Can we bury gamergate yet?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Avnger:

Achelexus:

Avnger:

True sending women death threats because they have the gall to give their opinions on video games of all things does reveal a lot.

Point proven. If you feel targeted by gamergate, as if you're somehow persecuted by some shadowy conspiracy or something, well, chances are you're not old enough to be playing video games.

Ah I understand now. Death threats sent via Twitter, email, private message, and mail along with the posting of your physical location is a shadow conspiracy.

Achelexus:
as if you're somehow persecuted by some shadowy conspiracy or something

You mean like the "SJW menace" coming after video games and gamers?

What we tend to have on here is two "groups" arguing over whose conspiracy theory is the "correct" conspiracy theory. This circular argument will most likely continue until both "sides" are willing to admit that they are wrong. The fact is there is no mass 'campaign of online harassment', nor is there a virtuous movement for 'ethics in games journalism', and there never was.

Edit: Attempted to distinguish scare quotes from actual quotations

inmunitas:
What we tend to have on here is two "groups" arguing over whose conspiracy theory is the "correct" conspiracy theory. This circular argument will most likely continue until both "sides" are willing to admit that they are wrong. The fact is there is no mass "campaign of online harassment", nor is there a virtuous movement for "ethics in games journalism", and there never was.

That's a lot of "scare" quotes meant to muddy the "waters." Your "post" has very "little" to do with "the" conversation that was taking "place." "What" "point" "are" "you" "trying" "to" "make?"

inmunitas:
The fact is there is no mass 'campaign of online harassment'

You should really say that to Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, I am sure they'll respect that this is your opinion and not see it as an attempt to downplay just how vicious the early days of the Quinnspiracy/Gamergate really was.

Gethsemani:

inmunitas:
The fact is there is no mass 'campaign of online harassment'

You should really say that to Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, I am sure they'll respect that this is your opinion and not see it as an attempt to downplay just how vicious the early days of the Quinnspiracy/Gamergate really was.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Gethsemani:

inmunitas:
The fact is there is no mass 'campaign of online harassment'

You should really say that to Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, I am sure they'll respect that this is your opinion and not see it as an attempt to downplay just how vicious the early days of the Quinnspiracy/Gamergate really was.

So I assume you are admitting that there wasn't a mass campaign of online harassment?

inmunitas:

So I assume you are admitting that there wasn't a mass campaign of online harassment?

You should've assumed I was being incredibly sarcastic. Both Quinn and Sarkeesian have provided plenty of proof that they were viciously harassed online and in real life for weeks (in the case of Quinn, for months) on end because of the shitstorm GamerGate started over the Zoe Post and Tropes vs Women. You can keep saying it didn't happen all you like, but it won't change what actually transpired.

Gethsemani:

inmunitas:
So I assume you are admitting that there wasn't a mass campaign of online harassment?

You should've assumed I was being incredibly sarcastic. Both Quinn and Sarkeesian have provided plenty of proof that they were viciously harassed online and in real life for weeks (in the case of Quinn, for months) on end because of the shitstorm GamerGate started over the Zoe Post and Tropes vs Women. You can keep saying it didn't happen all you like, but it won't change what actually transpired.

I said there was no mass campaign of online harrassment, which isn't same as saying they weren't harassed. "GamerGate" hasn't done anything because "GamerGate" isn't real. Also both of them have been getting verbal/written abuse from random people for years before 2014 and after, not just week/months.

inmunitas:

I said there was no mass campaign of online harrassment, which isn't same as saying they weren't harassed. "GamerGate" hasn't done anything because "GamerGate" isn't real. Also both of them have been getting verbal/written abuse from random people for years before 2014 and after, not just week/months.

It is a good thing then that I never mentioned GamerGate, isn't it? I mentioned a mass campaign of online harassment, which is irrefutably true. That is not the same as me saying GamerGate did it (though we both know that a large minority of self-professed GamerGaters were responsible, but that's neither here nor there). That you also mention that they were harassed before and after, though not to the same degree, is also further proof in my favor, since there was a marked spike in harassment by the time that GamerGate formed and was at its' most active. That spike in itself is enough to constitute a mass campaign, as it has been well established that it was being organized through various places like the Chans and assorted irc channels and involved, literally, hundreds of people harassing them on a daily basis.

No matter how you twist it, they were the victims of the largest co-ordinated harassment campaign in the history of gaming. That alone should make it fit the definition of mass campaign of online harassment, because if it doesn't, then nothing does and the term is functionally useless.

Gethsemani:

inmunitas:
I said there was no mass campaign of online harrassment, which isn't same as saying they weren't harassed. "GamerGate" hasn't done anything because "GamerGate" isn't real. Also both of them have been getting verbal/written abuse from random people for years before 2014 and after, not just week/months.

It is a good thing then that I never mentioned GamerGate, isn't it? I mentioned a mass campaign of online harassment, which is irrefutably true. That is not the same as me saying GamerGate did it ...

Umm... what?

You're previous two posts:

Gethsemani:
You should really say that to Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, I am sure they'll respect that this is your opinion and not see it as an attempt to downplay just how vicious the early days of the Quinnspiracy/Gamergate really was.

Gethsemani:
You should've assumed I was being incredibly sarcastic. Both Quinn and Sarkeesian have provided plenty of proof that they were viciously harassed online and in real life for weeks (in the case of Quinn, for months) on end because of the shitstorm GamerGate started over the Zoe Post and Tropes vs Women. You can keep saying it didn't happen all you like, but it won't change what actually transpired.

You mention 'GamerGate' in both posts (emphasis mine), you also claim "GamerGate" started a 'shitstorm', and you make no mention of a 'mass campaign'.

Gethsemani:
That you also mention that they were harassed before and after, though not to the same degree, is also further proof in my favor, since there was a marked spike in harassment by the time that GamerGate formed and was at its' most active. That spike in itself is enough to constitute a mass campaign, as it has been well established that it was being organized through various places like the Chans and assorted irc channels and involved, literally, hundreds of people harassing them on a daily basis.

No matter how you twist it, they were the victims of the largest co-ordinated harassment campaign in the history of gaming. That alone should make it fit the definition of mass campaign of online harassment, because if it doesn't, then nothing does and the term is functionally useless.

There is no evidence that backs up any of these claims that I'm aware of.

inmunitas:
"GamerGate" hasn't done anything because "GamerGate" isn't real.

I want you to head on over to KiA and post this in a thread, or in a new thread. Do it on a throwaway if you're worried about downvotes.

Hell, if you don't want to leave this site, just post this in a Netscape thread here and see what happens.

IceForce:

inmunitas:
"GamerGate" hasn't done anything because "GamerGate" isn't real.

I want you to head on over to KiA and post this in a thread, or in a new thread. Do it on a throwaway if you're worried about downvotes.

Hell, if you don't want to leave this site, just post this in a Netscape thread here and see what happens.

Gamergate is real until it's to blame for anything, and then it conveniently isn't.

It's Schrodinger's Hashtag.

Well we almost did until *someone* decided to make a couple more threads about it in desperation. And it was so fun watching the slow crawl of threads being locked due to inactivity. Was really wanting to just click into this subforum and see nothing but locked threads, far as the page could scroll.

But no, can't seem to move on from this silly thing just yet. Ah well.

McMarbles:

IceForce:

inmunitas:
"GamerGate" hasn't done anything because "GamerGate" isn't real.

I want you to head on over to KiA and post this in a thread, or in a new thread. Do it on a throwaway if you're worried about downvotes.

Hell, if you don't want to leave this site, just post this in a Netscape thread here and see what happens.

Gamergate is real until it's to blame for anything, and then it conveniently isn't.

It's Schrodinger's Hashtag.

I blame Gamergate for Gamergate. Hopefully the ensuring paradox of it not being real yet also being responsible for itself will really kill it and we can finally bury the whole sodding thing.

Wrex Brogan:
And it was so fun watching the slow crawl of threads being locked due to inactivity. Was really wanting to just click into this subforum and see nothing but locked threads, far as the page could scroll.

I'll admit, it's pretty amusing to see.

The mods should really just close this subforum altogether and/or fold it back into one of the other subforums.

starbear:

FriendoftheFallen:
Anyone that supports Harper directly or indirectly supports harassment.

I disagree.

What do you consider the organized doxxing and harassment sprees that documents showed she willingly took part in to be then if not harassment?

FriendoftheFallen:

starbear:

FriendoftheFallen:
Anyone that supports Harper directly or indirectly supports harassment.

I disagree.

What do you consider the organized doxxing and harassment sprees that documents showed she willingly took part in to be then if not harassment?

I believe GamerGate called that "digging"

FriendoftheFallen:

starbear:

FriendoftheFallen:
Anyone that supports Harper directly or indirectly supports harassment.

I disagree.

What do you consider the organized doxxing and harassment sprees that documents showed she willingly took part in to be then if not harassment?

Please: by all means provide proof of these alleged organized doxxing and harassment sprees. Unfortunately I am not going to take you at your word. And I have not claimed that "organised doxxing and harassment sprees" is not harassment. You accused me of supporting harassment. I don't support harassment. I disagree with you.

altnameJag:

FriendoftheFallen:

starbear:

I disagree.

What do you consider the organized doxxing and harassment sprees that documents showed she willingly took part in to be then if not harassment?

I believe GamerGate called that "digging"

It's bad when either side does it. In fact it was worse when CON and randi did it because they are hypocrites and should know better.

starbear:

FriendoftheFallen:

starbear:

I disagree.

What do you consider the organized doxxing and harassment sprees that documents showed she willingly took part in to be then if not harassment?

Please: by all means provide proof of these alleged organized doxxing and harassment sprees. Unfortunately I am not going to take you at your word. And I have not claimed that "organised doxxing and harassment sprees" is not harassment. You accused me of supporting harassment. I don't support harassment. I disagree with you.

Look up "crash override network leaks doxxing harassing." If you're not willing to take me at my word I'm not willing to do the legwork to prove I'm right. You supported harassers who pretend to fight harassment while doxxing and harassing others. If you support con then you support people who have harassed others. Whether or not you believe that info is up to you but since I do believe the leaks then my position stands.

FriendoftheFallen:

altnameJag:

FriendoftheFallen:

What do you consider the organized doxxing and harassment sprees that documents showed she willingly took part in to be then if not harassment?

I believe GamerGate called that "digging"

It's bad when either side does it. In fact it was worse when CON and randi did it because they are hypocrites and should know better.

starbear:

FriendoftheFallen:

What do you consider the organized doxxing and harassment sprees that documents showed she willingly took part in to be then if not harassment?

Please: by all means provide proof of these alleged organized doxxing and harassment sprees. Unfortunately I am not going to take you at your word. And I have not claimed that "organised doxxing and harassment sprees" is not harassment. You accused me of supporting harassment. I don't support harassment. I disagree with you.

Look up "crash override network leaks doxxing harassing."

I'm not looking up jack shit. I've discussed these "crash override leaks" at length here. They don't show doxxing and they don't show harassment. If you think otherwise then post the transcripts that prove me wrong.

If you're not willing to take me at my word I'm not willing to do the legwork to prove I'm right.

Well if you insist.

You supported harassers who pretend to fight harassment while doxxing and harassing others. If you support con then you support people who have harassed others. Whether or not you believe that info is up to you but since I do believe the leaks then my position stands.

I don't support harassers and I don't support harassment. You haven't demonstrated that Harper "organized doxxing and harassment sprees" and you are unwilling to support that accusation: so I guess this conversation is over then. But if you aren't going to do the legwork to "prove you are right" the very least you could do is withdraw your accusations against me.

starbear:

FriendoftheFallen:

altnameJag:
I believe GamerGate called that "digging"

It's bad when either side does it. In fact it was worse when CON and randi did it because they are hypocrites and should know better.

starbear:

Please: by all means provide proof of these alleged organized doxxing and harassment sprees. Unfortunately I am not going to take you at your word. And I have not claimed that "organised doxxing and harassment sprees" is not harassment. You accused me of supporting harassment. I don't support harassment. I disagree with you.

Look up "crash override network leaks doxxing harassing."

I'm not looking up jack shit. I've discussed these "crash override leaks" at length here. They don't show doxxing and they don't show harassment. If you think otherwise then post the transcripts that prove me wrong.

If you're not willing to take me at my word I'm not willing to do the legwork to prove I'm right.

Well if you insist.

You supported harassers who pretend to fight harassment while doxxing and harassing others. If you support con then you support people who have harassed others. Whether or not you believe that info is up to you but since I do believe the leaks then my position stands.

I don't support harassers and I don't support harassment. You haven't demonstrated that Harper "organized doxxing and harassment sprees" and you are unwilling to support that accusation: so I guess this conversation is over then. But if you aren't going to do the legwork to "prove you are right" the very least you could do is withdraw your accusations against me.

I believe the documents do demonstrate my assertions and thus don't feel the need to do the legwork since it is simple enough to fine and seems self-evident to me. If you disagree with my conclusions about the leaks then we won't progress further since I genuinely believe her to be a toxic harasser due to things she has said and done.
I truly believe harper willfully took place in doxxing and harssment so I will not withdraw my assertion that those that support her support a harasser. You may be against the principle of harassment and I'll acknowledge that, but harper isn't and supporting her supports a harasser. I genuinely apologize if it came across as me saying you were a harasser or like harassment but I do believe supporting randi is supporting a harasser. The vitriol and malicious glee she displays in attacking people lead me to believe she is a sociopath who enjoys harassing others.

FriendoftheFallen:

starbear:

FriendoftheFallen:

It's bad when either side does it. In fact it was worse when CON and randi did it because they are hypocrites and should know better.

Look up "crash override network leaks doxxing harassing."

I'm not looking up jack shit. I've discussed these "crash override leaks" at length here. They don't show doxxing and they don't show harassment. If you think otherwise then post the transcripts that prove me wrong.

If you're not willing to take me at my word I'm not willing to do the legwork to prove I'm right.

Well if you insist.

You supported harassers who pretend to fight harassment while doxxing and harassing others. If you support con then you support people who have harassed others. Whether or not you believe that info is up to you but since I do believe the leaks then my position stands.

I don't support harassers and I don't support harassment. You haven't demonstrated that Harper "organized doxxing and harassment sprees" and you are unwilling to support that accusation: so I guess this conversation is over then. But if you aren't going to do the legwork to "prove you are right" the very least you could do is withdraw your accusations against me.

I believe the documents do demonstrate my assertions and thus don't feel the need to do the legwork since it is simple enough to fine and seems self-evident to me.

Which documents? Those documents that you insist exist but refuse to cite? You are claiming that a public figure is a harasser and a doxxer. Those are pretty big claims. If you can't back up those claims you shouldn't be making them.

If you disagree with my conclusions about the leaks then we won't progress further since I genuinely believe her to be a toxic harasser due to things she has said and done.

Thats entirely over to you. You have asserted she is a doxxer and a harasser. I've asked for proof. You have declined to offer that proof.

I truly believe harper willfully took place in doxxing and harssment so I will not withdraw my assertion that those that support her support a harasser.

What you believe and what you can prove are two very different things. You have declined to prove your assertions. So why should I believe you? Why are you standing behind assertions that you will not back up with proof?

You may be against the principle of harassment and I'll acknowledge that, but harper isn't and supporting her supports a harasser.

Cite that Harper isn't against the principal of harassment?

Your assertion wan't just that I supported a harasser: but that I supported harassment. That assertion is bullshit.

I genuinely apologize if it came across as me saying you were a harasser or like harassment but I do believe supporting randi is supporting a harasser. The vitriol and malicious glee she displays in attacking people lead me to believe she is a sociopath who enjoys harassing others.

What vitriol? What malicious glee?

starbear:

Which documents? Those documents that you insist exist but refuse to cite? You are claiming that a public figure is a harasser and a doxxer. Those are pretty big claims. If you can't back up those claims you shouldn't be making them.

I believe the con leaks support my claims. The fact that you disagree doesn't change that belief. I made them based on the con leaks and the information I read there sup[ports that assertion. Her tweets about doxxing gamers who are toxic in game supports that assertion as well. Your disagreement on the impact of the con leaks doesn't change my interpretation of it in the slightest. Why provide links to something you have already professed to have examined and read? The con links are sufficient proof in my opinion. If you disagree then we are at an impasse.

starbear:

Cite that Harper isn't against the principal of harassment?

Your assertion wan't just that I supported a harasser: but that I supported harassment. That assertion is bullshit.

The fact that she harasses people just because she feels they are in a hate group and anything vindictive and harsh she says is somehow justified because she bedevils her targets strikes me as a sociopath seeking validation for their harassment. Randi's harassment of others shows that she isn't against the principle of harassment.
"You may be against the principle of harassment and I'll acknowledge that, but harper isn't and supporting her supports a harasser." You quoted me yet you seemed to gloss over what I just said. I rescinded that assertion and modified it to say you do indeed support a toxic harasser who displays sociopathy and malicious glee in retaliating against people. Yet you ignored my correction and keep pressing on an issue I already dealt with last post. Supporting harper is supporting a harasser.Read her tweets from 2 years ago, she comes off as very toxic and sociopathic. Read what she writes. "You made your gamergate bed now go get f**ked in it" - that seems pretty vindictive and malicious to me. She harassed claire schuman, and the tweets are out there if you don't believe me its a simple search away. I interpret it as sociopathy. You may interpret it however you want. My assertions stand unopposed because ultimately we both interpret the con leaks and harper's tweets differently. You not interpreting what she says as being malicious and sociopathic does not in any way negate my assertion that it is. We have a difference of opinion which does not in any way negate my points.

Here is a harper quote that is clearly harassment and indicative of a psychopath: "literally go set yourself on fire." She says this to a lot of people who disagree with her. She sics her dogs on people who make tweets she disagrees with.
"seriously set yourself on fire. you're part of a hate group. f**k your feelings. " - harper's twitter. Supporting harper is supporting someone that tells others to set themselves on fire. If you keep denying proof now then it just shows you are willing to ignore the shortcomings of those you agree with ideologically.
Anyone that supports harper indirectly supports the harassment she engaged in or they would chide her and withdraw their support once it was clear she was toxic and vindictive.
I have done more research and proof than I feel I needed to since you seem unwilling to engage in a basic google search which would show all my assertions complete with visual proof. Any further denial of proof I have shown just shows a willing ignorance of the truth. harper harasses others. People with empathy don't tell people to set themselves on fire. That's the phrasing of a maladjusted person who displays hypocrisy.

FriendoftheFallen:

starbear:

Which documents? Those documents that you insist exist but refuse to cite? You are claiming that a public figure is a harasser and a doxxer. Those are pretty big claims. If you can't back up those claims you shouldn't be making them.

I believe the con leaks support my claims.

Which con leaks would those be? How hard is it for you to cite them for discussion? Copy, paste, done. Would take you a minute at most. In the time it took you to type this response you could have found this evidence, quoted it and pasted the link. Why do you choose not to back up your assertions?

The fact that you disagree doesn't change that belief.

I understand that you have a "belief." Your belief is a matter of faith.

I made them based on the con leaks and the information I read there sup[ports that assertion. Her tweets about doxxing gamers who are toxic in game supports that assertion as well. Your disagreement on the impact of the con leaks doesn't change my interpretation of it in the slightest. Why provide links to something you have already professed to have examined and read? The con links are sufficient proof in my opinion. If you disagree then we are at an impasse.

Which con leaks are you refering too? Which tweets about doxxing gamers?

starbear:

Cite that Harper isn't against the principal of harassment?

Your assertion wan't just that I supported a harasser: but that I supported harassment. That assertion is bullshit.

The fact that she harasses people just because she feels they are in a hate group and anything vindictive and harsh she says is somehow justified because she bedevils her targets strikes me as a sociopath seeking validation for their harassment.

Which particular incident of harassment are you talking about? Cite please?

Randi's harassment of others shows that she isn't against the principle of harassment.

When did she harass others? Links? Tweets? Screenshots? You guys are normally very good at that. Where are they?

"You may be against the principle of harassment and I'll acknowledge that, but harper isn't and supporting her supports a harasser." You quoted me yet you seemed to gloss over what I just said. I rescinded that assertion and modified it to say you do indeed support a toxic harasser who displays sociopathy and malicious glee in retaliating against people.

You didn't rescind. You apologised if I "took it the wrong way" but you didn't rescind the accusation.

Yet you ignored my correction and keep pressing on an issue I already dealt with last post. Supporting harper is supporting a harasser.

I am not supporting a harasser.

Read her tweets from 2 years ago, she comes off as very toxic and sociopathic.

Which tweets? "Toxic" and "sociopathic" are opinions: and aren't proof of harassment nor doxxing. Those were your claims. Are you going to back them up? Why am I caring about what some person on the internet said 2 years ago? What is she saying now that is "toxic and sociopathic?"

Read what she writes. "You made your gamergate bed now go get f**ked in it" - that seems pretty vindictive and malicious to me.

Telling someone "you've made your bed, now lie in it" is neither vindictive nor malicious. Its telling someone that you bought your own troubles on yourself: so stop complaining about it.

She harassed claire schuman, and the tweets are out there if you don't believe me its a simple search away. I interpret it as sociopathy. You may interpret it however you want. My assertions stand unopposed because ultimately we both interpret the con leaks and harper's tweets differently. You not interpreting what she says as being malicious and sociopathic does not in any way negate my assertion that it is. We have a difference of opinion which does not in any way negate my points.

There is no evidence this Clair Shumann actually exists.

https://storify.com/x_glitch/who-the-hell-is-claire-schumann

So no: Harper didn't harass this fantasy person.

Here is a harper quote that is clearly harassment and indicative of a psychopath: "literally go set yourself on fire." She says this to a lot of people who disagree with her. She sics her dogs on people who make tweets she disagrees with.
"seriously set yourself on fire. you're part of a hate group. f**k your feelings. " - harper's twitter. Supporting harper is supporting someone that tells others to set themselves on fire. If you keep denying proof now then it just shows you are willing to ignore the shortcomings of those you agree with ideologically.

Are you being serious? A humourous-abrasive-catchphrase-response to someone sea-lioning her on twitter is harassment? I thought SJW's were supposed to be the snowflakes.

Anyone that supports harper indirectly supports the harassment she engaged in or they would chide her and withdraw their support once it was clear she was toxic and vindictive.

I support Randi Harper. I quite happily give her $5.00 a month and will continue to give her $5.00 a month for one simple reason: because of people like you.

I have done more research and proof than I feel I needed to since you seem unwilling to engage in a basic google search which would show all my assertions complete with visual proof. Any further denial of proof I have shown just shows a willing ignorance of the truth. harper harasses others. People with empathy don't tell people to set themselves on fire. That's the phrasing of a maladjusted person who displays hypocrisy.

A basic google search shows me gamergate propaganda. You need to dig deep to find the truth. I've dug deep. I've extensively read these con leaks. I follow her twitter, I've read the Milo articles, I've read what KIA have had to say about her, I've done my own independent research. Randi Harper is a pretty normal human being who loves her dogs and playing video games who was one of the people who got swept up in the gamergate nonsense and whose life will never be the same again. Yes: sometimes she is a bit abrasive on twitter. But its fucking twitter: what are you fucking expecting?

Get over it. I'm being serious here. Its over. There are more evil people in the world than Randi Harper. They are deserving of your attention.

starbear:

Yes: sometimes she is a bit abrasive on twitter. But its fucking twitter: what are you fucking expecting?

Get over it. I'm being serious here. Its over. There are more evil people in the world than Randi Harper. They are deserving of your attention.

She is a vindictive malicious hypocrite. You could just as easily copy paste the leaks too but you put the onus on me when you say you have read them and thus can find them again. I disagree that the horrible things she said were merely abrasive. I think they are sociopathic and I wholly believe she took part in harassment campaigns. People like me? People that want true equality and think that many sociopaths hide behind the mask of justice and are really just acting with malice? You can brag about supporting a malicious harasser because of people like me that call out her malice and hypocrisy. n this so it is pointless to respond to your insults and contest them all, it will just generate more mutual acrimony. Claire Schumann exists. I just found her via google. She has more accounts than that deleted twitter. There absolutely is a person named Claire Schumann who actually exists so I don't know why you tried to dehumanize her by saying she doesn't. Telling someone to get f**ked in the bed they made IS ACTUALLY malice. If you look at the surrounding tweets its her absolutely harassing someone. She has harassed people to tears. Even if someone acts in a way to bring retribution taking glee in that retribution is in fact malicious and vindictive. If you think telling people to set themselves on fire is humorous and not malicious then we won't come to any agreement She is a terrible vindictive person. If she had any claim to empathy she wouldn't be so malic.. I mean abrasive on twitter. She has gone after people who haven't been nearly as vile as she has been. Keep sending $ to a terrible person, that is absolutely your right and choice. You are lumping me in with a group all while making false assumptions about myself and my values.

There are more evil people is a form of the starving children in africa fallacy.

I completely disagree with what you said and maintain that support for randi is support for a malicious harasser. Sending money to harper is financially supporting a harasser. We will not agree on this because apparently when your side says something evil they are being abrasive or ironic but when the other side does it its harassment or racism. Expect no reply, my lack of response should not be erroneously perceived as a lack of contest on any false points made in response.

FriendoftheFallen:

starbear:

Yes: sometimes she is a bit abrasive on twitter. But its fucking twitter: what are you fucking expecting?

Get over it. I'm being serious here. Its over. There are more evil people in the world than Randi Harper. They are deserving of your attention.

She is a vindictive malicious hypocrite. You could just as easily copy paste the leaks too but you put the onus on me when you say you have read them and thus can find them again.

Copy and paste what exactly? You have claimed she is a a harasser and a doxxer. Its your job to provide proof of that claim, not mine.

I disagree that the horrible things she said were merely abrasive. I think they are sociopathic and I wholly believe she took part in harassment campaigns.

I don't quite think you understand what sociopathic means.

And which campaigns are you talking about?

People like me? People that want true equality and think that many sociopaths hide behind the mask of justice and are really just acting with malice?

Nope. People who accuse random people on the internet of "harassment and doxxing".

You can brag about supporting a malicious harasser because of people like me that call out her malice and hypocrisy. n this so it is pointless to respond to your insults and contest them all, it will just generate more mutual acrimony.

I'm not bragging. I'm telling it as it is. And I haven't insulted you.

Claire Schumann exists. I just found her via google. She has more accounts than that deleted twitter. There absolutely is a person named Claire Schumann who actually exists so I don't know why you tried to dehumanize her by saying she doesn't.

Yeah, sure dude. "Claire" exists. Because you "found her on google." Whatever keeps you up at night.

Telling someone to get f**ked in the bed they made IS ACTUALLY malice. If you look at the surrounding tweets its her absolutely harassing someone.

Which surrounding tweets?

She has harassed people to tears.

Which people?

Even if someone acts in a way to bring retribution taking glee in that retribution is in fact malicious and vindictive. If you think telling people to set themselves on fire is humorous and not malicious then we won't come to any agreement

In context the remarks were absolutely hilarious. And even funnier was the reactions to the tweets. And I'm not expecting to come to an agreement.

She is a terrible vindictive person. If she had any claim to empathy she wouldn't be so malic.. I mean abrasive on twitter. She has gone after people who haven't been nearly as vile as she has been. Keep sending $ to a terrible person, that is absolutely your right and choice. You are lumping me in with a group all while making false assumptions about myself and my values.

Oh I'll keep sending her money. Which people are you talking about by the way?

There are more evil people is a form of the starving children in africa fallacy.

No: what I said was not a fallacy. It isn't healthy to keep up this level of irrational hate for someone as inconsequential as Harper.

I completely disagree with what you said and maintain that support for randi is support for a malicious harasser. Sending money to harper is financially supporting a harasser. We will not agree on this because apparently when your side says something evil they are being abrasive or ironic but when the other side does it its harassment or racism. Expect no reply, my lack of response should not be erroneously perceived as a lack of contest on any false points made in response.

BYE!!!

So this thread motivated me to actually look up who Randi Harper is and I have to say: anytime a google search on someone's name yield 2 completely different hit-pieces from Breitbart as the first results, they cannot be all bad.

I didn't even know people were still talking about GG. I just forced it out of my mind because I lose brain cells every time I think about it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here