#GamerGate

[crayzz]

If you want to take some pedantic meaning of shut down I guess in your mind I'll be wrong.

Normally I'd let this sort of thing slide; it's a capitulation veiled as a riposte. But given the number of times you've gone on about clarity, you pretending you meant "loss of funds"* by "shut down," the latter of which bears no semblance to reality, just isn't gonna fly.

*That isn't even established; the author describes the loss of funds as business matter, and there's no indication elsewhere that the charity lost money.

Anyways, enough of the tangential matter:

And, as long as the reporter in question refrains from offering a medical diagnosis, the term "insane" is correct. "Insanity", after all, is a legal term, not a medical one. It refers not to depression or schizophrenia or hallucination, but to the capacity of the individual to make choices that are in line with the reasonable expectations of society.

Absolutely not. "Insanity," or lack thereof, refers to one ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. The legal significance is that one who cannot tell the two apart (i.e. one who is legally insane) cannot be held responsible. One lacks mens rea if one lacks an understanding of one's actions. I am not convinced that the individual(s) who sent the letter is (are) incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

—

I said that acerbic opinions of a few people are not representative of the population as a whole

The relevant matter here is that they are, quite literally, representative, in that they are literally representatives. The US is a democracy of sorts, and half the country keeps voting for a blatantly misogynistic party and platform.

[Tem]

The relevant matter here is that they are, quite literally, representative, in that they are literally representatives. The US is a democracy of sorts, and half the country keeps voting for a blatantly misogynistic party and platform.

Thank you for clarifying that. I thought it was obvious, but it seems I was mistaken. I am aware that the US democracy is designed in a way that encourages voters to choose the lesser of two evils instead of voting for the party that really represents their thoughts, but that only explains why the less misogynistic big party can get away with a lot of stuff that their voters don't approve of.

[Nepene]

If you want to take some pedantic meaning of shut down I guess in your mind I'll be wrong.

Normally I'd let this sort of thing slide; it's a capitulation veiled as a riposte. But given the number of times you've gone on about clarity, you pretending you meant "loss of funds"* by "shut down," the latter of which bears no semblance to reality, just isn't gonna fly.

*That isn't even established; the author describes the loss of funds as business matter, and there's no indication elsewhere that the charity lost money.

We immediately delayed launching the site for a week while we addressed these issues making sure our transgender policy was correct (it was checked by another human rights lawyer) and we went over our monetary policies, and they were all deemed fine.

After the launch, it became extremely difficult to engage with an audience, because if you searched for our name especially on Twitter, then you will find long
“Kotaku’s Jason Schreier contacted us after our Indiegogo page got hacked on August 25″
series of comments about how exploitative we were. Because of the number of tweets and retweets these search results bled into Google. More over, the original Twitter storm spread into many communities. We had a difficult time engaging with video game design communities, inevitably being called scam artists and often our threads were closed without specific reasoning as to why.

You're welcome to define a lack of money, stopping for a week, and being shut out of social media as not being shut down of course. Personally I feel that stopping the action of a business for a week and paralyzing it for longer counts as "the act of stopping the operation or activity of a business, machine, etc., for a period of time or forever" Perhaps you feel that the stopping was entirely on them and utterly unrelated to any of Zoe's actions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shutdown

[crayzz]

You're welcome to define a lack of money, ... and being shut out of social media as not being shut down of course.

Happily, as neither of them are. At least not in this case.

...stopping for a week...

Ah, there's an interesting tidbit. Lesse here:

We immediately delayed launching the site for a week while we addressed these issues making sure our transgender policy was correct (it was checked by another human rights lawyer) and we went over our monetary policies, and they were all deemed fine.

Becomes:

She helped shut down a charity for speaking against her.

I don't consider an internal review of their policies done of their own volition as "[Quinn helping to] shut down a charity," and I certainly don't consider it as "[Quinn helping to] shut down a charity for speaking against her." Note how there was no coercive element: the moment they felt there policies where above reproach, they began again. Had they felt that way from the start; had they simply dismissed Quinn's criticisms; nothing would have happened. The summary remains exemplary of how dishonesty spreads online.

[Tem]

I just read this:

http://gawker.com/the-angry-ex-who-igni ... 1647186033

That sounds illogical. So, he was emotionally abused, and is now completely happy to have triggered a hate-campaign, which he claims is no hate-campaign ... it just threatens to murder people?

One would think, being a victim of emotional abuse and knowing what words can do to a person's psyche, he'd be at least a little bit concerned about it all ...

(Sorry if this was linked before. I have some people in this thread on my ignore list.)

[MugaSofer]

Online discussion of sexism or misogyny quickly results in disproportionate displays of sexism and misogyny.

or: "Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism."

To be fair, they also scare-quotes-"justify"-unquote most criticisms of feminism.

The men who made the misogynistic games that Sarkeesian uses in her videos have never received death threats because of that.

Is this actually true? (They certainly received less.)

I was referring to where she retweeted a friend's doxing of the personal facebook of one of the developers and directed her fans towards them. Then a person made a death threat to them and their backer withdrew due to negative publicity.

That does not support your claim. Rather, it supports mine: that events are twisted around until they bear only little semblance to reality.

We've also entered into this bizarre world where public criticism somehow is wrong.

Hmm.

One side of this - the #GamerGaters - engaged in public criticism. This led to death threats, and so now we, in this thread, are criticizing #GamerGate.

Quinn publicized the private information of those who disagreed with her. This also led to death threats. And yet you're defending it?

No, I'm sorry, doxxing people is wrong. It's not "public criticism"; it's the opposite of public criticism. It's trying to win an argument by attacking - literally attacking - the speaker, instead of disproving their arguments.

I don't care how misogynistic the "other side" is (and they are misogynistic.) That is wrong.

And, as long as the reporter in question refrains from offering a medical diagnosis, the term "insane" is correct. "Insanity", after all, is a legal term, not a medical one. It refers not to depression or schizophrenia or hallucination, but to the capacity of the individual to make choices that are in line with the reasonable expectations of society.

Absolutely not. "Insanity," or lack thereof, refers to one ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. The legal significance is that one who cannot tell the two apart (i.e. one who is legally insane) cannot be held responsible. One lacks mens rea if one lacks an understanding of one's actions. I am not convinced that the individual(s) who sent the letter is (are) incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

—

I said that acerbic opinions of a few people are not representative of the population as a whole

The relevant matter here is that they are, quite literally, representative, in that they are literally representatives. The US is a democracy of sorts, and half the country keeps voting for a blatantly misogynistic party and platform.

Quoted for truth.

[Tem]

Online discussion of sexism or misogyny quickly results in disproportionate displays of sexism and misogyny.

or: "Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism."

To be fair, they also scare-quotes-"justify"-unquote most criticisms of feminism.

The men who made the misogynistic games that Sarkeesian uses in her videos have never received death threats because of that.

Is this actually true? (They certainly received less.)

I fail to see how misogynist insults, death threats against feminists and all the other stuff even "justify" any criticism of feminism. Anti-feminists are so far removed from reality that I cannot even see how they can really think they have a point. I think they're just egoist males who don't want to lose their privilege. And who don't actually believe in the bullshit they tell the world and each other. (I may be wrong. I tend to assume people are more intelligent than they really are.)


And, well, I do think that game producers, had they received any death threats, however non-serious or ironic, on grounds of their misogyny, they would have thrown a big temper tantrum and complained about "evil feminists". As I never heard of such a thing, I deduce that they, in fact, have not received death threats from feminists. Maybe they get some death threats from the competition, I don't know.
If there were any real examples of violent feminism, the anti-feminists (aka, woman-haters) would not have to resort to crying "misandry" when all that really happened was a woman pointing out their blatant misogyny.

I therefore deduce that, since a person as harmless as Anita Sarkeesian receives death threats from a man whose life was allegedly "ruined by feminists" (but he's still alive and well enough to act on his threats if we are to believe him ...) no death threats against misogynists have ever happened.

[luislsacc]

And, well, I do think that game producers, had they received any death threats, however non-serious or ironic, on grounds of their misogyny, they would have thrown a big temper tantrum and complained about "evil feminists". As I never heard of such a thing, I deduce that they, in fact, have not received death threats from feminists. Maybe they get some death threats from the competition, I don't know.
If there were any real examples of violent feminism, the anti-feminists (aka, woman-haters) would not have to resort to crying "misandry" when all that really happened was a woman pointing out their blatant misogyny.

I don't think your point of view is correct in regards to this. While exposing death threats and such things might be beneficial for both Anita Sarkeesian and the people on the #GamerGate side, as it's a clear symptom of the problems both sides are trying to portray, publicising such things is a very poor idea for game producers ( I believe developers is a more precise term here). Imagine if Shigeru Miyamoto or Satoru Iwata came out in public and started denouncing receiving death threats because of Super Mario Bros. or something. Imagine how the stock market would react because of that - especially in Japan, where such claims are taken with a very different type of interest. For many of the larger developers, denouncing or heck, even mentioning issues such as these are a very bad idea - the only people who would give them attention would already be giving them attention otherwise and it doesn't push a product to sell, but rather reveals insecurity or fragility on their end. When the livelihood of thousands depends on your company, you don't go stirring up hornets' nests you don't need to.
In summary, it's a bad idea for ( large/ established) game developers to expose things such as death threats, as it only threatens business, and it's a good idea for Anita/ #GamerGate to publicise such things, as it only gives them attention, and any kind of attention is beneficial to them as far as what they want.

This isn't to say that threats against either group are fabricated, as I've seen too much of how the internet can be a hate machine to believe such things wouldn't be possible, or even likely.

I therefore deduce that, since a person as harmless as Anita Sarkeesian receives death threats from a man whose life was allegedly "ruined by feminists" (but he's still alive and well enough to act on his threats if we are to believe him ...) no death threats against misogynists have ever happened.

I really can't follow the logic here. Are you trying to say that if they ever received death threats the only course of action they would take is to immediately expose them? If so, this seems rather silly to me, there's obviously other things people can do, and I think that just because something is likely that doesn't mean it's sure. It's like saying that you've never seen a robin sing in winter, therefore no robins sing in winter.
Another point you seem to be making is that a man whose life has been ruined could not be in a state to make death threats to others, or couldn't act on said death threats. This also seems strange to me, as these days even some homeless people have mobiles and all you really need to quickly kill someone who isn't heavily guarded is a brick and silent feet, and yet I'd still say a homeless person who owns a smartphone and a brick could still be someone whose life has been ruined.

[Nepene]

And, well, I do think that game producers, had they received any death threats, however non-serious or ironic, on grounds of their misogyny, they would have thrown a big temper tantrum and complained about "evil feminists". As I never heard of such a thing, I deduce that they, in fact, have not received death threats from feminists. Maybe they get some death threats from the competition, I don't know.

http://thefineyoungcapitalists.tumblr.c ... n-the-face

Zoe Quinn didn’t understand this project, she decided to send some followers our way, one of them doxxed me she retweeted it, one of them sent a death threat, tons of them called me transphobic and the majority said the project was exploitive. It costed me some money, a friend and a sponsor. She fucked up, I’ve been treated worst, I rarely think about it anymore. My greatest sin seems to be not pretending it didn’t happen.

A game developer was throwing a tantrum over their death threat due to their supposed misogyny. It's been talked about on this thread several times.

[crayzz]

Quinn publicized the private information of those who disagreed with her. This also led to death threats. And yet you're defending it?

No. You can tell because I didn't write anything like a defence of death threats anywhere.

—
EDIT:

I don't care how misogynistic the "other side" is (and they are misogynistic.)

Wait, what? Where have I written anything about TFYC being misogynistic? How the fuck could I possibly use an argument based on a position I neither hold nor have ever advanced?
/EDIT
—

I therefore deduce that, since a person as harmless as Anita Sarkeesian receives death threats from a man whose life was allegedly "ruined by feminists" (but he's still alive and well enough to act on his threats if we are to believe him ...) no death threats against misogynists have ever happened.

No, there was, in fact, one death threat of which we're aware.

(Though I note that no one was rushing to claim that it was a false flag, despite the group with motivation to engage in false flag campaigns having already made many death threats. And no, I'm not claiming it was a false flag; I'm noting hypocrisy and selective reasoning.)

Is this [misogynistic game developers not receiving death threats] actually true? (They certainly received less.)

You wanna know the sad thing about the gaming community? They likely have. Probably in a less sustained campaign of hatred that a woman would get; certainly less sustained than Saarkesian or Quinn received. But there have been, for instance, death threats over things like nerfing a certain gun in multiplayer games.