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

[jimbob]

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

Yes, but I think The Athiest's point was that it isn't just women who get concerned about online threats.

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".

Indeed, see the post by RussDill. I'd be somewhat worried if that was addressed at me.

Perhaps if you read the tweets this was in reference to, the "completely divorced from the reality of what they do" would make a little more sense.

ETA: Added message as opposed ot a quotedimage, and put it behind a spoiler

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Only of you assume all of "gamergate" is one homogeneous group.

Homogeneous, no. But the author of the message is, as I said, very explicitly minimizing the worst behavior of others within their group. The author is not even attempting to distance themselves from that behavior.

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.

It's pretty difficult to get past one's walls once they've been forced by others to build them and the assault is still ongoing.

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

Minimizing, rather than distancing yourself from, the worst behavior of members of a group you self-identify with is a pretty poor attempt. The majority of that message does indeed sound reasonable, but it's quite severely undermined by that minimization of rape and death threats. It reveals a rather unreasonable attitude possessed by the writer.

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.

While at the same time implying that rape and death threats aren't all that threatening, just a bit "too antagonistic". The writer is certainly more mature than others within the movement, but the minimization of rape and death threats indicates that this person may not actually be ready for a reasonable discussion.

 

[Edx]

Homogeneous, no. But the author of the message is, as I said, very explicitly minimizing the worst behavior of others within their group. The author is not even attempting to distance themselves from that behavior.

-snip-

Your whole post is still based on the assumption that there is a "group" called Gamergate and that the person that wrote the email is speaking on behalf of all the messages Wu has received. Instead they specifically indicate they are not talking about the people harassing her by saying there are many who would be happy to engage in a civil manor with her but she characterises everyone as the same and has a tendency to block everyone at the slightest hint that they disagree with her. All it seems to be saying is that there are those who would discuss things reasonably with her but she doesn't want to talk to anyone that disagree with her no matter how civil they are. For you to say there is more to it than that means you need to have evidence that this person is characterising all the messages and harassment she received as people that just want to be reasonable with her if they were given the opportunity.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

And who was in a different country; and who despite 20 years of online nonsensical threats, has never been convicted of a crime of violence.

Impossibly negligible, I'll stick with.

Not to mention:

Yes, but I think The Athiest's point was that it isn't just women who get concerned about online threats.

Yes, that was the entire point.

It isn't just women who receive them, and it isn't just women who react to them.

I have a long list going back 30 years of people who have threatened to kill me - by letter, phone, email or online. I was forced to report two of them to the police when the threats became a bit too frequent and personalised for my liking.

When someone threatens to come to your house and set fire to it, quoting the address, and you have three kids asleep in it, there aren't too many other options.

 

[Edx]

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?

I didn't say it was alright. I am asking for intellectual honesty. They make the claim that making the flash game of Anita Sarkessian where you can beat up a representation of her up is evidence of misogyny and acceptance of violence against women. In reality she was treated exactly the same as a man was a few years earlier that was making more or less the same exact claims she does, only without the gendered element, it's just no one cared when it happened to him. In fact he was treated even worse, since the billion dollar company Rockstar in a show of defiance put his likeness in their game, they never did that to her, so I guess she was treated better than Thompson was. If people want to claim they FEEL more "icky" when it happens to women they can go right ahead, but don't try and claim it's anything more than a feeling. If they dont want men and women to be treated equally that's fine, but they shouldn't claim they actually care about that. And they shouldn't claim that the things that happen to a man that no one cares about or we just laugh harder at suddenly becomes terrible or evidence of misogyny if it happens to a woman.

 

[Walter Ego]

"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

Asked about the Brianna Wu video, Rankowski said he really did crash his car, then came up with the rest of the video on the spot. Not long after the video went viral, the aforementioned forums began to link the Connors character with videos created by Rankowski as part of Million Dollar Extreme.

"People have been calling my old high school; calling my work and saying these nasty things about me," he said. "I was made to sign a contract at my job saying I wouldn't make any of these videos again.

"I received a letter in the mail with a picture of me from my high school yearbook. It said I shouldn't have ********** with 8chan. 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."

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to properly mask forbidden word in quote

Gee, that's too bad, isn't it?

“I started it as a joke, but it’s become far too real and I wish I could take it all back,” Rankowski admitted. “Part of the humour of [comedy group and Connors co-creator Million Dollar Extreme] is pushing the boundaries, but we’ve never encountered actually being afraid for our own safety. This has ruined my life.
“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].”

Million Dollar Extreme’s Sam Hyde added: “My aim right now is to calm these people down. I’ve learned my lesson.”

Not as much fun on the receiving end, is it? (No double entendre intended.)

 

[Edx]

Gee, that's too bad, isn't it?

Not as much fun on the receiving end, is it? (No double entendre intended.)

Apparently you still haven't cottoned on that he is still trolling...

I'm not sure why this didn't tip everyone off:

"I received a letter in the mail with a picture of me from my high school yearbook. It said I shouldn't have ********** with 8chan. 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."

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to properly mask forbidden word

Seriously? If you believe someone with a long history of trolling, right after he successfully trolled you, is now being serious when he is saying things as ludicrous as the above you have really lost all sense of reality. I mean he already managed to practically gift wrap the truth in the original video lacing it in what seemed like the most obvious indications that it was a prank/satire I have seen in a while, and now he drops these absurdities into the interview like this and somehow it is still is being treated as truthful. I don't expect much from the media but this is meant to be a "skeptic" site, and this apparently still goes unnoticed. How much does this guy have to troll before people stop believing him? But it seems like so long as it appears to implicate GG in some kind of wrong doing some people seem to be willing to believe just about anything. So they all get trolled again and every word he says is gospel and they are like putty in his hands.

 

[Butter!]

Apparently you still haven't cottoned on that he is still trolling...

I'm not sure why this didn't tip everyone off:

"I received a letter in the mail with a picture of me from my high school yearbook. It said I shouldn't have ********** with 8chan. 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."

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to properly mask forbidden word

Seriously? If you believe someone with a long history of trolling, right after he successfully trolled you, is now being serious when he is saying things as ludicrous as the above you have really lost all sense of reality. I mean he already managed to practically gift wrap the truth in the original video lacing it in what seemed like the most obvious indications that it was a prank/satire I have seen in a while, and now he drops these absurdities into the interview like this and somehow it is still is being treated as truthful. I don't expect much from the media but this is meant to be a "skeptic" site, and this apparently still goes unnoticed. How much does this guy have to troll before people stop believing him? But it seems like so long as it appears to implicate GG in some kind of wrong doing some people seem to be willing to believe just about anything. So they all get trolled again and every word he says is gospel and they are like putty in his hands.

Why is it ludicrous? Help me regain my sense of reality.

I can see how a kid throwing pebbles at his window or someone knocking on his door could sound like minor things. But I wouldn't be happy if someone did that to me. And the quote might not be word-for-word what he actually said either. That's always a possibility.

I don't want to argue, I'm just curious why you think what you think. You could be right, I don't know. But nothing's jumping out at me as ridiculous or as obvious trolling.

 

[Walter Ego]

Apparently you still haven't cottoned on that he is still trolling....

Of course I knew he was trolling.... and he got what he deserved.

 

[Edx]

Of course I knew he was trolling.... and he got what he deserved.

... you still don't seem to understand. He is STILL trolling. He is pretending he was mocking GG originally and pretending that he now he is being targeted by 8chan. Saying that an 8chan member found him and threw pebbles at him and then got in his apartment block without a key and then somehow vanished should be a little clue. Looking at him ask what the funniest way to respond to Buzzfeed is and being told he should play it totally seriously is another. This is someone who's hobby is trolling and has been at it for years.

 

[Edx]

Why is it ludicrous? Help me regain my sense of reality.

I can see how a kid throwing pebbles at his window or someone knocking on his door could sound like minor things. But I wouldn't be happy if someone did that to me. And the quote might not be word-for-word what he actually said either. That's always a possibility.

You are for some bizzare reason accepting that it is true a kid was throwing pebbles at him at all, and that this suspicious person that entered his apartment block without a key and knocked on his door and then vanished actually existed. You are also accepting that for some reason that this sounds like behaviour 8chan would do. If you didn't start laughing when he said a kid was throwing pebbles at him you need to get a hold of reality. This is a dedicated troll who does this for a hobby, why would you believe he is suddenly telling the truth when it makes no sense and is directly contradicted with comments we can find on his twitter and Facebook? Perhaps it is because you are so willing to believe negative press about Gamergate you are willing to believe anything, even from the guy who just dedicatedly crafted the most successful troll I've seen in a while.

You also don't appear to have followed those links and cross referenced it with what he told Buzzfeed. Get a grip, this guy spent a lot of effort trolling everyone that came to a head a couple of months ago and now he is trying to milk the last bits out of it. Stop giving him what he wants for gods sakes, you're making yourselves look ridiculous.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm really having a hard time seeing the pro-gamergate spin on this story.

Is it that "See--he wasn't really dangerous after all. He was just making stuff up. He's still doing it!" Is that it?


To me, it seems just like an example of some rather severe harassment. Yeah, pretending to be a psychopath bent on harming someone is not nearly as bad as actually being a psychopath bent on harming someone, but it's still mighty darned awful.

 

[Edx]

I'm really having a hard time seeing the pro-gamergate spin on this story.

Is it that "See--he wasn't really dangerous after all. He was just making stuff up. He's still doing it!" Is that it?


To me, it seems just like an example of some rather severe harassment. Yeah, pretending to be a psychopath bent on harming someone is not nearly as bad as actually being a psychopath bent on harming someone, but it's still might darned awful.

Trust you to act like you can't see the difference between a trolling prankster making a fake threat, and an actual mentally unstable psychopath intending to turn up to Wu's house with real guns. There is no need to "spin" this. It was claimed he was real and serious, when his original video was so laden with obvious hints it was practically swimming in it. Then it comes out it was an act and you're acting like it somehow doesn't change anything.

The point about him continuing to be troll is that it is being reported that he is now being targeted for harassment by Gamergate who have found where he lives, and is apparently waging a campaign of throwing pebbles at him, and playing knock down ginger and then vanishing... He is just milking the last scraps from the prank and yet he is still being believed because he is saying what people like you want to hear.

Oh and FYI he was never part of GG, he is part of a dedicated group of trolls that do this as a hobby. So just like when Zoe Quinn lapped up the 3rd party trolls wanting to see Wizardchan clash with SJW'ers, this gets lapped up too.

 

[Edx]

Whatever.

Funny... you unblocked me to read my message, then you blocked me again so you didn't have to read my response.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

Really? Okay, I will explain it to you using simple words.

Suppose there were a gang of people who did a specific thing, say they sprayed graffiti on walls. A different group of people complained about it, and got graffiti all over their walls. The graffiti gang acted innocent and said "Can you prove it was us? We are totally unrelated! Anyone could have done it!". However everyone who wasn't a moron knew they had done it, and the graffiti gang started to get a bad reputation.

Then someone who spoke out in support of the graffiti gang got graffiti on their walls saying "Death to the graffiti gang! They suck!". The graffiti gang were shocked, shocked that anyone could do such a thing and said "Well clearly now this proves the moral equivalence of us and our critics. Clearly our critics draw just as much graffiti as we do, the hypocrites!".

Now how stupid would you have to be in this situation to not strongly suspect that one of the people who had been painting graffiti all along had decided it would be clever and not at all obvious to graffiti a sympathiser's house?

I asked you if you could point to any equivalent anti-gg group with a similar history of using #gg tactics. The fact that you can't point to any such group indicates to me that your belief that #gg and non-#gg harass equally is naive at best and mendacious at worst.

And you go on believing that fantasy.

Seriously? It's not like this is ancient Greek history or something, all this happened in the last couple of years. Hoping that everyone would just forget #gamergate's origins and history, or ignore the ongoing shenanigans carried out in public forums, is just naive. The downside of a decentralised, anonymous movement is that you can't effectively exclude non-members from your deliberations... oh sorry, you're not a #gamergater, are you? My mistake, I have no idea why I thought you were. It must have been the way you are trying to rewrite history to whitewash the #gamergater phenomenon.

 

[Meadmaker]

Edited. Changed my mind. Decided on a more productive course of action.

 

[Edx]

Trust you to not be able to read.

Yes, I can see the difference. That should be obvious, because the topic of my post was that difference. i.e., noting the difference between "pretending to be a psychopath" versus "being a psychopath". See, two different things. "The difference". There it is. Right in the post. This guy was "pretending to be a psychopath".

Yes I saw you say that, right after you got done telling us gamergate is "spinning" this. That means you can't really see the difference if pointing out the difference is considered "spin". There's really no need to spin facts.

And somehow this is a story that is somehow positive for gamergate? A person who is frequently a target of harassment was harassed by someone pretending to threaten her, but because the harasser wasn't actually threatening her, that means that she is...........................................never mind.

It means...

- it wasnt a credible/real threat that it was insisted to be (despite the fact that it should have been bloody obvious)
- it was a 3rd party prank/troll. The guy is part of a group that trolls like this as a hobby
- it wasn't anything to do with gamergate supporters.

Good to know that despite all that, you somehow still manage to see this as evidence in favour of GG being a misogynist violent harassment campaign against women.

 

[banquetbear]

Good to know that despite all that, you still manage to see this as evidence in favour of GG being a misogynist violent harassment campaign against women.

...well there certainly isn't any evidence that GG is about ethics in games journalism.

 

[Edx]

...well there certainly isn't any evidence that GG is about ethics in games journalism.

There is, but when you're all so focused on spinning your wheels over nonsense like this I know you don't care to listen. Even if gamergate supporters generally did a bad job dealing with the subject and get too caught up in the drama of people like Wu, Sarkessian and Quinn, that still wouldn't mean it was a hate group against women or that many aren't indeed interested in, and are, talking about ethics in game journalism.

 

[banquetbear]

There is, but when you're all so focused on spinning your wheels over nonsense like this I know you don't care to listen. Even if gamergate supporters so a generally bad job dealing with the subject and get too caught up in the drama of people like Wu, Sarkessian and Quinn, that still wouldn't mean it was a hate group against women or that many are indeed interested in talking about ethics in game journalism.

...I'm not the one spinning wheels about nonsense. Don't blame me if you can't stay focused.

How many time have I specifically invited you (both in this thread and the other) to make this conversation about ethics in games journalism?

I'll invite you again. Lets have a conversation about ethics in games journalism. As this is a topic so dear to your heart, I'll let you start.