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

[Meadmaker]

Right so once again you promote the idea that violent video games causes people to be violent.

No.

ETA: You have conflated "People who play violent video games are more likely to threaten violence" and
"violent video games cause people to be violent"

 

[Meadmaker]

A woman very Pro-GG known as "Lizzyf620" who ran a blog "Feals and Reals" was doxxed and her family personally threatened.

So, a woman was harassed and threatened.

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.

Well that's unfortunate, because the behavior involved is despicable and should not be tolerated. The only options available should not be "shut up" or "put up with it".

This is incredibly jumbled. I didn't say men don't ever react dramatically.

In which case I must have misunderstood the point of this question:
"Again, where are the men that react as dramatically to criticism, harassment and mockery?"

 

[Edx]

No.

No?

"...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" - Meadmaker

Edit: So you're claiming you only meant "threaten violence" and not commit violence in real life. No evidence of this will be presented of course, but you already give yourself an out in your own post when you went straight on to say...

"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 regardless of games, men will do it anyway, because they are men. The games inspire men to behave that way, but they'll do it anyway, but you'll blame the games anyway. And btw the issue was who was more likely to receive violent threats, all you've done is say that men are more likely to threaten other men but not in a serious way. I'm not sure how you manage to see this as backing up the point that being threatened online is something unique to being female.

So, a woman was harassed and threatened.

She supported Gamergate, or did you miss that?

For some reason you also ignored the point that when it happened she didn't act like Wu, Sarkessian or Quinn. When Roberto Rosario was doxxed and threatened for complaining about being put on a "harassers" list, he went silent. Do you think he would have got more or less harassment if he didn't?

Well that's unfortunate, because the behavior involved is despicable and should not be tolerated. The only options available should not be "shut up" or "put up with it".

The question as to how they should have acted is different to examining how they their actions increased the harassment and treatment they received.

In which case I must have misunderstood the point of this question:
"Again, where are the men that react as dramatically to criticism, harassment and mockery?"

If you read my replies properly maybe it would be more clear to you. I'll repeat what I already told you: When people 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

 

[jimbob]

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?

And not that it would be OK here, but *if* I had threatened "Newyorkguy" with physical violence, it would be less worrying than if I had threatened "newyourkguy, also known as ... living in ..."

 

[cullennz]

That's right, blame the victim.

Not blaming anyone.

Think the people are scum, but they are anonymous and always will be

Just thought it was pretty obvious

 

[Meadmaker]

No?

"...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" - Meadmaker

Edit: So you're claiming you only meant "threaten violence" and not commit violence in real life. No evidence of this will be presented of course,

That's correct. No evidence of what I meant will be presented, except for the actual words that I actually wrote.

So regardless of games, men will do it anyway, because they are men. The games inspire men to behave that way, but they'll do it anyway,

Yes, that's correct. Men tend to behave that way, and when placed into settings of conflict, they do it more. If that conflict is violent or simulated violence, they do it more.

Also, there's a subtle difference between "inspire" and "cause", although it is sufficiently subtle that an awful lot of people would miss it. Men have a tendency to threaten. It's biological. Video games don't cause that tendency. However, simulated conflict tends to increase the probability that that tendency will be expressed. That is what I meant by "inspire".

but you'll blame the games anyway.

Again with the "here's what you will do". What's up with that? You'll have to do better than that to win Randi's million. Not to mention that part of the requirements for winning the million also include making predictions that are correct.

And btw the issue was who was more likely to receive violent threats, all you've done is say that men are more likely to threaten other men but not in a serious way.

That's all I've done in this segment, but remember how this segment began. It began with an observation of a graph that showed men received more threats than women. However, I would spin that a bit differently, saying that men received slightly more threats than women.

Now combine that with the information from this segment of the thread. Men are much more likely to be in situations that inspire threats, and yet women are almost as likely to be threatened.

It's pretty simple math.

I'm not sure how you manage to see this as backing up the point that being threatened online is something unique to being female.

She supported Gamergate, or did you miss that?

What's your point?

My point was that outspoken women on the internet tend to receive threats and harassment. Your example provided anecdotal evidence to support that point.

For some reason you also ignored the point that when it happened she didn't act like Wu, Sarkessian or Quinn. When Roberto Rosario was doxxed and threatened for complaining about being put on a "harassers" list, he went silent. Do you think he would have got more or less harassment if he didn't?

Who gives a rat's behind?

What is so difficult about this?

All this talk about who is harassed more, or why they are harassed, or who else is harassed, or what they could do to stop being harassed is, to repeat a word I have used before in connection with gamergate, stupid.

People are being harassed. The harassers should stop. Is there something else that needs to be said about this?

If that's all gamergate has, then it has a bucket full of stupid.

So the debate seems to be whether gamergate is actually stupid, or is surrounded and immersed in stupid.



By the way, there's something that I believe, but that a lot of other people will disagree with. Violent threats against women are indeed much worse than violent threats against men. This is especially true about sexually violent threats, which are overwhelmingly directed by men toward women.



Oh, and was there anything about ethics in journalism that you wanted to add?

 

[Cavemonster]

No?

"...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" - Meadmaker

Edit: So you're claiming you only meant "threaten violence" and not commit violence in real life. No evidence of this will be presented of course,

I'm confused as to what evidence would be necessary to prove "threaten violence" means "threaten violence".

I feel like people meaning what they write should be the default unless there's some good reason to believe otherwise.

 

[The Atheist]

Just for a look at the male side of the tracks, a year or two ago, the guy who runs Whatstheharm.org site, krelnik, I think is the name he uses, went around all the atheist & sceptical forums gaining evidence of Dennis Makurze posting in contravention of a court order.

Clearly, krelnik felt threatened enough by Makurze to try to have him arrested.

I have no idea what the threats stated, but they were:

A made online, and
B made from a completely different country.

Just a case of a male who acted on impossibly negligible threats, so it isn't just women.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Just a case of a male who acted on impossibly negligible threats, so it isn't just women.

Once again, it's easy to say 'impossibly negligible threats' when it isn't you being threatened. While most threats probably are just noise, you only have to be wrong once.

 

[Dissolution]

Just a case of a male who acted on impossibly negligible threats, so it isn't just women.

Impossibly negligible threats from a guy with mental and substance abuse issues, who's turned up in person at a convention and who's already been convicted on 16 counts of criminal harassment.

Note that Krelnik posts on here, just to make sure nobody accidentally breaks the MA.
There's an ongoing thread on the Markuze court case:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162630

 

[Cleon]

Just a case of a male who acted on impossibly negligible threats, so it isn't just women.

Well, in fairness, Mabus is equal-opportunity crazy. He went after men and women alike, going back something like 20 years.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've been reading about the gamergate corruption issues, and I am reminded of the saying about academic politics. "The conflicts are so intense because the stakes are so small." There is, hidden inside gamergate, a bit of relevant consumer education. It's good for people, especially young people, to realize that the whole marketing side of the video game industry permeates all things related to video games. Don't believe everything you hear, and pay attention.

It's not exactly breaking news, but for people with little experience, it's good to know. Every generation really does have to be educated anew.

Unfortunately, that small bit of legitimate message gets surrounded by all the stupid related to who is an SJW, or gossip stories about promiscuous game developers. Even with respect to the legitimate issue, it gets blown out of proportion by people who think they've uncovered some sort of scandal. What? Some small, insignificant awards ceremony is actually an advertising stunt, and the judging is influenced by commercial interest? I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

So, the leader of Gamergate and the biggest threat to all women in gaming industry (that means Wu obviously) has just come out and said what everyone except the agenda-driven and credulous already knew - that he was just acting and trolling for lulz.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAc...zfeed_interview_with_jace_connors_gamergates/

Now, he's trolling Buzzfeed, and other outlets are already eagerly parroting the interview

"GamerGate figurehead turns out to be satirist, becomes harassment target"
https://archive.today/Bz0fn
"GamerGate harasser Jace Connors is a parody character and his creator is scared for his life"
https://archive.today/2rGBd
"Gamergate figurehead outed as spoof, becomes harassment target"
https://archive.today/dGsGo​

Will be fun to watch how long does it take for them to realize they've been had... again. The SJWs just keep on giving.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

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 don't understand your request, what have these things got to do with GG?

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.

And you go on believing that fantasy.

 

[Edx]

So, the leader of Gamergate and the biggest threat to all women in gaming industry (that means Wu obviously) has just come out and said what everyone except the agenda-driven and credulous already knew - that he was just acting and trolling for lulz.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAc...zfeed_interview_with_jace_connors_gamergates/

Now, he's trolling Buzzfeed, and other outlets are already eagerly parroting the interview

"GamerGate figurehead turns out to be satirist, becomes harassment target"
https://archive.today/Bz0fn
"GamerGate harasser Jace Connors is a parody character and his creator is scared for his life"
https://archive.today/2rGBd
"Gamergate figurehead outed as spoof, becomes harassment target"
https://archive.today/dGsGo​

Will be fun to watch how long does it take for them to realize they've been had... again. The SJWs just keep on giving.

Hahaha. I'm glad it was fake purely because it was really confusing to me to think that if it were real someone accidently happened to make something sound so obviously satirical.

He is clearly still trolling them and yet they still repeat it uncritically because it they want to turn it into an anti-GG story. Amazing. This was a major card played recently. The death threat Anita received is found not credible by police and the guy claimed to have tried to drive to Wu's house with guns is found to be a 3rd party trolling them. When people said it seemed totally fake they acted as if that was ridiculous, when you say there are 3rd party trolls that are just trying to stir the pot they deny it because obviously it's all serious and it's all coming from GG. I wonder how many times it needs to come back and smack them in the face before they learn.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm a bit late to this party, but...

Some do have a strange understanding of what is harassment and "scary".

[qimg]https://feelsandreals.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/unnamed-12.png[/qimg]

She said the message was scary. In what way was it scary? Was there some hidden threat somewhere in that message?

The message isn't "scary" because she thinks it contains some kind of threat. It's "scary" because it minimizes rape and death threats by gamergaters as nothing more than "too antagonistic". That divorce "from the reality of what they do" is what she finds "scary".

 

[Edx]

I'm a bit late to this party, but..

The message isn't "scary" because she thinks it contains some kind of threat. It's "scary" because it minimizes rape and death threats by gamergaters as nothing more than "too antagonistic". That divorce "from the reality of what they do" is what she finds "scary".

Only of you assume all of "gamergate" is one homogeneous group. 8chan, for example, is a community quite different to KotakuInAction. So is this person speaking for all of the messages Wu has received or are they referring to the attitude Wu has of dismissing every one of her critics as being misogynist harassers automatically? Is there more context of this message that shows exactly what this person is referring to? The person seems to be saying that lots of people would want to discuss things reasonably but that she groups everyone together as threatening misogynist criminals at the first inkling she gets that they disagree with her. You wanting to do the same thing kind of proves the point the author of the email appears to be referring to.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

The message isn't "scary" because she thinks it contains some kind of threat. It's "scary" because it minimizes rape and death threats by gamergaters as nothing more than "too antagonistic".

Really? How exactly does it do it? By trying to engage in a reasonable dialog?

The email is obviously apparently a good-faithed attempt trying to establish some kind of a communication between the two sides by asking not to block people who are not harassing and not threatening. But instead of engaging the content of the email, Wu goes for the usual pointless poop slinging, fear-mongering and victim playing. Not that I'm surprised, we all know her mental status by now.

That divorce "from the reality of what they do" is what she finds "scary".

"They" are trying to have a dialog. That's not scary last time I checked.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Hahaha. I'm glad it was fake purely because it was really confusing to me to think that if it were real someone accidently happened to make something sound so obviously satirical.

He is clearly still trolling them and yet they still repeat it uncritically because it they want to turn it into an anti-GG story. Amazing. This was a major card played recently. The death threat Anita received is found not credible by police and the guy claimed to have tried to drive to Wu's house with guns is found to be a 3rd party trolling them. When people said it seemed totally fake they acted as if that was ridiculous, when you say there are 3rd party trolls that are just trying to stir the pot they deny it because obviously it's all serious and it's all coming from GG. I wonder how many times it needs to come back and smack them in the face before they learn.

Oh they'll never learn. The same writers have dug themselves too deep, they'll just double down now. It doesn't matter that the Jace character was so threatening to Wu that she allegedly filed a restraining order against him, he's a gamergate victim survivor now too, so all's forgiven. Have sympathy for the troll, the real evil is still GG, nevermind that they continuously fail to provide any evidence GGers have harassed the big three Literally Whos.

I was just giggling through the buzzfeed article, how can he not see he's being trolled?

Hyde told BuzzFeed News that over the past two days he has also been harassed. “Some kid stood outside my window throwing pebbles. And someone knocked on my door – it’s a closed apartment, you shouldn’t be able to get in. And then there was no one there.”

“I didn’t take this situation seriously, but I see what it means now to be in the other person’s shoes. What her life must feel like. I have this newfound respect for the people who are having to deal with Gamergate, Brianna Wu and Anita [Sarkeesian].”

“My aim right now is to calm these people down,” Hyde said. “I’ve learned my lesson.”​

Yeah...

Well it's been nearly 7 months now, the GG movement is steadily growing, we are creating our own news sites and review sites, The SJW victimization narrative has suffered from absurdly over the top presentation (thanks, SVU and Wu), we've caused massive financial loss to the company who attacked and harassed us, have crowdfunded numerous charities, we've influenced multiple ethics policies in gaming sites, revealed countless ethics violations. Now The Escapist is hiring gamergaters after firing antis. I think we're doing pretty good. It's truly bizarre but also kind of entertaining to see how insane narratives the "journalists" come up with to try to justify their fantasy.

 

[Edx]

Yes, that's correct. Men tend to behave that way, and when placed into settings of conflict, they do it more. If that conflict is violent or simulated violence, they do it more.

Also, there's a subtle difference between "inspire" and "cause", although it is sufficiently subtle that an awful lot of people would miss it. Men have a tendency to threaten. It's biological. Video games don't cause that tendency. However, simulated conflict tends to increase the probability that that tendency will be expressed. That is what I meant by "inspire".

You have no evidence that the games inspired anyone to do anything, so you are causally blaming the games because your feelings dislike them. If a game can inspire people to threaten violence I'm not sure why they wouldn't also inspire people to act out violence for the same reason, and we know there is no correlation of video game violence to real life violence. My point I was making was you are blaming the games while at the same time saying it is how men would act anyway. Talk about a non-falsifiable claim... As I also said all you have done here is argue that men receive more harassment because they are NON-seriously threatening each other.

Now combine that with the information from this segment of the thread. Men are much more likely to be in situations that inspire threats, and yet women are almost as likely to be threatened.

That might explain it if they were including things said on Call of Duty. But what about twitter?

"0.95% of tweets received by the women studied were deemed to be offensive in nature; for men the figure rose to 2.54%, almost three times as many. "


Journalists were the only category where women got more abuse than men, however 40% of the abuse was from women. Piers Morgan was also apparently counted as a celebrity not a journalist which likely skewed the numbers a bit.

Who gives a rat's behind?

I thought you did. I was explaining to you what it is about people like Quinn, Sarkessian and Wu that gets them such a lot of harassment if it is not due to them being female. When I give you an explanation that doesn't involve them being women, you now ask me why anyone would care about that question.

All this talk about who is harassed more, or why they are harassed, or who else is harassed, or what they could do to stop being harassed is, to repeat a word I have used before in connection with gamergate, stupid.

People are being harassed. The harassers should stop. Is there something else that needs to be said about this?

Not all the harassment, doxxing and threats are being directed to those anti-GG. I already showed you two examples of people who were doxxed and threatened that were pro-GG (or at at least, Liz is). How you can look at these examples and then somehow use them as evidence GG supporters are the ones threatening and harassing is beyond me.

By the way, there's something that I believe, but that a lot of other people will disagree with. Violent threats against women are indeed much worse than violent threats against men. This is especially true about sexually violent threats, which are overwhelmingly directed by men toward women.

Thanks for finally admitting for the record so clearly your double standards we already understood you had. Good job.