understand what GG is based on if you think there is anyone "at" GG.

I know there is nobody 'at' GG, but I meant people who were GG'er.
But the highlighted part.

That is alright? Singling out a person and putting them into a game specifically for the sole purpose that they can be killed/beaten?
Really?