Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

OT: anything goes!

Moderator: Edi

Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Poll ended at 2014-11-12 05:11pm

Yes
53
60%
Maybe
5
6%
No
26
29%
Don't Know
5
6%
 
Total votes: 89

User avatar
Eleas
Jaina Dax
Posts: 4893
Joined: 2002-07-08 05:08am
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Eleas » 2014-10-15 07:07pm

Spekio wrote:What I think it's completely subjective, and out of focus of this discussion.
I only bring it up because you offered a strangely specific sentiment without much justification. Given the possible range of interpretations regarding these women, you seem intent on picking the most negative ones. That's of relevance because it shapes how we frame the discussion.
You are free to make your own conclusions. My only objection is for one side to be treated as saintly women being harassed by a hate mob.
I can't see how Quinn is being treated as a "saintly woman"; that she's being tarred by irrelevancies regarding practically every facet of her character, and that this is being pointed out by Team SJW (hah), does not constitute the aforementioned Team treating her as a saintly woman. The requirement of having to be a saint being, again, something to which no man in tech is asked to adhere. Why is that?
That she is a provocateur, however, is on her public twitter profile. That she blew on Radio Nero to go on MSNBC to claim it was an all out war it's still on her twitter, last I checked.
I very much share Terralthra's criticism of your charges of the role of "provocateur". Being satirical on the Internet doesn't mean shit in this context, and it does certainly not imply a paid career of personal victimhood in any way, shape or form. If you have any evidence at all of her doxxing herself, that would be relevant.
That her behavior is dubious is a fact,
No, that is by the very nature of the expression a subjective value judgement.
that she benefits from the press attention she receiving is a fact,
A fact not once demonstrated as anything other than opinion.
and I'm sorry, I'm not willing to trust her implicitly just for the fact she is a woman.
Good, because you know full well nobody is seriously proposing that as a reason. It sure seems a convenient strawman to toss out, though.
I am unaware of how to proceed here. Affirmanti non negandi imcubit probatio. If you are saying my screenshot is fake, it's up to you to prove I'm making shit up. You can't expect me to make the diabolical proof.
A screenshot of selected quotes is as valid as a Wikipedia page.
You could do your own research, instead of trusting me or Quinn, the affair was publicized by both sides.There are even leaked e-mails that zoe admit were hers but were misleading (https://storify.com/jbradfield/zoe-quinn-re-tfyc).
Having read that link through, I still don't see anything of what they're trying to pin on Quinn.
Still, the grand point is: Even if those were false, and I am being duped, there is no denying <snip>
If there's no denying, then there should be proof to that effect.
it does not excuse collusion on people whom are supposed to be consumer advocates. To dismiss legitimate concerns because "misogyny" is a deflection tatic.
It might be, but nobody's dismissing said concerns. What's being dismissed is the transparent deflection tactic of vainly trying to tie all this rancid, disingenuous and, yes, misogynous bullshit to some kind of justice movement. None of the attacks have had relevance to what they claim to fight against, yet people are still defending GamerGate as a whole, saying "look, stop blaming GamerGate for misogyny which is really about corruption. (Oh, and Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, even though we just can't prove any of it.)"
"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."
--Chinua Achebe

User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Terralthra » 2014-10-15 07:30pm

No, see, this is about "journalistic ethics", which is why the death threats are aimed at the game developers in the (non-existent) "scandal", and, so far as I know, no doxxing, death or rape threats, or significant harassment directed at the actual journalist who is purported (inaccurately) to have given a good review (he didn't) to a game whose creator he slept with.

Clearly, nothing to do with gender or sex. This is entirely about how the gaming journalism industry is corrupt. It's just coincidence that the targets have been prominent female developers (and a prominent male developer who defended them) and critics. I'm sure they'll get around to the journalist who is allegedly corrupt, you know, at some future point.

User avatar
Spekio
Jedi Knight
Posts: 762
Joined: 2009-09-15 12:34pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Spekio » 2014-10-15 09:43pm

Eleas wrote: I only bring it up because you offered a strangely specific sentiment without much justification. Given the possible range of interpretations regarding these women, you seem intent on picking the most negative ones. That's of relevance because it shapes how we frame the discussion.
Alright. I was trying to be straighfoward on my opinions, perhaps that came out as ham-handed.
I can't see how Quinn is being treated as a "saintly woman"; that she's being tarred by irrelevancies regarding practically every facet of her character, and that this is being pointed out by Team SJW (hah), does not constitute the aforementioned Team treating her as a saintly woman. The requirement of having to be a saint being, again, something to which no man in tech is asked to adhere. Why is that?
Facets of her character that are irrelevant to her role in journalistic ethical misconduct are being attacked, and that is indeed wrong. I am honest enough to admit that if it was a post about a man cheating a discussion would have not sparked to the extent it did.

Double standarts for sexual purity is something society desperatly needs to overcome.

That said, there is still a part of team SJW, as you call it, that thinks Zoe is blameless of all actions - I was exagerating for the sake of argument.
I very much share Terralthra's criticism of your charges of the role of "provocateur". Being satirical on the Internet doesn't mean shit in this context, and it does certainly not imply a paid career of personal victimhood in any way, shape or form. If you have any evidence at all of her doxxing herself, that would be relevant.
No, I don't. I'll retract my unsubstatiated opinions then.
A screenshot of selected quotes is as valid as a Wikipedia page.
Alright. I see your point. Let me add some more.

This is TFYC side of the history.

Besides that screen shot, I can offer others

http://i.imgur.com/Dwm6vvx.jpg

This one shows the start of the issue with Kramer (Zoe's publicist) retweeting TFYC's media guy.

Also, it is a biased source, but her ex did state she had the intention of bringing TFYC's site down.

Image

This one is their celebration the DDoSing.

Image

This one, the crown jewel if I might add, it's the one where she tries to put the blame the doxxing and DDoS on @legobutts.

And the best part? Posted by Quinn herself.

https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/sta ... 2435219456

Alright, so once again she broadcast doxx. She also used her connections to blackball them. Here is them having a conversation with her on twitter:

https://twitter.com/TFYCapitalists/stat ... 9646548992

So, can we conclude Zoe did bad stuff to a charity has basis in reality and that it merits a discussion?
It might be, but nobody's dismissing said concerns. What's being dismissed is the transparent deflection tactic of vainly trying to tie all this rancid, disingenuous and, yes, misogynous bullshit to some kind of justice movement. None of the attacks have had relevance to what they claim to fight against, yet people are still defending GamerGate as a whole, saying "look, stop blaming GamerGate for misogyny which is really about corruption. (Oh, and Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, even though we just can't prove any of it.)"
Now, the attacks.

I can attest that the e-mails and boycotts have direct relation to the "Gamers are dead" articles.

Other things, however, are not. That is why I agreed it was a shit slinging cluster fuck of people on both sides doing stupid shit that I cannot condone. It is a wide tent movement, but trying to discredit DiGRA material is kind of idiotic. Going after Anita, even if to discuss her videos about videogames, in the name of gamergate is idiotic.

I can't defend it all but I certainly cannot decry it all.

User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Terralthra » 2014-10-15 10:44pm

Can you please define "doxxing"? You appear to be using it to mean "anything I don't like". You posted Zoe insulting them and being amused that their site accidentally got DDoSed...but not any doxxing, which, as far as I understand it is "searching for and posting publicly, identifying or private information for the purpose of harassment."

User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9280
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Guardsman Bass » 2014-10-15 10:53pm

Jub wrote:Freaking out isn't the quickest nor the least messy way to resolve this and fighting it isn't likely to have the desired result because, and this might be a shock, nobody off the internet cares about the issue. Laws aren't going to be changed and Zoe Quinn isn't going to be the next Rosa Parks because of this internet war.
This has gotten into several major newspapers (including The Guardian), and apparently the New York Times is asking around for women who have faced this. On top of that, there's the FBI looking into the death threats made against Sarkeesian, the condemnation of several trade groups (including the Entertainment Software Association), and so forth. So yes, "people off the internet" care about the issue.

Do you ever have any good points, Norade?
Spekio wrote:Also, it is a biased source, but her ex did state she had the intention of bringing TFYC's site down.
Because of course every time a site has issues because of high traffic, that's because of DDOSing, right? Hence the joking about how they accidentally DDOS'ed.

Frankly, I don't need to prove that Quinn is a saint to you. The problems with GamerGate lie in its harassment of female developers and critics up to and including death threats and hacking attempts (and in Quinn's case revenge porn), and those exist whether or not Quinn herself is an asshole.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood

User avatar
LapsedPacifist
Jedi Knight
Posts: 608
Joined: 2004-01-30 12:06pm
Location: WestCoast N. America

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by LapsedPacifist » 2014-10-15 11:04pm

Spekio,

I am incredibly frustrated by the screnshot spam that's surrounding GG. It is incredibly disingenuous, and I'm at a point where when I see them, I know someone is lying to me. The one that put me over the edge was one of a glorious tweet from Ms. Wu regarding Gabe from Penny Arcade. Her words "Tycho would have been better off firing him for someone with more emotional maturity than a 12 year old." or something to that affect. The caption: "Here she attacks a founder of Child's Play."

Seriously, how stupid does someone think I am to caption that? After Dickwolves, after the trans issues, after the various flaming he's done over the years. Hell, I don't think he's a bad guy, I defend him around my house, but he can handle that tweet. Hell, the worst thing about it is he's too good at handling those tweets, they don't effect him at all. But the caption was written by someone who thought I was stupid enough to overlook it.

And it's endemic to all of the bile you've posted. Tweet after tweet, no context, shit underlined like it's a smoking gun. It's bullshit. Context seem to be that there were some hard feelings 10-15 days after someone Zoe Quinn knew and trusted did his damndest to ruin her forever on the internet. Are her actions good and pure and saintly? No. But they're also not evil, and she never put a squirrel in a mailbox. I hope.

You bring up The Fine Young Capitalist. I read the article. I read what they were trying to do. There's some good reasons to be critical of that. I've never spent much time around game devs, but around graphic designers there's a really ugly trend of business that should know better having a "contest" to "design their logo" for $200 and store credit. That's exploitation, and it's the same sort of thing that TFYC seem to have been doing. I could be missing context. Maybe the intentions were good. But there are enough similarities to make me very suspicious of it.

Whatever, context.

That context is being intentional stripped from the pages of screenshotted tweets. Dates, times, the whole conversation. I don't get them, I don't know what's happening. Just some snark, underlining, and a caption. And I'm tired of it. This fiasco is fucked. I'm never going to know what happened. I don't think that Zoe Quinn is a great person, but I know that all your "evidence" is fabricated by people who are trying to manipulate me and have apparently manipulated you.

You want to know what you can do? Read critical reviews of games. Call out uncritical reviews. Support publishers who seem to be doing the right things. But in this situation, right now... you've been played for a sucker.
Ogrek is beyond strategy.

<- Avatar from Dr. Roy's List of Stomatopods for the Aquarium

User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3881
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Jub » 2014-10-15 11:52pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:This has gotten into several major newspapers (including The Guardian), and apparently the New York Times is asking around for women who have faced this. On top of that, there's the FBI looking into the death threats made against Sarkeesian, the condemnation of several trade groups (including the Entertainment Software Association), and so forth. So yes, "people off the internet" care about the issue.

Do you ever have any good points, Norade?
It's not going to change shit. This isn't the first time anon's made the papers nor the first time the FBI have been involved in cases like this. It hasn't stopped yet. Hell even trying to shame a trade group has been done and failed, or does calling out EA as the worst company ever not count anymore?

The attacks won't slow until people get bored and forget about her and at that point, even if arrests are made, people will recall this for a few moments, laugh at the idiots who got arrested, and go back to wondering 'Who the fuck was Zoe Quinn again?' The internet has millions of people on it, and a subset of those are involved in this, most of whom won't be effected by the fallout and thus won't think twice about doing this again if they get swept up in another wave of petty hate. So unless you can say that you nailed everybody who doxxed somebody, sent a threat, pushed harassment a bit too far, or had a dead animal delivered arresting people will work just about as well as when the RIAA last went on a sing spree.

By the way, I don't care if you use my old user name Bass. Nobody knew it was me before I made that post and it doesn't matter who I used to be as long as the mods don't mind me being here.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30117
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Simon_Jester » 2014-10-16 05:41am

Thanas wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:
Block wrote:I'm not disputing that it was illegal or stupid. I'm saying that calling it domestic terrorism is a pretty big stretch. More like criminal harassment.
If it wasn't done by foreigners it was domestic. If it was harassment with a political agenda (such as silencing someone's freedom of speech), then it was terrorism. QED.
FFS by that standard both policital parties in the USA are domestic terrorists. :banghead:
As should have been clear, I was referring to the specific actions of the Utah State threat.

If they're committing crimes against someone or threatening to do so, in furtherance of a political agenda, then yes. Yes they are committing an act of terrorism.

Remember, we're not talking about normal protest here. We're talking about a threat to walk into a venue while the person you dislike is speaking and start shooting people. Assault, on a large scale, in the legal sense of the word 'assault,' with a political agenda. Yes, I think that qualifies as terrorism even if nobody wound up bleeding on the floor.
Jub wrote:No shit, but if this was happening to Joe Noname and not attached to a news story it would be at best a local fluff piece. Instead, because it's happening to women, it's an internet gong show with the victims going out of their way to milk it for publicity.
For one, it wouldn't happen to Joe Noname as a rule. For another, there is no guarantee of that. Threats against males have become Internet news stories before; these things can go viral very easily and unpredictably.

Why does it bother you so much that a woman is complaining about being repeatedly threatened with murder of herself and her family, by people who know or could easily obtain personal information about her, as a result of allegations made by a third party?

What the hell could a person take as better grounds for complaint than that? "An old friend of mine just asserted that I do unethical things, and now people are leaving dead animals in my mailbox and threatening to do drive-by shootings of my home, eh, whatever, it'll probably all blow over." Is that how you actually think?
Have you seen how the average police force handles harassment where a person is physically coming to your property? They show up, ask him/her to leave, and then bugger off again. If the person comes back they might do this a few more times and they could even hold the person for a day or so. After that they kind of stop wanting to dedicate resources to further calls about the issue and suggest you start taking steps to stop the issue.
Yes; and the steps in question are legal action, with very real potential legal consequences for the person you are trying to protect yourself against.

The point is, harassment isn't a zero-consequence activity for the victim. And it damned sure shouldn't be a zero-consequence activity for the harasser.
And how is making all of this public knowledge helping to de-escalate things so they go back to normal? If these people didn't go out of their way to let the people doing this to them know it was working it would have slowed down and been a non-story by now.
This is like... flamingly blatant blaming-the-victim. It's HER fault that she complains about grossly illegal and threatening actions, how DARE she speak up and expect people to care what's happening to her?

This reminds me of a quote I read in an article when I looked up "to mansplain" the other day:
Credibility is a basic survival tool. When I was very young and just beginning to get what feminism was about and why it was necessary, I had a boyfriend whose uncle was a nuclear physicist. One Christmas, he was telling -- as though it were a light and amusing subject -- how a neighbor's wife in his suburban bomb-making community had come running out of her house naked in the middle of the night screaming that her husband was trying to kill her. How, I asked, did you know that he wasn't trying to kill her? He explained, patiently, that they were respectable middle-class people. Therefore, her-husband-trying-to-kill-her was simply not a credible explanation for her fleeing the house yelling that her husband was trying to kill her. That she was crazy, on the other hand....

Even getting a restraining order -- a fairly new legal tool -- requires acquiring the credibility to convince the courts that some guy is a menace and then getting the cops to enforce it. Restraining orders often don't work anyway. Violence is one way to silence people, to deny their voice and their credibility, to assert your right to control over their right to exist. About three women a day are murdered by spouses or ex-spouses in this country. It's one of the main causes of death in pregnant women in the U.S. At the heart of the struggle of feminism to give rape, date rape, marital rape, domestic violence, and workplace sexual harassment legal standing as crimes has been the necessity of making women credible and audible.

I tend to believe that women acquired the status of human beings when these kinds of acts started to be taken seriously, when the big things that stop us and kill us were addressed legally from the mid-1970s on; well after, that is, my birth. And for anyone about to argue that workplace sexual intimidation isn't a life or death issue, remember that Marine Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, age 20, was apparently killed by her higher-ranking colleague last winter while she was waiting to testify that he raped her. The burned remains of her pregnant body were found in the fire pit in his backyard in December.
So yes, this is a very real issue, that women feel (with reason) that they can openly complain about violence and abuse directed against them, and no one will notice, or they will be told to shut up because obviously nothing is really wrong. And then all the men around them will be shocked, shocked on the occasions where one of the violent creeps actually does rape or murder the woman who was trying to complain.
It sucks that this is the best option for them, but them fighting a large horde of people with a wide variety of reasons for targeting them (not least of which is the LULZ of it) publicly is a dumb idea.
Why is she more to blame for this than the aforementioned horde?
Broomstick wrote:
Jub wrote:Should I feel afraid every time a stranger gets close to me when I'm walking alone at night, or when a less than well kept person approaches me at a bus stop?
Well, if we ever needed proof Jub wasn't a woman (as if that was ever in doubt) there's proof.I'm sorry it fractures your veneer, Jub, but that is EXACTLY the world for the majority of women. Fear of every stranger. Fear of many acquaintances.

Maybe that has an effect on how they view threats, hm?
That's sad, but the reality is I have more to fear on a daily basis than a women does...
Except you're not, all else being equal. The difference is that males are far more likely to voluntarily associate with more dangerous people and situations, rather than running away, refusing to leave their homes at night, and otherwise engaging in fear-based behaviors designed to protect them, because the only real chance they have of being safe from violence.

If you personally did all the same things women routinely do to avoid physical violence, you'd probably be at least as safe as they are. But you probably don't, because you have the privilege of knowing that unless a stranger is armed, they probably can't just brute-force impose their will on you.
and added to that as a male I'm expected to step in and stop fights between parties I don't even know.
Legally, no. Socially, not really.
If you walked past a man beating on a women with out physically stepping in people would call you smart, if I did it I'd be called a coward.
Yes, because you are in a position physically to do something about it. Unless you're a dwarf or disabled or something, you actually do have the ability to do something to counter the physical aggression of another male. A typical woman does not have that ability.

If that bothers you, well, it's the cost that comes with the privilege I mentioned earlier.
Also keep in mind that while men are more likely to be victims of violence in general, women are FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted, and even today sexual assault can have life-long negative repercussions to the victim.
This part is true, but in the event that I get dragged into a fight I'd (as a larger than average male) have a hell of a time convincing the cops I was just defending myself. I gets even worse if in striking back I injure the other person. Plus police see me as a big guy and are less likely to come to my aid if I do call about a disturbance outside my home.
So you're saying that you feel that having the police doubt you were acting in self defense is as bad a problem as getting raped?
Jub wrote:It does matter that it's happening to a public figure, just like slander and libel are different for public figures. This is continuing to happen because, rightly or wrongly, people see them as dishonestly milking this and are jumping on the bandwagon to help get rid of them. Their celebrity is the entire cause of this event.
And the fact that assholes "jump on a bandwagon" to illegally harass people is precisely the problem.

This is the moral analogue of a white mob preparing to lynch a black for being "uppity." In other words, presuming to do or say things that that mob doesn't feel it to be the place of the black to say. This woman was accused of something bad, so people decided to threaten her with rape and murder. And she dares to COMPLAIN about her treatment? That makes her even more uppity and even more of a target!

This is the most ridiculous bullshit I can imagine in the context of a situation like this. Really? You're going to focus on making the victim of the harassment shut up?
Don't equate being harassed to being raped. Being proactive can solve harassment, but when it doesn't going to ground for a bit usually does. It's the exact same as if they were doing this IRL and the police had exhausted their resources in dealing with an annoying but otherwise not serious crime.
In this case, the harassment includes actual threats to commit rape, so there is an equation at work here.
Yeah, there are different social expectations, but that's not really the point. Your statement indicates a general lack of empathy, which is the problem that posters are having here.
I empathize with the fact that these people are in an awkward position. I simply feel that they are over reacting to it and not taking the best steps to resolve the issue. Freaking out isn't the quickest nor the least messy way to resolve this and fighting it isn't likely to have the desired result because, and this might be a shock, nobody off the internet cares about the issue. Laws aren't going to be changed and Zoe Quinn isn't going to be the next Rosa Parks because of this internet war.
One of the issues at stake is whether women have a right to expect to not be threatened and violently silenced on the Internet.

Apparently you think the answer is "no."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Siege
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2004-12-11 12:35pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Siege » 2014-10-16 07:08am

There are some pretty gnarly collusion issues in the gaming industry, as illustrated in the past by the Gerstmann firing, 'Dorito-gate', extravagant press junkets thrown by developers etc. Half a dozen prominent sites simultaneously declaring the death of the gamer identity doesn't fill me with an overabundance of confidence that there's no sweeping message doctoring going on either. That's bullshit that no honest journalist ought to wish to partake in.

But to rally under the #gamergate hashtag like it's all about journalistic ethics strikes me as self-identifying as a Stalinist because you really dig the Moscow subway. It's kind of hard to deny that the reasons for identifying with the tag are marred if not wholly overshadowed by the fucked-up-ness associated with it. Like purges and gulags kind of detract from the radness of the metro, so do raging abuse and misogyny detract from the call for ethics.

That's one of many problems with hashtag activism: any asshole psycho can use the tag and co-opt your message. Holy shit, who ever knew it was a stupid idea to launch an activism campaign on a social media platform infamous for its burner acounts where discussion is limited to 140 characters, right? But I guess that's what happens when large numbers of people stop trusting the media. A plague o' both your houses!
Image
SDN World 2: The North Frequesuan Trust
SDN World 3: The Sultanate of Egypt
SDN World 4: The United Solarian Sovereignty
SDN World 5: San Dorado
There'll be a bodycount, we're gonna watch it rise
The folks at CNN, they won't believe their eyes

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Thanas » 2014-10-16 07:12am

Simon_Jester wrote:As should have been clear, I was referring to the specific actions of the Utah State threat.

If they're committing crimes against someone or threatening to do so, in furtherance of a political agenda, then yes. Yes they are committing an act of terrorism.

Remember, we're not talking about normal protest here. We're talking about a threat to walk into a venue while the person you dislike is speaking and start shooting people. Assault, on a large scale, in the legal sense of the word 'assault,' with a political agenda. Yes, I think that qualifies as terrorism even if nobody wound up bleeding on the floor.
By that context both a very large portion of NRA rallies and union protests against strikebreakers would fall under domestic terrorism. A label that is both too swift and too far reaching in this day and age.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30117
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Simon_Jester » 2014-10-16 09:53am

If an NRA rally makes threats not covered by free speech, in an attempt to intimidate outsiders for political gain, I don't have a problem with calling that terrorism. There is actually significant case law in the US discussion just how much a group like the NRA can say before it becomes valid to arrest them for incitement to violence. Likewise for churches, unions, and so on.

...

Personally, it's my opinion that the first thing we need to do to repair the First World's massive raging phobia of "terrorism" is use it correctly, to describe people who commit crimes in the name of causes that many of us can at least imagine a sane-ish human being identifying with.

Blowing up an abortion clinic is terrorism- but in the US we hesitate to call it that because there are so many anti-abortion people, and because we've developed this idea that it is totally impossible for any legitimate citizen and any terrorist to agree on anything.

This is poisonous, because it means we cannot call people out when they start using violence in pursuit of causes that the majority approves of or at least tolerates. The only kind of 'terrorist' we can be prepared to acknowledge, then, are mysterious swarthy foreign ones who have no clearly identifiable (to us) cause for grievance. I think this is a direct cause of the idiocy behind the "war on terror;" we imagine the terrorists as a loosely defined network of evil aliens who all live 'somewhere over there.'

We don't think "wait, shit, people I sympathize with might go to the extremes of committing terrorism."

If we started actually using 'terrorist' to describe everyone it properly applies to, that might start to fade, and our political discourse would become more honest for it.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27003
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Broomstick » 2014-10-16 10:03am

First of all, I want to thank Simon Jester for his most recent posts because he gets it, he understands and empathizes with the female viewpoint to the point he can explain it well.

As for Jub - it should be obvious by now, and not just from this thread, that he does lack empathy for others and is very self-centered.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
Spekio
Jedi Knight
Posts: 762
Joined: 2009-09-15 12:34pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Spekio » 2014-10-16 10:10am

Terralthra wrote:Can you please define "doxxing"? You appear to be using it to mean "anything I don't like". You posted Zoe insulting them and being amused that their site accidentally got DDoSed...but not any doxxing, which, as far as I understand it is "searching for and posting publicly, identifying or private information for the purpose of harassment."
I'm using the language Zoe herself used.
Guardsman Bass wrote:Snip.
LapsedPacifist wrote:Snip.
I'm going to say one last thing because I am tired of this.

I have a low opinion of Zoe Quinn. I think someone whom fucks with a charity (and if it was exploitative, as some people are raising concerns, there are authorities to report to) is an awful person. I wish that the guy she allegedly sexually harassed would find justice, and think it's preposterous that he was basically bullied by a clique not coming forward. I think it's disgusting that talk about she engaged in unethical behaviour got over 25.000 comments on reddit deleted because she was friends with a mod. It's even more disgusting how her journalist friends rallied around her as if, when they were caught with the hand in the cookie jar, you could dismiss it all with "She is a WOMAN, you disgusting whiny white guys bad gamers you".

Still, I don't support harassment of her or of anyone. Mob justice it's not justice. I want her and her clique ousted because they fucked with their consumers - but that is the extent that I care.

So writing e-mails for the advertisers of those sites? Ousting corruption (like Total Biscuit did with the Shadow of Mordor youtube deal)? Pressuring gaming sites to adhere to a stricter code of ethics? I am all for it.

Creepy phone calls and death threats I am not. And that goes to both sides.

It has became a shitstorm of epic proportions, and people just keep adding fuel to the fire. To go with oversimplifications and broad bush assertions has only added to resentment of both sides.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30117
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Simon_Jester » 2014-10-16 01:23pm

Broomstick wrote:First of all, I want to thank Simon Jester for his most recent posts because he gets it, he understands and empathizes with the female viewpoint to the point he can explain it well.
It's not exactly rocket science. I don't understand why it's a problem for so many guys. I mean, you'd think basic common sense would cover "well, what would YOU do if you were surrounded by people who on average are six inches taller and have fifty pounds more muscle than you, who find you attractive, and who are frequently drunk, dimwitted, arrogant, hateful, or five of the above?"

I'd get the hell out before Bubba shows up looking for a new girlfriend, that's what I'd do. And anyone who tried to stop me would be scaring the hell out of me.
As for Jub - it should be obvious by now, and not just from this thread, that he does lack empathy for others and is very self-centered.
I am beginning to come back around to this point of view.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4799
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by TheFeniX » 2014-10-16 05:29pm

Honestly, if I was that terrified, I'd get a concealed handgun license. Hell, I barely carried until I blew out two discs in my back and realized I couldn't even flee from an attacker.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30117
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Simon_Jester » 2014-10-16 07:35pm

Sure, but a concealed handgun isn't a cure-all,* among other things because it's not exactly above legal question to blow away a horny, half-drunk guy in an elevator because he gets too fresh.*

The thing is, any decent self-defense training associated with a CCW should emphasize one of the core concepts of self defense: avoid dangerous situations!* But if you know you can be physically overpowered easily, then even having a gun doesn't mean you're safe, if the threatening man has the potential to get you within arm's reach before you draw on him. So one would predictably find oneself avoiding any situation that might turn into violence. Especially if one is a woman whose very presence is to some men like a red flag being waved in front of a bull because they're too horny to think coherently.

And that need to worry about this, well, that's what I feel really isn't that hard to wrap one's brain around. Just imagine knowing that in case of a fight, you're gonna lose, unless you do something brutal and preemptive (like shoot someone dead for getting fresh with you). But that would influence almost everything you ever do- because it influences whether you feel safe going out alone at night, how you deal with a stalkerish ex, how you react to random threatening people who sound like they have weird psychosexual obsessions with you, and so on.


*You no doubt know this at least as well as me, I'm just reiterating it.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2381
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Napoleon the Clown » 2014-10-17 01:53am

Thanas wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:As should have been clear, I was referring to the specific actions of the Utah State threat.

If they're committing crimes against someone or threatening to do so, in furtherance of a political agenda, then yes. Yes they are committing an act of terrorism.

Remember, we're not talking about normal protest here. We're talking about a threat to walk into a venue while the person you dislike is speaking and start shooting people. Assault, on a large scale, in the legal sense of the word 'assault,' with a political agenda. Yes, I think that qualifies as terrorism even if nobody wound up bleeding on the floor.
By that context both a very large portion of NRA rallies and union protests against strikebreakers would fall under domestic terrorism. A label that is both too swift and too far reaching in this day and age.
So what is it when someone threatens to engage in a mass-shooting over a political issue? What's the proper term? Enlighten me, please. I can't think of any better word in English than terrorism, considering the entire goddamn point is to scare people into submission using the threat of violence for political gain. Large numbers of people. The person explicitly stated in their email to USU that there would be a lethal mass-shooting if Anita Sarkeesian were to speak there. That isn't a bunch of wanna-be "freedom fighters" like the wankers that swarm to NRA rallies openly carrying assault rifles with 30+ round magazines and bandoliers of ammo. That is someone explicitly stating an intent to kill as many people as possible for a political objective. Just what the fuck is it?

Or is it only terrorism if it actually ends up being carried out?
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3881
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Jub » 2014-10-17 03:08am

Simon_Jester wrote:For one, it wouldn't happen to Joe Noname as a rule. For another, there is no guarantee of that. Threats against males have become Internet news stories before; these things can go viral very easily and unpredictably.

Why does it bother you so much that a woman is complaining about being repeatedly threatened with murder of herself and her family, by people who know or could easily obtain personal information about her, as a result of allegations made by a third party?

What the hell could a person take as better grounds for complaint than that? "An old friend of mine just asserted that I do unethical things, and now people are leaving dead animals in my mailbox and threatening to do drive-by shootings of my home, eh, whatever, it'll probably all blow over." Is that how you actually think?
Going public with it in the way that they've been doing it is getting people on both sides riled up. If somebody came to your house trying to creep on you and moments after the police left you posted about in on facebook and moments after that people on your friends list started harassing the person. How much sympathy do you think the police would have for you the second and third times you called them? Why are they handling in the most inflammatory way possible? The answer is simple, they want the attention and even if they don't want it for themselves they want it for a cause so they stir the pot to keep the wheels rolling.

When other online personalities get these threats, why do you think they don't deal with it the same way? Why do you think people like Total Biscuit, The Nostalgia Critic, the AVGN aren't making a big deal about the hate mail and specific threats they get on a daily basis? You know they must be getting them because channels smaller than them are getting them, so why isn't it news when somebody threatens, say, the Amazing Atheist saying they know his home address?

Why do people like Marilyn Manson play shows that they've gotten threats for (specifically Manson's show in Columbine) yet Sarkeesian is too afraid to speak? Does it not seem odd that a woman claiming women don't need knights and who claims to be fighting on principles has less conviction than a shock rock performer?
Yes; and the steps in question are legal action, with very real potential legal consequences for the person you are trying to protect yourself against.

The point is, harassment isn't a zero-consequence activity for the victim. And it damned sure shouldn't be a zero-consequence activity for the harasser.
Yet it is. The fact of the matter is even IRL the police won't do shit for harassment, if they did the paparazzi wouldn't be a thing. People are, to some degree, still expected to fend for themselves in this world. If Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian want to be equals and want to get shit done maybe they should just act rather than making sure they are seen acting.
This is like... flamingly blatant blaming-the-victim. It's HER fault that she complains about grossly illegal and threatening actions, how DARE she speak up and expect people to care what's happening to her?
So why doesn't every person on the internet who's ever received a specific and targeted threat react this way? Could it perhaps be that throwing gas at fire doesn't tend to make less fire?
Credibility is a basic survival tool. <snipped for length>
So yes, this is a very real issue, that women feel (with reason) that they can openly complain about violence and abuse directed against them, and no one will notice, or they will be told to shut up because obviously nothing is really wrong. And then all the men around them will be shocked, shocked on the occasions where one of the violent creeps actually does rape or murder the woman who was trying to complain.
The way to build up credibility isn't through volume of calls, it isn't complaining every time a thing happens. It's taking the one thing that did happen, the one worth standing on, to the end in a way that engenders respect in those you are trying to influence. These women are doing nothing to win over those that hate them and the shit storm around this is causing people outside of it to look at both sides as idiots (or it would if the media was reporting the dumb shit that both sides are doing).
Why is she more to blame for this than the aforementioned horde?
When did I saw it was? Where did I ever say that these women deserved this or that the other side has a leg to stand on? Both sides have a large share of assholes. The difference is one side is a faceless blob that won't stop until it gets bored and the other side is public figures with an agenda to push. Which side is going to have an easier time convincing its horde to de-escalate things?
Well, if we ever needed proof Jub wasn't a woman (as if that was ever in doubt) there's proof.I'm sorry it fractures your veneer, Jub, but that is EXACTLY the world for the majority of women. Fear of every stranger. Fear of many acquaintances.

Maybe that has an effect on how they view threats, hm?
An often unwarranted and false fear. I could equally develop a fear of unwanted assault, after all the stats say it happens to more men than women. I could also say that I've been involved in a drunk alley fight that I wanted no part of but the other person did. Does that mean I should be spreading the word about drunken alley fights and advising men to carry a drunken alley fight kit? Should that color my view of alleys or people that stand in them at night? Should I take to twitter about unwanted nighttime assaults?

Face it Broomstick, out of all the men you know, how many of them do you believe are rapists, molesters, or abusers of women? Now apply that number to the population at large and realize that as bad as the stats are, you needn't fear every male who has a few inches and pounds on you. You simply need to be ready for the ones that aren't so civilized.

That's sad, but the reality is I have more to fear on a daily basis than a women does...[/quote]Except you're not, all else being equal. The difference is that males are far more likely to voluntarily associate with more dangerous people and situations, rather than running away, refusing to leave their homes at night, and otherwise engaging in fear-based behaviors designed to protect them, because the only real chance they have of being safe from violence.

If you personally did all the same things women routinely do to avoid physical violence, you'd probably be at least as safe as they are. But you probably don't, because you have the privilege of knowing that unless a stranger is armed, they probably can't just brute-force impose their will on you.
Legally, no. Socially, not really.
There was a bullying ad made in my town that specifically targeted adult males not breaking up fights between teenagers. So don't give me that socially not really bullshit.
Yes, because you are in a position physically to do something about it. Unless you're a dwarf or disabled or something, you actually do have the ability to do something to counter the physical aggression of another male. A typical woman does not have that ability.

If that bothers you, well, it's the cost that comes with the privilege I mentioned earlier.
Great, so I'm expected to be a vigilante now because some people can't fight back as well as I can? Why am I not allowed to just call the cops and wait for the pros to arrive? I'm no hero I backed out of joining the military specifically because my fight or flight is set firmly on flee. So why should I get to deal with people saying 'oh look at him he should have stepped in' when I'm not suited to fighting? Besides, I thought women want men to stop fighting battles for them.
So you're saying that you feel that having the police doubt you were acting in self defense is as bad a problem as getting raped?
Not exactly the same, but both can leave you with a social stigma attached to you and lead to long term issues. Both can also lead to added doubts about the capabilities of a system that should have protected you and failed. So while winning a fight in a way that caused legal troubles for you isn't even a tenth as horrific as being raped, it carries many of the same side effects at a much more limited scale.

If you wanted to find a specifically male problem as bad as being raped you likely won't find one, but that isn't because rape is uniquely terrible. How is, outside of the stigma and gender issues attached to it, getting violently raped (without pregnancy afterwards) that much different than getting violently beaten? In both cases you were overwhelmed and limited in your ability to fight back. In both cases your body was violently violated. In both cases the attacker held power over you. Yet one is a big media issue and the other is battery.
Jub wrote:And the fact that assholes "jump on a bandwagon" to illegally harass people is precisely the problem.

This is the moral analogue of a white mob preparing to lynch a black for being "uppity." In other words, presuming to do or say things that that mob doesn't feel it to be the place of the black to say. This woman was accused of something bad, so people decided to threaten her with rape and murder. And she dares to COMPLAIN about her treatment? That makes her even more uppity and even more of a target!

This is the most ridiculous bullshit I can imagine in the context of a situation like this. Really? You're going to focus on making the victim of the harassment shut up?
She can talk all she wants, it's her right. However it's not actually helping her cause the way she thinks it is. This won't end internet harassment or cyber bullying, nor will it be the thing that takes feminism over the top, it might get some people talking but even that has an equal chance of people reacting to this as I have. If she wants to get her message out, let this pass, and get you story out when it isn't being overshadow by a gong show that you're fans are helping propagate. Don't try to milk these threats to squeeze a few more seconds from this 15 minutes of fame.
In this case, the harassment includes actual threats to commit rape, so there is an equation at work here.
How many rapes have happened that can be linked to #gamergate thus far? How many violent assaults? How many shootings? None you say... Come back when somebody uncovers a threat that gets proven to have had teeth.
One of the issues at stake is whether women have a right to expect to not be threatened and violently silenced on the Internet.

Apparently you think the answer is "no."
Everybody has that right, yet currently nobody has any protection from it. Most people who get internet threats accept it as a cost of being a public figure. What makes these people different or less able to deal with these threats the way others have?

----------
Napoleon the Clown wrote:So what is it when someone threatens to engage in a mass-shooting over a political issue? What's the proper term? Enlighten me, please. I can't think of any better word in English than terrorism, considering the entire goddamn point is to scare people into submission using the threat of violence for political gain. Large numbers of people. The person explicitly stated in their email to USU that there would be a lethal mass-shooting if Anita Sarkeesian were to speak there. That isn't a bunch of wanna-be "freedom fighters" like the wankers that swarm to NRA rallies openly carrying assault rifles with 30+ round magazines and bandoliers of ammo. That is someone explicitly stating an intent to kill as many people as possible for a political objective. Just what the fuck is it?

Or is it only terrorism if it actually ends up being carried out?
Has anybody found proof that the person who had a threat had the means and will to carry it out? It didn't happen at other events where people received threats and carried on anyway, what are the chances it would have actually happened in this case? Should controversial figures just not hold public events in Utah these days or what? Would it still be terrorism if the threats were made against a larger organization that chose to keep them under wraps?

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Thanas » 2014-10-17 03:47am

Napoleon the Clown wrote:
Thanas wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:As should have been clear, I was referring to the specific actions of the Utah State threat.

If they're committing crimes against someone or threatening to do so, in furtherance of a political agenda, then yes. Yes they are committing an act of terrorism.

Remember, we're not talking about normal protest here. We're talking about a threat to walk into a venue while the person you dislike is speaking and start shooting people. Assault, on a large scale, in the legal sense of the word 'assault,' with a political agenda. Yes, I think that qualifies as terrorism even if nobody wound up bleeding on the floor.
By that context both a very large portion of NRA rallies and union protests against strikebreakers would fall under domestic terrorism. A label that is both too swift and too far reaching in this day and age.
So what is it when someone threatens to engage in a mass-shooting over a political issue? What's the proper term? Enlighten me, please. I can't think of any better word in English than terrorism, considering the entire goddamn point is to scare people into submission using the threat of violence for political gain. Large numbers of people. The person explicitly stated in their email to USU that there would be a lethal mass-shooting if Anita Sarkeesian were to speak there. That isn't a bunch of wanna-be "freedom fighters" like the wankers that swarm to NRA rallies openly carrying assault rifles with 30+ round magazines and bandoliers of ammo. That is someone explicitly stating an intent to kill as many people as possible for a political objective. Just what the fuck is it?
It is a fucking death threat. That is what it is and what the proper term is for it. Don't call every little shitshow terrorism.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4417
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by bilateralrope » 2014-10-17 04:11am

Jub wrote:When other online personalities get these threats, why do you think they don't deal with it the same way? Why do you think people like Total Biscuit, The Nostalgia Critic, the AVGN aren't making a big deal about the hate mail and specific threats they get on a daily basis? You know they must be getting them because channels smaller than them are getting them, so why isn't it news when somebody threatens, say, the Amazing Atheist saying they know his home address?
TotalBiscuit recently put a piece up on twitlonger about what to do when you get a death threat. Specifically, going public about it can only make things worse.

However, looking at the article about the threat of the mass shooting, it wasn't Sarkeesian who made it public. It was the university. Before the talk was canceled. So I have to ask, how many of the death threats went public because the person threatened announced them ?
And how many went public because someone else noticed them and made noise ?

User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3881
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Jub » 2014-10-17 04:20am

bilateralrope wrote:
Jub wrote:When other online personalities get these threats, why do you think they don't deal with it the same way? Why do you think people like Total Biscuit, The Nostalgia Critic, the AVGN aren't making a big deal about the hate mail and specific threats they get on a daily basis? You know they must be getting them because channels smaller than them are getting them, so why isn't it news when somebody threatens, say, the Amazing Atheist saying they know his home address?
TotalBiscuit recently put a piece up on twitlonger about what to do when you get a death threat. Specifically, going public about it can only make things worse.

However, looking at the article about the threat of the mass shooting, it wasn't Sarkeesian who made it public. It was the university. Before the talk was canceled. So I have to ask, how many of the death threats went public because the person threatened announced them ?
And how many went public because someone else noticed them and made noise ?
So why do I have Simon_Jester and Broomstick jumping down my throat when I suggest that maybe these women need to stop making these events public knowledge?

Yeah, obviously some of the threats aren't being made public by the victims, but they could have prevented this by not going to the media in the first place. They could also ask the media and/or the venue not to make such threats public and to ensure that any speaking events are simply rescheduled or canceled for personal reasons. This deescalates the threats when one can't easily confirm that an event was canceled due to one.

As I see it, the only logical reason not to make such a request is if you want the attention that such threats create. If you did make such a request and this happens anyway, make it known that the media outlet or venue violated your wishes in releasing such information. This will eventually cause you to stop being front page news and thus stop you from being as large a target.

User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Metahive » 2014-10-17 04:35am

Thanas wrote: It is a fucking death threat. That is what it is and what the proper term is for it. Don't call every little shitshow terrorism.
The guy didn't just threaten Sarkeesian's life but threatened to massacre the people listening to her and the staff and attendees at the nearby women's center and every other feminist on the campus as well with explosives and semi-automatic weapons. If that's not a terrorist threat then what is?

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads ... threat.jpg
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer

User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3881
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Jub » 2014-10-17 04:43am

Metahive wrote:
Thanas wrote: It is a fucking death threat. That is what it is and what the proper term is for it. Don't call every little shitshow terrorism.
The guy didn't just threaten Sarkeesian's life but threatened to massacre the people listening to her and the staff and attendees at the nearby women's center and every other feminist on the campus as well with explosives and semi-automatic weapons. If that's not a terrorist threat then what is?

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads ... threat.jpg
Did the sender make the contents of the thread public and widely available? Do we have proof that they ever had the means or will to carry it out? What makes this event special when other such events receive threats and continue as planned regardless?

User avatar
salm
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 10296
Joined: 2002-09-09 08:25pm

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by salm » 2014-10-17 04:57am

Metahive wrote:
Thanas wrote: It is a fucking death threat. That is what it is and what the proper term is for it. Don't call every little shitshow terrorism.
The guy didn't just threaten Sarkeesian's life but threatened to massacre the people listening to her and the staff and attendees at the nearby women's center and every other feminist on the campus as well with explosives and semi-automatic weapons. If that's not a terrorist threat then what is?

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads ... threat.jpg
I don´t think terrorism has an academic definition but I think to a lot of people terrorism implies that it is of a rather systematic nature with the goal to cause fear. That´s also what the dictionary says. So an incident like this is too isolated for it to be terrorism and would rather be considered a death threat.
Now, if the people issued this death threat frequently to people of a certain group and by that caused <edit>a general climate of</edit> fear it would sound more like terrorism to me.

User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

Post by Metahive » 2014-10-17 05:05am

Please, don't tell me you think that's the first time outspoken feminists have been at the receiving end of threats of death and violence, this is as old as feminism itself.

Also, this isn't just a generic death threat, it's a threat to massacre people attending an event that's disagreeing with the writer's worldview and which got the target to cancel the event out of fear for her and the attendee's lives.

Again, if that's not a terrorist threat, THEN WHAT IS?
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer

Post Reply