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

[d4m10n]

Gamergate is currently too busy trying to sue people for blocking them on Twitter.

Have any suits actually been filed?

 

[Meadmaker]

I was in a doctor's office the other day and was surprised to see, on the cover of Inc. magazine, a headline entitled "Who would want to kill Brianna Wu?"

I only skimmed the article, but it was scathing when it came to gamergate.

 

[Dissolution]

I was in a doctor's office the other day and was surprised to see, on the cover of Inc. magazine, a headline entitled "Who would want to kill Brianna Wu?"

I only skimmed the article, but it was scathing when it came to gamergate.

Did they find anyone that did actually want to kill Brianna Wu?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Out of all the most prominent professional victims on the field, Brianna Wu is the one that is most obviously creating "her" own threat narrative. Or at least deliberately fanning the flames for the desired victim cred.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Those issues were being called out for years. Gamergate just added the fun of rape threats.

That says tons about the videogame industry if that is what it takes to fuel a change in policy.

That's amazing. Rape threats that no-one knows about and have never seen achieve policy changes in numerous publications at the time when gamergaters are raising public awareness of those publications' ethical misconducts.

The mental gymnastics here, 10/10.

If the efforts of the KKK resulted in high-quality immigration reform, they'd still be the KKK.

This is obviously inapt comparison. GG is actually worst than Isis and Hitler. Besides GG is dead, has been for months. In fact, GG never existed besides from a handful of misogynists who sockpuppeted 30k accounts to launch a coordinated attack on all the women in tech industry. But they're dead too, because they were gamers.

That's a shockingly limited amount of 'achievements' for the price that was paid.

What are those achievements and what's the price?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Out of all the most prominent professional victims on the field, Brianna Wu is the one that is most obviously creating "her" own threat narrative. Or at least deliberately fanning the flames for the desired victim cred.

Brianna Wu's narcissism is bordering on clinical illness. Others have pointed out she's becoming a danger to herself and others, what with trying to hire thugs for PAX EAst ready to 'crack GG skulls' to protect her from... what? People pointing and laughing at her delusions? As with other crazy SJWs, they're creating an atmosphere of hate and fear for their own personal fame and profit, ironically perpetuating the DiD trope they supposedly so vehemently fight against.

 

[Puppycow]

I was in a doctor's office the other day and was surprised to see, on the cover of Inc. magazine, a headline entitled "Who would want to kill Brianna Wu?"

I only skimmed the article, but it was scathing when it came to gamergate.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201504/...why-would-anyone-want-to-kill-brianna-wu.html

The article does have one bit suggesting that maybe this is exactly the reaction she wanted:

But one of Wu's friends in the gaming industry has suggested that her story may be more complicated than she lets on--that as bad as the situation has been for Wu, she "wasn't dragged" into it. "She taunted Gamergate for weeks," this woman continued, who asked that her name be withheld. "She baited them, and then they finally came after her, which is exactly what she wanted them to do."

Wu acknowledges that Gamergate has probably boosted Revolution 60's sales, and she's pretty sure it has put her at the top of the list of women game developers in America. She knows some potential investors will be put off by her notoriety, but she thinks others will see her as their entrée into a lucrative market at an opportune moment in the gaming industry.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201504/...why-would-anyone-want-to-kill-brianna-wu.html

The article does have one bit suggesting that maybe this is exactly the reaction she wanted:

I've commented before on the doublethink that goes on with gamergaters and this phenomenon.

"They asked for it because they are publicity hounds! This means we are the victims when we send them rape threats and also that sending them rape threats is okay! But they are evil and manipulative for manipulating us poor innocent rape-threateners this way!".

I guess the same kind of reasoning leads Islamists to shoot up magazine studios. They were asking for it, because they should have known that gamergaters were irrational, hateful and morally bankrupt before they got on their bad side, right?

 

[Dissolution]

I've commented before on the doublethink that goes on with gamergaters and this phenomenon.

"They asked for it because they are publicity hounds! This means we are the victims when we send them rape threats and also that sending them rape threats is okay! But they are evil and manipulative for manipulating us poor innocent rape-threateners this way!".

I guess the same kind of reasoning leads Islamists to shoot up magazine studios. They were asking for it, because they should have known that gamergaters were irrational, hateful and morally bankrupt before they got on their bad side, right?

Yep. All Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, aren't they?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yep. All Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, aren't they?

It's interesting that you went for that particular straw man.

As hashtag ideas go, #notallterrorists doesn't really work.

 

[Dissolution]

It's interesting that you went for that particular straw man.

In what way is it a strawman and why is it an interesting one?

As hashtag ideas go, #notallterrorists doesn't really work.

Now that is a strawman. You do know what they are, after all.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In what way is it a strawman and why is it an interesting one?

It's a straw man because you are responding to an imaginary argument nobody ever posted. It's interesting because it implies that you are aware that #gamergate is a terrorist organisation in a meaningful sense, but you're trying to set yourself up for a move where you declare that it's bigotry to say that all declared #gamergaters are bad.

Now that is a strawman. You do know what they are, after all.

A better analogy for #gamergate would be ISIS, or the IRA, or the KKK. In Islam there are peaceful, non-militant muslims who have nothing to do with violent Islamism. There is no such comfortable distance between #gamergaters and #gamergate harassment and vilification of women and feminists.

 

[Dissolution]

It's a straw man because you are responding to an imaginary argument nobody ever posted. It's interesting because it implies that you are aware that #gamergate is a terrorist organisation in a meaningful sense, but you're trying to set yourself up for a move where you declare that it's bigotry to say that all declared #gamergaters are bad.

It's not a strawman. It's a direct comparison.

You've claimed that some people involved in the gamergate movement have acted badly, so that everyone associated with it is essentially bad.
I pointed out how stupid that argument is by comparing it to the other movement you mentioned, Islam.

A better analogy for #gamergate would be ISIS, or the IRA, or the KKK. In Islam there are peaceful, non-militant muslims who have nothing to do with violent Islamism. There is no such comfortable distance between #gamergaters and #gamergate harassment and vilification of women and feminists.

This is just wrong and it's been demonstrated to be so repeatedly.
You're well aware of this, but keep banging the same drum anyway.

 

[A'isha]

Have any suits actually been filed?

No, so far it's only been a bunch of crying about defamation and violations of the Data Protection Act in the UK over in the A+ thread in Religion and Philosophy, and a letter sent to Randi Harper by James "In Defense of Rape" Desborough (and I don't believe he's actually followed up on his legal threats even though his deadline expired).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You've claimed that some people involved in the gamergate movement have acted badly, so that everyone associated with it is essentially bad.

I don't believe people are "essentially bad". Wilfully ignorant, hateful, vicious and morally bankrupt, sure, but those are changeable qualities. Most of them will grow up and probably regret their youthful involvement with a hate group.

I pointed out how stupid that argument is by comparing it to the other movement you mentioned, Islam.

Since #gamergate was misogynistic bollocks from the very beginning, and its very beginning is very recent, it's an astoundingly poor comparison.

This is just wrong and it's been demonstrated to be so repeatedly.
You're well aware of this, but keep banging the same drum anyway.

I really think you would have more luck finding people who believe it somewhere like 4chan or reddit, where the demographic is younger, dumber and less practised in critical thinking. I mean, seriously, identifying #gamergate as vicious nonsense isn't even a hard problem. It's on the same level as identifying Uri Geller or Sylvia Browne as frauds, it just takes a few minutes of internet searching and minimal intellectual skills.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, so far it's only been a bunch of crying about defamation

I'm still interested in a response to my earlier question.

Putting aside entirely the question of whether it's illegal, is it not morally horrible to spread malicious lies about people? Isn't that a significant issue with the "block list", or more specifically with the purported reasons for blocking that come bundled with the "block list"?

Nobody is saying that this is the single most morally horrible thing that has ever happened in the world. Merely that it is morally horrible.

 

[A'isha]

I'm still interested in a response to my earlier question.

Putting aside entirely the question of whether it's illegal, is it not morally horrible to spread malicious lies about people? Isn't that a significant issue with the "block list", or more specifically with the purported reasons for blocking that come bundled with the "block list"?

Nobody is saying that this is the single most morally horrible thing that has ever happened in the world. Merely that it is morally horrible.

The issue is that we're not talking about "malicious lies", but honest, if strongly-held opinions.

"Brianna Wu's narcissism is bordering on clinical illness. Others have pointed out she's becoming a danger to herself and others, what with trying to hire thugs for PAX EAst ready to 'crack GG skulls' to protect her from... what? People pointing and laughing at her delusions? As with other crazy SJWs, they're creating an atmosphere of hate and fear for their own personal fame and profit, ironically perpetuating the DiD trope they supposedly so vehemently fight against", for example, is not a malicious lie prosecutable as defamation. I think it's a pack of nonsense and certainly untrue, but I also think that TeapotCavalry fully believes that as his honest opinion of her and isn't deliberately and maliciously spreading falsehoods that he knows are false or anything like that. I suppose that Wu could try to sue him for saying all that, if she really wanted, but I also expect it to get tossed out of court before the ink is even dry on the filing.

By the same token, if I (or the GGAB) calls James Desborough a harassing, rape-apologizing jackass who is so self-centeredly idiotic that he didn't even realize he was arguing with Randi Harper's Markov bot on Twitter, than that's our (and certainly my) honest opinion of and feelings about the man, which is why his lawsuit threats against Harper over the GGAB are equally as likely to go nowhere as Wu suing TeapotCavalry for his ISF post above.

And in both cases, I'm perfectly okay with the "morality" of having honest, if angry, opinions about someone. In fact, it'd be pretty hypocritical of me not to, since I often have very many honest, if angry, opinions about people (including a lot of people on the BlockBot list, such as Hazrat Richard Dawkins).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The issue is that we're not talking about "malicious lies", but honest, if strongly-held opinions.

"Brianna Wu's narcissism is bordering on clinical illness. Others have pointed out she's becoming a danger to herself and others, what with trying to hire thugs for PAX EAst ready to 'crack GG skulls' to protect her from... what? People pointing and laughing at her delusions? As with other crazy SJWs, they're creating an atmosphere of hate and fear for their own personal fame and profit, ironically perpetuating the DiD trope they supposedly so vehemently fight against", for example, is not a malicious lie prosecutable as defamation. I think it's a pack of nonsense and certainly untrue, but I also think that TeapotCavalry fully believes that as his honest opinion of her and isn't deliberately and maliciously spreading falsehoods that he knows are false or anything like that. I suppose that Wu could try to sue him for saying all that, if she really wanted, but I also expect it to get tossed out of court before the ink is even dry on the filing.

I said earlier that my question assumed we would put all legal issues to one side. You can drag them back in again, but it's just a way of avoiding the question I actually asked.

I don't think Teapot Cavalry has reasonable grounds to believe that Brianna Wu is a narcissist bordering on clinical illness, a danger to herself and others or delusional. I would therefore disagree with you about whether or not they should be categorised as malicious lies and hence put in the same category as the blockbot commentary.

By the same token, if I (or the GGAB) calls James Desborough a harassing, rape-apologizing jackass who is so self-centeredly idiotic that he didn't even realize he was arguing with Randi Harper's Markov bot on Twitter, than that's our (and certainly my) honest opinion of and feelings about the man, which is why his lawsuit threats against Harper over the GGAB are equally as likely to go nowhere as Wu suing TeapotCavalry for his ISF post above.

I don't accept for one minute that the term "rape apologist" can legitimately be described as an opinion. A person has either defended rape as not being so bad, or they have not. The scope for legitimate opinion on the matter is minuscule.

If you call someone a rape apologist and cannot point to the specific instance where they acted as a rape apologist, I'm happy to call that a malicious lie or the moral equivalent.

And in both cases, I'm perfectly okay with the "morality" of having honest, if angry, opinions about someone. In fact, it'd be pretty hypocritical of me not to, since I often have very many honest, if angry, opinions about people (including a lot of people on the BlockBot list, such as Hazrat Richard Dawkins).

I don't think the claims made by the blockbot commentary can be fairly described as honest, and only very tenuously described as opinions, which is the sticking point.

 

[Dissolution]

I don't believe people are "essentially bad". Wilfully ignorant, hateful, vicious and morally bankrupt, sure, but those are changeable qualities. Most of them will grow up and probably regret their youthful involvement with a hate group.



Since #gamergate was misogynistic bollocks from the very beginning, and its very beginning is very recent, it's an astoundingly poor comparison.



I really think you would have more luck finding people who believe it somewhere like 4chan or reddit, where the demographic is younger, dumber and less practised in critical thinking. I mean, seriously, identifying #gamergate as vicious nonsense isn't even a hard problem. It's on the same level as identifying Uri Geller or Sylvia Browne as frauds, it just takes a few minutes of internet searching and minimal intellectual skills.

Lots of claims, but no substance or support. Shame.

 

[Walter Ego]

Out of all the most prominent professional victims on the field, Brianna Wu is the one that is most obviously creating "her" own threat narrative. Or at least deliberately fanning the flames for the desired victim cred.

Her diet may be a contributing factor.

Wu works out obsessively to keep her energy up. She subsists largely on Soylent, a liquid substitute for normal food that she says saves time and boosts her productivity.