Feminist Frequency posts critics' personal info on Twitter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Whoever wrote that e-mail was not a "critic".
A Critic tries to start a debate. A Critic has at
least some respect for the other party. This Guy clearly wasn't
interested in any kind of debate. He didn't even proposed his
view. This Guy was just insulting her, calling her a
cunt and throw accusation of lying on purpose at her.

So on the one hand I kinda think this asshole needed a slap on the fingers.
But was it right to publish his personal informations to do so? No. I understand
that at some point a person get's fed up with all the insults without any real point
besides "Feminists are evil and you are a cunt!" But that does not make it right.

So yeah. She made a mistake. It wasn't cool. But her action is far more understandable than
the actions of the fuckface who wrote the e-mail.

And BTW: Folks like the writer of this mail are one reason why it seems like we still need
feminism. I mean how stupid can one be to think that in a "debate" about topics involing women
and feminism it is reasonable and useful to use terms like cunt and slut? This gives your points
absolutly no validity.

Mcoffey:

Someone needs to introduce you to the term "False equivalence", because that is what you are currently doing.

Instigating a confrontation wherein you become the "victim" of a crime is not the same thing as being raped.

Did he tell Sarkeesian to dox him? No, therefore he is a victim. And we could argue all day about what "instigating a confrontation" means which is where your argument falls apart. Is getting drunk enough to pass out provocative? Is walking in a bad neighbourhood provocative? If this were swapped around would you be victim blaming Sarkeesian?

Ah yes, the feminist who doesn't know what feminism is and is just a scumbag who looks down on everyone.

Can we please ignore this woman? She is an oxygen thief and an annoyance to the rest of us.

ToastiestZombie:

Mcoffey:

Someone needs to introduce you to the term "False equivalence", because that is what you are currently doing.

Instigating a confrontation wherein you become the "victim" of a crime is not the same thing as being raped.

Did he tell Sarkeesian to dox him? No, therefore he is a victim. And we could argue all day about what "instigating a confrontation" means which is where your argument falls apart. Is getting drunk enough to pass out provocative? Is walking in a bad neighbourhood provocative? If this were swapped around would you be victim blaming Sarkeesian?

Ugh. Okay buddy. I'm not going to convince you you're wrong, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you are. Enjoy the echo chamber!

Aside from the swearing which I do not consider classy these emails are correct.
As for her releasing it... no surprise there.
Moving on.

I think the better option is to not merely ignore, but to promote voices that actually grasp the concepts and ideals across the varying ideologies of Feminism. Anita is no fan of Third Wave feminism, and neither is she a fan of "liberation" as espoused by the Third Wave feminists. She, like many of the more infamous Second Wave feminists, likes to cherry pick her topics. But as I said, she's good at waving hands, but making change with her hands?

This is where Feminists and call out Feminists, and why I brought up Judy Chicago. Most feminists complain, Judy Chicago responded by making lots of awesome stuff that celebrates women, and she's one of my favorite Feminist artists 'cause she realized the problem of Ideologists vs practicality XD.

The reactions in this thread are delicious.

Now, consider the following:
Anita posts just the text from an email like that, JUST the text and nothing else. What would everyone be saying? "Look at that Anita bitch posting fake emails."

So, she posts the email WITH all the other data included with it too, such as the sender's email address and IP, to show that it's a real email. And what are people saying? "Look at that Anita bitch doxxing people."

Delicious.

Will this change my opinion on her videos? No. Despite who she is as a person, it really doesn't mean that I can't at least take what she says into consideration and decided what I like and don't like. Should I just disregard her critics because some of them act pathetic and harass her?

At the same time, though, is she trying to give people ammunition against her? OK, she probably didn't expect the level of harassment that she got early on. The comments about not liking violent games is understandable and its circulation wasn't her fault. The Princess Daphne ordeal was a semi-grey area and an understandable mistake. But this? This is just stooping to the same level as the worst of her harassers, and despite how bad their actions are, it doesn't justify this.

IceForce:
Now, consider the following:
Anita posts just the text from an email like that, JUST the text and nothing else. What would everyone be saying? "Look at that Anita bitch posting fake emails."

So, she posts the email WITH all the other data included with it too, such as the sender's email address and IP, to show that it's a real email. And what are people saying? "Look at that Anita bitch doxxing people."

Delicious.

To be fair, if she posted it without an IP, absolutely no one left with a brain would doubt that she has tons of emails like that to post.

Well, this is low- whoever is responsible.

That she's apparently removed the originals, good; that's what she should have done. That she's using the opportunity to beat the usual drum undermines any credibility that she didn't have anything to do with the original posting, at best.

As a whole, all this seems likely to do is push a few people who were on the edge into more radical camps, and that's a shame. No one "wins" when crap like this goes down.

Mcoffey:

Ugh. Okay buddy. I'm not going to convince you you're wrong, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you are. Enjoy the echo chamber!

Well, you're instead of arguing my points. If this is what debate in the internet does turn into then I'm not surprised we get people like the guy who got doxxed.

ToastiestZombie:

Mcoffey:

Ugh. Okay buddy. I'm not going to convince you you're wrong, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you are. Enjoy the echo chamber!

Well, you're instead of arguing my points. If this is what debate in the internet does turn into then I'm not surprised we get people like the guy who got doxxed.

I don't need to debate you. You're wrong, you're making dumb comparisons, and anyone with sense can see it. I feel no need to waste my time trying to make you see it too.

AndrewC:
Ah yes, the feminist who doesn't know what feminism is and is just a scumbag who looks down on everyone.

Can we please ignore this woman? She is an oxygen thief and an annoyance to the rest of us.

^
This

The more time you waste giving this moron press, the longer we have to put up with her bullshit.

Mcoffey:

ToastiestZombie:

Mcoffey:

Ugh. Okay buddy. I'm not going to convince you you're wrong, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you are. Enjoy the echo chamber!

Well, you're instead of arguing my points. If this is what debate in the internet does turn into then I'm not surprised we get people like the guy who got doxxed.

I don't need to debate you. You're wrong, you're making dumb comparisons, and anyone with sense can see it. I feel no need to waste my time trying to make you see it too.

Why am I wrong? Your arguments thus far have been based on your own personal feelings, and just backing out when I start bringing up victim blaming cases that are like the one I first replied to tells me that you don't have any real argument and are only OK victim blaming because he said some mean words.

IceForce:
The reactions in this thread are delicious.

Now, consider the following:
Anita posts just the text from an email like that, JUST the text and nothing else. What would everyone be saying? "Look at that Anita bitch posting fake emails."

So, she posts the email WITH all the other data included with it too, such as the sender's email address and IP, to show that it's a real email. And what are people saying? "Look at that Anita bitch doxxing people."

Delicious.

Then they double down on the whole vocal minority garbage.

IceForce:
The reactions in this thread are delicious.

Now, consider the following:
Anita posts just the text from an email like that, JUST the text and nothing else. What would everyone be saying? "Look at that Anita bitch posting fake emails."

So, she posts the email WITH all the other data included with it too, such as the sender's email address and IP, to show that it's a real email. And what are people saying? "Look at that Anita bitch doxxing people."

Delicious.

Has anyone ever doubted she gets hate mails? From what i remember the only thing people, here, would say is that they find it annoying she continuously tries to generalize her detractors as trolls by totally ignoring all those with legitimate criticism. So as far as this forum goes i'd say you just made up an alternative "ending" to an alternative scenario in a poor attempt to defend her misbehavior.

ToastiestZombie:

Mcoffey:

ToastiestZombie:

Well, you're instead of arguing my points. If this is what debate in the internet does turn into then I'm not surprised we get people like the guy who got doxxed.

I don't need to debate you. You're wrong, you're making dumb comparisons, and anyone with sense can see it. I feel no need to waste my time trying to make you see it too.

Why am I wrong? Your arguments thus far have been based on your own personal feelings, and just backing out when I start bringing up victim blaming cases that are like the one I first replied to tells me that you don't have any real argument and are only OK victim blaming because he said some mean words.

No, you are trying much too hard to turn the tables and use victim language against the Anita side. It doesn't fit. This is the equivalent of some drunk a-hole swearing at some big dude at a bar, persistently harassing. The big dude finally turns around and clocks the guy. The big dude isn't correct in throwing a punch, but the drunk a-hole isn't a 'victim' of anything beyond his own stupidity. The guy wasn't 'asking' to be punched in the face, but he's dumb. And that dumbness is his own fault. Not everyone has the patience of Job, and if you bark up the wrong tree, you'd better be prepared when they come after you.

That's even assuming this whole doxxing thing is legit. I have no idea whether it has been deleted, faked, ignorance over posting emails or what. Basically this is our weekly Anita discussion on Escapist. Traditions must stand.

Falling:
snip

Firstly, thanks for not just going "you're wrong because I say so!". Secondly, you are right in what you're saying, personally I agree with the point I argued in the first place. My point is that if you say victim blaming is wrong in one circumstance then do it yourself in another (which is what was heavily implied the other person was doing) then you're a hypocrite. If this news story instead read "Femen supporter doxxed for sending hateful messages to church I can almost guarantee you the reaction would be different. To sum up whilst I personally believe in free speech no matter how shameful when I see hypocrisy I point it out.

I think it's more amusing that Anita thinks that email was "misogyny laced," as if an attack on her could be equated to an attack on all women.

Assuming it's real.

The_Kodu:
Nope they're definitely there on her twitter account right now.

She has Doxed them.

I'm not surprised. I've been making sure to keep informed in the background and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a calculated move to cause more people to be angry at her.

I mean Tropes vs Women episode 3 has been carried on maybe 1 site and is getting far less views. She's realised she's fading into obscurity again so since it's release we've had the following along with the Doxing.

A public announcement that her and another leading feminist were going to be streaming games on twitch.
Her cutting the stream short (apparently) and claiming the reason was the amount of a abuse seen in chat.

Her Calling for Twitter to allow people themselves to instant ban people
Her Calling for twitch to allow broadcasters to ban people from the whole of twitch (not just their room)

Her linking to an article entitled how men can show their support for feminism including such golden sage pieces of advice as Do more than 50% of the housework and emotional support, and cooking. split the household income 50 50 between you to make sure you both get an equal share but then you are responsible for paying for all the costs of contraceptives because you earn more despite having split the money equally already. If someone tells you something is sexist they are right don't question them. Get the HPV vaccination yourself, because it's unfair women should have to put up with the risk of vaccination side effects considering how much of a risk the disease is to them compared to men hence men should be the ones vaccinated and taking some risk (Look that's what the article says my opinion is vaccinations are safe to the nth degree and the risk of getting vaccinated is one micron the size of the disease it helps prevent). Change your name to her surname when you get married. If you're being nagged then you're doing something wrong and need to correct it not claim nagging is a problem. Befriend women but don't approach them in public and talk to them. Don't sit with your legs spread (sorry but my balls and penis require room). Get in the habit of treating your maleness as an unearned privilege that you have to actively work to cede rather than femaleness being an unearned disadvantage that women have to work to overcome, so feel bad for being born male and feel you have to work for the privilege and it's not simply something you can't control. Oh and this gem Be subordinate to women.

Anita is trying to stir up a hornets nest and going out of her way to bait people to insult or attack her en mass again. However it's not happening as people can see it's her trying to cling onto her relevance in the debate.

I mean seriously Anita can't be dumb enough to publicly announce she will be twitch streaming and then act surprised when her critics address her when presented a public forum to do it in (Though many may have done it in the wrong way) Nor is she so dumb to not realise you can ban people in chat who are abusive. But no she cut the stream short apparently due to the abuse.

I think Anita knows exactly what she's doing at this point. The problem is it's not working. People have seen the act before so she's going to more extreme lengths to get a reaction.

Also keep in mind it is illegal to give out personal information without the express consent of those whose information is being given, unless they signed some form of release, she just broke the law.

I thought this would be terrible but its just another internet cat fight. Yawn and move on. People take their online personas far too seriously.

Its why I don't do social media. I live instead.

I can't speak to this specific issue, but honestly I have no problem with it. Disagreeing with someone and challenging their views is one thing, but this woman's critics are more often than not the most vile and loathsome examples of human refuse the internet has to offer, and that crap is indefensible. I've never bothered to watch one of her videos, but I have seen the rape threats, verbal assaults, and other utterly horrid things her "critics" have done. And the simple fact is they are only so vile because of internet anonymity; they are just screen-names and will never suffer any consequences or accountability for their actions, and continue to hide behind the false banner of freedom of Speech in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled such hate speak unprotected long ago.

So as far as being called out and publicly shamed? I say go for it. And strip away all the anonymity you can in the process. Those people don't deserve to hide within the internet, and if I were Ms. Sarkeesian the only regret I'd have is not having a real name and home address to go with the IP address. Or at least a good lawyer so I could charge those sons of witches with hate crimes.

Jonathan Hornsby:
Or at least a good lawyer so I could charge those sons of witches with hate crimes.

No good lawyer (the one you'd want is of the desperate kind) would waste his time on a totally baseless suite. You can't just scream "hate crime" and make it appear. There is no hate crime, or even a resemblance to one, to be found in either mails she posted. (Nor can it be found in the vast majority of even her most vile detractors)

Stuff like this is why most people refuse to fall under the label of "feminist". Really now, this loud minority of almost "neo-amazonian" feminists just seem to keep shooting their cause (which, as long as it's focused on equality, I support) in the foot.

So...

Anita saw her popularity waning so she pulled another stunt to raise her controversial appeal. And look at that post. Person seriously is foul mouthed but really, that is considered worthy of exemplifying? Seriously? I got worst comments when I said Black was last good Metallica album...

But doxing... seriously, that is not OK, but on the other hand OWN YOUR SHIT. When I send E-Mail to someone I don't know personally, unless it's a business mail, I consider it public. But that's just me, as someone pointed out, giving someone's personal details without explicit consent is illegal.

Seriously this is getting so weak. There was more foul language about her on this forum.

I didn't know showing two vitrolic e-mails sent to you was considered Doxxing.

It also doesn't seem like even the vaguest part of the intent of those tweets was Doxxing.

Also, why does the message give her the I.P address that people are pissed about? Is it because, I don't know, when people send you angry bullshit, you can block them or have them reprimanded maybe?

The anti-Anita people are some of the most ridiculously callous people I've seen on the net.

generals3:

Jonathan Hornsby:
Or at least a good lawyer so I could charge those sons of witches with hate crimes.

No good lawyer (the one you'd want is of the desperate kind) would waste his time on a totally baseless suite. You can't just scream "hate crime" and make it appear. There is no hate crime, or even a resemblance to one, to be found in either mails she posted. (Nor can it be found in the vast majority of even her most vile detractors)

On the contrary; terroristic threats against someone made predominately against their gender, race, or creed is a hate crime by legal definition. And like it or not such threats are exactly what she's been dealing with since her kickstarter campaign. Just because we call it "trolling" here on the internet, and it is virtually never policed because of that aforementioned anonymity, doesn't change what it actually is. And while I won't generalize and say this is all, or even the majority, of her critics I can say with absolute certainty that a noteworthy percentage of her so-called critics are in fact terrorists. After all they do use threats as a means to instill terror into this woman with the ultimate goal of silencing her views and opinions. Using terror to get what you want is the actual definition of a terrorist. Period.

another day in the people's republic of tumblr

SJWs are really pumping up the love and tolerance today

Ultratwinkie:
http://gintaxalvissforever.tumblr.com/post/91880828757/anita-sarkeesian-is-doxing-to-those-who-dont

NOTE: I will not post directly to twitter. That is against the rules and ethics.

This is part 2 of ultratwinkie's internet drama electric boogaloo coverage. The Escapist's finest purveyor of internet drama since about 2009. This a story that has gone viral after 2 weeks of people not noticing it and its worth talking about.

I know she's been done to death, but this is much more clear cut and obvious.

Feminist Frequency's twitter has posted the personal information of 2 of Anita Sarkeesian's critics, even IP addresses and emails. A Tumblr user screencapped the tweets, which are still up, and has been showing them as proof. This is known as doxxing.

IPs change dynamically, so they could be safe, but some unlucky few have static IPs. They also say that an IP doesn't equal a person in the court of law. Protection isn't guaranteed.

Doxing is illegal, and unethical. It uses the internet to fight your battles for you by posting personal information on the internet in the hopes of a stranger doing the dirty work for you. Twitter users have taken issue with the posts, but so far nothing has been done. However, today reddit picked up on it and is currently on the top of /r/ Tumblrinaction. Its one of the few posts that praises Tumblr, which is a rare honor.

People say its a troll account, that anita isn't that clueless to do something illegal in a public place, but its been in service since 2009 and has all the credentials. That is way too long for a troll account to exist.

Others say that Anita did it unintentionally and didn't see the significance of an IP address. Others say she did and she was publicly shaming people with plausible deniability. Its still debated.

So what do you think? Does this change anything? The way you view her or her work? Do you think she did it intentionally or unintentionally?

captcha: stay safe.

I sure hope everyone does.

...Critic critic? Or someone calling her names/death threats?

Cause if it's the latter, fuck 'em. They're not helping anything just dragging the rest of us dudes down with them with they're fucking fancy hats that I can't wear.

And really, if one disagrees with Anita, they can do it with out threatening to rape/kill her or call her names. Be a fucking gentleman or GTFO of the discussion.

NuclearKangaroo:
another day in the people's republic of tumblr

SJWs are really pumping up the love and tolerance today

A quick digression, did it ever occur to you that the reason SJWs are a thing is because our culture is currently over saturated with intolerant assholes who use the internet as a sword and their misunderstanding of free speech as a shield?

Jonathan Hornsby:

A quick digression, did it ever occur to you that the reason SJW's are a thing is because our culture is currently over saturated with intolerant assholes who use the internet as a sword and their misunderstanding of free speech as a shield?

How about you actually reading what happened before you comment on events? Seriously, what you wrote either means you didn't read the article, or you wrote what you wrote just to infuriate people. Either way, really bad and lowly manners.

Jonathan Hornsby:

NuclearKangaroo:
another day in the people's republic of tumblr

SJWs are really pumping up the love and tolerance today

A quick digression, did it ever occur to you that the reason SJWs are a thing is because our culture is currently over saturated with intolerant assholes who use the internet as a sword and their misunderstanding of free speech as a shield?

"our culture is currently over saturated with intolerant assholes"

you absolutely dont know the meaning of those words, you truthly dont, if you lived in say, certain parts of the middle east, where women are genuinely oppressed and homosexual people are hanged, youd know what an intolerant asshole is

these people are just whining, plain and simple

ToastiestZombie:

Falling:
snip

Firstly, thanks for not just going "you're wrong because I say so!". Secondly, you are right in what you're saying, personally I agree with the point I argued in the first place. My point is that if you say victim blaming is wrong in one circumstance then do it yourself in another (which is what was heavily implied the other person was doing) then you're a hypocrite. If this news story instead read "Femen supporter doxxed for sending hateful messages to church I can almost guarantee you the reaction would be different. To sum up whilst I personally believe in free speech no matter how shameful when I see hypocrisy I point it out.

Falling:

ToastiestZombie:

Mcoffey:

I don't need to debate you. You're wrong, you're making dumb comparisons, and anyone with sense can see it. I feel no need to waste my time trying to make you see it too.

Why am I wrong? Your arguments thus far have been based on your own personal feelings, and just backing out when I start bringing up victim blaming cases that are like the one I first replied to tells me that you don't have any real argument and are only OK victim blaming because he said some mean words.

No, you are trying much too hard to turn the tables and use victim language against the Anita side. It doesn't fit. This is the equivalent of some drunk a-hole swearing at some big dude at a bar, persistently harassing. The big dude finally turns around and clocks the guy. The big dude isn't correct in throwing a punch, but the drunk a-hole isn't a 'victim' of anything beyond his own stupidity. The guy wasn't 'asking' to be punched in the face, but he's dumb. And that dumbness is his own fault. Not everyone has the patience of Job, and if you bark up the wrong tree, you'd better be prepared when they come after you.

That's even assuming this whole doxxing thing is legit. I have no idea whether it has been deleted, faked, ignorance over posting emails or what. Basically this is our weekly Anita discussion on Escapist. Traditions must stand.

Lol, the same exact thing can be said to extreme feminists who are trying too hard to change gaming to be political correct. Sooner or later, the community will get tired of it and will do something about it. Whether if that's legal or not I personally don't care at this point. I think this Anita person needs to be stuck at a fighting game tournament and have fighting gamers "re-educate" her what gaming really is. We of the arcade generation define what gaming is and we will not allow others to negatively influence our hobby.

The_Kodu:

Two wrongs don't make a right

Isn't that basically the entire premise of her critics?

LifeCharacter:
...Does what that guy sent her even count as criticism?

When it comes to Anita, yes.

OT: I don't find information saying what she specifically did was illegal, though people keep screaming SHE BROKE TEH LAW! Can anyone kindly verify that this practice is illegal, rather than just reciting it like a meme?

Most of the laws I can find (US, at least) indicate that the illegal act is specifically attempting to gain such information through means such as phishing. Anita didn't do that, so is there any evidence what she did constitutes an illegal act, rather than just a douchey one? Because it looks like once again, two wrongs do make a right on the internet.

Edit: Let me clarify that last statement a little. When I say two wrongs make a right, I'm not advocating anything. I'm saying that the standard and practice here is that it's completely okay to make false claims. Well, unless you're Anita. She's a liar, and thus it's okay to make stuff up about her because ponies.

And if it is, in fact, illegal, well....Let the courts handle it.

Jonathan Hornsby:

On the contrary; terroristic threats against someone made predominately against their gender, race, or creed is a hate crime by legal definition.

Crimes comitted due to someone's race, religion (not creed, which is a much broader term), sexual orientation or gender are hate crimes. But threats made against someone's actions or political propaganda are not. So the threats she faces due to the videos she made clearly do not fall under that category.

And like it or not such threats are exactly what she's been dealing with since her kickstarter campaign. Just because we call it "trolling" here on the internet, and it is virtually never policed because of that aforementioned anonymity, doesn't change what it actually is. And while I won't generalize and say this is all, or even the majority, of her critics I can say with absolute certainty that a noteworthy percentage of her so-called critics are in fact terrorists. After all they do use threats as a means to instill terror into this woman with the ultimate goal of silencing her views and opinions. Using terror to get what you want is the actual definition of a terrorist. Period.

Not under US law though violence or acts dangerous to human lives are required to be legally considered a terrorist (which is what a lawyer cares about).

And when it comes to threats the anonymity should only be broken by law enforcement, not private individuals. It's up to the police to determine whether or not someone is breaking the law and should therefor be tracked down. Because if we start condoning doxxing we're entering a very slippery slope.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked