Feminist Frequency posts critics' personal info on Twitter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

NuclearKangaroo:
Snip

So when you complain it isn't whining?

Throwing a lot of loaded words around about people who disagree with you.

What's the definition of intolerant?

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

To not be willing to accept. To not be willing to give equal rights. I don't care if the sexism in the 1st world isn't as bad as it is in the middle east. It's still sexism. I don't care if racism in the United States south isn't as bad as it is elsewhere, it still is racism. It's still wrong. Just like when someone gets smashed in the face with a broken bottle and losses and eye for voicing their view is bad despite the fact that someone gets their entire family executed somewhere else because they did the same thing. They're still bad. One is worse than the other? It doesn't MATTER! Besides, your entire argument is running on the logical fallacy of appealing to worst problems, AKA the children are starving in Africa argument. So please tell me how people are whining when they use the right word to describe a situation. When a woman gets called a cunt for having an unpopular mindset what word should be used? What word should be used to describe how some states don't allowed atheists to hold office in America. Because intolerant sounds pretty good to me. I don't care if there are public executions about them, there's still intolerance against them. Intolerance is not a word reserved for the very worst situations only.

Zachary Amaranth:

NuclearKangaroo:

people thinking jontron using a word that literally can mean "stupid"

See the usage note, because the way you're using the word derives from the pejorative term.

anita, trapped inside her chronic delusion remains convinced legitimate criticism and the right to rebuttal is sexism

I knoooow, right? Why would anyone think that calling a woman a whore and a cunt and accusing her of lying without good faith basis was sexist?

You do realize accusing someone of lying is infact a legit critque? On a related note, there are hundreds of thousands of women who will call men pensis, and nobody seems to care. When someone calls Anita a cunt I only seem karmic justice, considering the ammount of ad hominen bullshit she spews out, it's expected you recieve vitriol to the extent you have created. Calling someone an idiot isn't an ad hominen, atleast to me. Mainly because they're choosing to be an idiot, ignore reality, and spew bullshit lies.

erttheking:

NuclearKangaroo:
Snip

So when you complain it isn't whining?

Throwing a lot of loaded words around about people who disagree with you.

What's the definition of intolerant?

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

To not be willing to accept. To not be willing to give equal rights. I don't care if the sexism in the 1st world isn't as bad as it is in the middle east. It's still sexism. I don't care if racism in the United States south isn't as bad as it is elsewhere, it still is racism. It's still wrong. Just like when someone gets smashed in the face with a broken bottle and losses and eye for voicing their view is bad despite the fact that someone gets their entire family executed somewhere else because they did the same thing. They're still bad. One is worse than the other? It doesn't MATTER! Besides, your entire argument is running on the logical fallacy of appealing to worst problems, AKA the children are starving in Africa argument. So please tell me how people are whining when they use the right word to describe a situation. When a woman gets called a cunt for having an unpopular mindset what word should be used? What word should be used to describe how some states don't allowed atheists to hold office in America. Because intolerant sounds pretty good to me. I don't care if there are public executions about them, there's still intolerance against them. Intolerance is not a word reserved for the very worst situations only.

how is it intolerant of jon to call an inanimated object "retarded"

how is asking for the right to rebuttal and discussion intolerant?

how is that "not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights"

thats my problem, these people forgot what intolerant means, they think being offended and intolerance are the same thing, i didnt see anybody defending the right of atheists to hold office, i only saw whining, absolute unadultered whining... also doxxing, which from what i understand is illegal

When someone calls Anita a cunt I only seem karmic justice, considering the ammount of ad hominen bullshit she spews out, it's expected you recieve vitriol to the extent you have created.

I follow this chick on twitter. I have watched pretty much all her videos. She is the most inoffensive, straight forward, kinda calming video commentator I know. Her schtick may as well be not having schtick.

That anyone who thinks a response to her needs to involve any anger or vindictiveness flabbergasts me.

Supdupadog:

When someone calls Anita a cunt I only seem karmic justice, considering the ammount of ad hominen bullshit she spews out, it's expected you recieve vitriol to the extent you have created.

I follow this chick on twitter. I have watched pretty much all her videos. She is the most inoffensive, straight forward, kinda calming video commentator I know. Her schtick may as well be not having schtick.

That anyone who thinks a response to her needs to involve any anger or vindictiveness flabbergasts me.

This has been absolutely the most baffling thing about all of the outrage surrounding this woman. If you want to go out and find someone who pushes a feminist message in a hateful, aggressive, abrasive, or man-hatin' way then you probably can, but Anita Sarkeesian is very much not that person. She's practically the literal opposite of that person.

NuclearKangaroo:
Snip

It's the matter of using the word that's loaded. Like calling something a nigger. It's not insulting a person who is mentally disabled, it's the implication that being mentally disabled is something impenitently bad.

Because people aren't asking for that. They're just calling Anita a cunt and saying they hope she gets raped. Trust me, I'm not a fan of Anita, not a fan of everything she's doing, but the attitudes towards her drive me up the wall.

Because it's the implication that the mentally disabled are undesirables and it's forcing women to go through crap men never do. I have NEVER gotten a rape threat in my life. Plenty of women have. Hence not allowing people to have equality because they're being forced to go through torment only one gender has to put up with. Plus remember that that is just one of the many definitions of intolerant. One of the other ones was just "Now willing to allow or accept something." If you don't accept something, you're intolerant.

No. They haven't. Being offensive towards someone can very easily be intolerant. And here you are, complaining about people whining on the internet instead of doing something, which you seem to be criticizing other people for doing. There are a couple of entries in this thread arguing that this isn't even the textbook definition of doxxing. That Anita most likely would not be vindicated in court.

Also, you didn't answer ANY of my questions. ANY of them.

ayvee:

Supdupadog:

When someone calls Anita a cunt I only seem karmic justice, considering the ammount of ad hominen bullshit she spews out, it's expected you recieve vitriol to the extent you have created.

I follow this chick on twitter. I have watched pretty much all her videos. She is the most inoffensive, straight forward, kinda calming video commentator I know. Her schtick may as well be not having schtick.

That anyone who thinks a response to her needs to involve any anger or vindictiveness flabbergasts me.

This has been absolutely the most baffling thing about all of the outrage surrounding this woman. If you want to go out and find someone who pushes a feminist message in a hateful, aggressive, abrasive, or man-hatin' way then you probably can, but Anita Sarkeesian is very much not that person. She's practically the literal opposite of that person.

She may not be the most hateful or aggressive, but what she is, is a very loud advocate of censorship to a medium she both shows no understanding of and admits to not being a consumer of, coupled with argument after argument that range from intentional misrepresentation to blatant lies.

Basically it comes down to the internet hating censorship, especially when advocated by a lying hypocrite who is in all likelihood a con artist.

The Almighty Aardvark:

Did you read my post? None of the reasons I attributed to her popularity had anything to do with her own merits. Where did I say that she's a good speaker for female representation in games? She was made the figurehead of feminism in games by people who're against feminism going anywhere near games

However she was given the spotlight. People have been trying to make sure that spotlight is pushed to someone who could better use it.

The Almighty Aardvark:

However, I have to laugh about what you say about not fostering discussion and presenting her videos as lectures. Uh... who doesn't do that? Every Thunderf00t video I've seen was of him going on a rant about his take on a situation. What exactly should she be doing to better emulate other youtubers who discuss something on their own who inexplicably AREN'T just lecturing the viewer?

You address other peoples opinions rather than brush them off as stupid junk as she has done many times on her twitter. She claims it's ok to take many examples out of context and cherry pick them because said content exists in the light she wants when context is removed so it's valid. It's the same as claiming Spiderman saving an moron who got high and tried to fly by jumping from a building is encouraging drug use.

The Almighty Aardvark:

She is not censoring anyone by not opening youtube comments. Have you read youtube comments? Especially those on a figurehead as despised as her? Hell, apparently the Escapist doubles as Anita Sarkeesian's official comment section. Someone should just send her a link to this site to serve the purpose.

some of her past claims are as follows.

"Video game news sites and centres of discussion are fostering an attitude of abuse and harassment by not vetting readers comments before allowing them to be posted"

"Twitter needs stronger anti abuse legislations to automatically ban anyone reported for abuse."

Has anyone seen her address criticism other than brushing it off and claiming it's not relevant because ........look a squirrel......... or simply pulling up an nutter and implying that all her critics are like that ?

Supdupadog:

Citation needed.

You claim these people have seen no abuse or harassment since their information was made public.
I wish to see evidence of this. I'd suggest correspondence from the people in question with a video of the email taken via cell phone, and remember to scroll a bit too to show it's real.

I'd also like to see some evidence, since it seems like people are talking like these two have been Anonymous-ed into suicide.

I'd like to know if this was an honest mistake that did nothing and was taken care, or an honest mistake that actually hurt people.

But since we don't usually need weeks to find the answer to that, as anyone who's followed a Mike (from PA) harassment storm has known (or really any Doxx abuse campaign), I'm going to bet that nothing actually happened.

It's not just me that needs a citation.

My evidence is based on present trends. If you check in the Jon Tron thread you can see the person making the comment has tweeted recently to ask Jon Tron to ask his followers to stop harassing him.

Don't believe people are being harassed based on Anita ?

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40Sam1994Dawson&src=typd " title="" target="_blank"> https://twitter.com/search?q=%40Sam1994Dawson&src=typd

There's one for you.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40TheCoreGamer&src=typd

Originally mentioned by Anita in October last year.
Tweets dating up to Jan 3rd this year.

Anita has not taken care of it, the tweets are still up.
Anita has not apologised for the mistake.
Anita has claimed it's all a conspiracy to make her look bad.

Look at the tweets I linked yourself.
Are your eyes telling you lies ?

Great, more publicity! The cynic in me is being very, very cynical. VERY cynical.

Oh, and not cool. Not cool at all. Why don't we just put up a fence about that entire disaster area and disassociate ourselves from everyone involved in this? Oh right, we can't...for some reason. *shakes head*

FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!!!!!!!! Seriously, come on! Just notice the obvious, people.... >.<

She may not be the most hateful or aggressive, but what she is, is a very loud advocate of censorship to a medium she both shows no understanding of and admits to not being a consumer of, coupled with argument after argument that range from intentional misrepresentation to blatant lies.

Basically it comes down to the internet hating censorship, especially when advocated by a lying hypocrite who is in all likelihood a con artist.

Where is the actual legitimacy of this narrative?

It can't be the videos I watched. She doesn't call for explicit censorship of the many things she puts on trial. It can't for the lies, since pretty much everything she displays is something that actually happened in whatever game she is talking about. One could argue they aren't as good for the point she tries to make, but that's a case by case thing that barely anyone seems to do it anyway.

I'm just not seeing this monster other people do.

Zontar:

She may not be the most hateful or aggressive, but what she is, is a very loud advocate of censorship to a medium she both shows no understanding of and admits to not being a consumer of, coupled with argument after argument that range from intentional misrepresentation to blatant lies.

Basically it comes down to the internet hating censorship, especially when advocated by a lying hypocrite who is in all likelihood a con artist.

God this is such a strawman.

And the con artist argument is just as ridiculous now as it was two years ago.

erttheking:

NuclearKangaroo:
Snip

It's the matter of using the word that's loaded. Like calling something a nigger. It's not insulting a person who is mentally disabled, it's the implication that being mentally disabled is something impenitently bad.

Because people aren't asking for that. They're just calling Anita a cunt and saying they hope she gets raped. Trust me, I'm not a fan of Anita, not a fan of everything she's doing, but the attitudes towards her drive me up the wall.

Because it's the implication that the mentally disabled are undesirables and it's forcing women to go through crap men never do. I have NEVER gotten a rape threat in my life. Plenty of women have. Hence not allowing people to have equality because they're being forced to go through torment only one gender has to put up with. Plus remember that that is just one of the many definitions of intolerant. One of the other ones was just "Now willing to allow or accept something." If you don't accept something, you're intolerant.

No. They haven't. Being offensive towards someone can very easily be intolerant. And here you are, complaining about people whining on the internet instead of doing something, which you seem to be criticizing other people for doing. There are a couple of entries in this thread arguing that this isn't even the textbook definition of doxxing. That Anita most likely would not be vindicated in court.

Also, you didn't answer ANY of my questions. ANY of them.

like "crazy", and "dumb", and "stupid"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations

does this offend you?

how about this?

also when that person who emailed anita asked her to repond to thunderf00t, he was actually not asking her to repond to thunderf00t? how come the "rape threats" are real but the legitimate calls for discussion are false, for someone who acussed me of using a fallacy earlier you sure do a lot of cherry picking

heres the problem with

"Not willing to allow or accept something."

im not willing to accept the earth is flat, theres overwhelming evidence to the contrary and it doesnt fit current models of physics, am i intolerant?, and if that was the case, what would that actually mean?

nothing, it would mean nothing, "you dont believe the earth is flat, so intolerant"...

if you feel offended when someone didnt mean to insult you, you are ignoring the context, you are looking to get offended, and its your fault if you feel bad at the end of the day, noone else's

let me finish our argument with this

now please allow me to be intolerant, because im no longer willing to accept this discussion, im done here, see ya

Look at the tweets I linked yourself.
Are your eyes telling you lies ?

Pretty sure that sex toy isn't a lie.

These two don't sound like very enjoyable people and the tweets that relate their actions towards @femfreq are pretty tame and more upset that how the other party acted.

What I'm saying is this is a mellow example. Unless you got some favorites you wanna pull out that aren't cherry picking, this seems like another good example of how non-bullies her fans are.

Supdupadog:

She may not be the most hateful or aggressive, but what she is, is a very loud advocate of censorship to a medium she both shows no understanding of and admits to not being a consumer of, coupled with argument after argument that range from intentional misrepresentation to blatant lies.

Basically it comes down to the internet hating censorship, especially when advocated by a lying hypocrite who is in all likelihood a con artist.

Where is the actual legitimacy of this narrative?

It can't be the videos I watched. She doesn't call for explicit censorship of the many things she puts on trial. It can't for the lies, since pretty much everything she displays is something that actually happened in whatever game she is talking about. One could argue they aren't as good for the point she tries to make, but that's a case by case thing that barely anyone seems to do it anyway.

I'm just not seeing this monster other people do.

Read her tweets she claims neutrality and allowing unmoderated comments on news sites causes sexual harassment. She literally said that and called for sites to not be neutral but to moderate comments before allowing them to be posted.

She, in her latest video, essentially called all those who enjoy games with violent or sexualised content rape apologists.

It's very clear she's trying to guilt or pressure people into feeling their choice is wrong and only hers is right. Her claim that any representation even in a negative context is wrong echos the era of the comics code authority telling Stan Lee he couldn't include spiderman saving a guy high on drugs throwing himself off a building because it showed drugs, despite it showing someone nearly being killed due to drugs. If you claim something is wrong and context doesn't matter then you are calling said content wrong to include at all even if it's being included to place said thing in a negative light.

So when someone gets tracked down and their info posted and sent threats, they get abused, harassed, people are encouraged to go after this person, things get racist when ethnicity is involved, homophobic when sexuality is involved and misogynistic and downright rapey when gender is involved they just need to suck it up and grow thicker skin, or deal with it, or accept that that's what happens on the internet but when some cunt is being a cunt, when the abusive one is suddenly the abused we need to stop the presses and throw the one-time victim to the wolves for having the cheek to use the same methods used to attack them?

Two wrongs don't make a right, they never make a right. She shouldn't have done that, it was wrong. But where the fuck was all this defense for her when she was the one being abused? For fuck sake I don't even like her, I think her videos are wrongheaded and she's frankly a total arsehole at times, despite supporting feminism and believing that there is a massive problem with misogyny and bigotry in general within the gaming community (because there fucking is) I think her videos are just plain dumb at best and lazy, lying, attention seeking garbage at worst. But fucking hell a person uses the exact same tactics to attack the people who attacked her and that's when it crosses the line? And don't get me wrong, I'll make this totally clear she should not have done that.

ONCE AGAIN: SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT!

It's illegal and despicable but equally despicable is the attitude and behaviour of her "critics" (a very diplomatic way of describing these people) that led to this happening and if you only give a shit about shitty behaviour now that she's engaged in it then you're shitty too.

Yeah maybe we all gotta focus less on her, and let the most composed arguments like Kite Tales and The Amazing Atheist come forth. any other figures online in modern web media that like to harp on action games, comics and films, and pick at what you like and tacitly presume things about you for liking them. Forget those folks. Before they came along it was the health and politics click bait warning you about foods, or social ideas you support, trying to make you afraid of everything. Its big business to stir paranoia online, and many sites outside of here run on web filler and clickbait.

Don't wanna over analyze her criticism and get on her the same way the Church went after Dungeons and Dragons. If you see or read web media, and feel that it's trying to make shame of something you enjoy, don't worry. If you know why you like it, and you're rational, then case closed.

Anything can be soundbitten and made to look bad in this day in age. 2012 election coverage anyone?

If you see the holes in their argument then in your mind they've already lost. They're supposed to convince you gamers, if they didn't then game over.

Support the types of games, films and comics, and themes you like, because at the end of the day youtube vids may get volume but money talks louder in our capitalist society. and its the only language megapublishers speak, and video games wouldnt've endorsed the mold of BJ Blasckowitzes, gibbing demons, and rescuing princesses so heavily if we weren't so loyal in demand of these awesome journeys and power fantasies. Whose going to be in immersive core gaming for the long run? The dedicated gamers with some anita critics or the waiting-in-line candy crushers?

If some within the community or hanging on the periphery are poking sticks, forget em. If you feel they want to lobby their way into your pasttime instead of joining up for a match and getting to understand on a more grassroots level, then build a new 'domain' to pay homage to, buy, celebrate or preserve what ideas, characters and themes YOU like.

NO standard reviewer at the time would've thought stuff like DOOM, GTA or Fright Night was okay when they first came out. Someone made what THEY wanted to play, and that's all the cultural validation such games need.

If these games and their stereotypes supposed weren't okay for 2014, they wouldn've been okay for the early decades of gaming either, but they're here. If they were too close to reality and not cathartic fictional releases, millions of people wouldn't have such a catharsis from reality in playing them, but they do.

Because under this is another war. Social media anxiety vs the immersion of Video Games, and video games.....maaan are they losing in this war. Look at how much time we spend talking about them and haters of them, rather than ideas for where they can go, and what we like about em.

NuclearKangaroo:
Snip

No, because I'm aware of context in society. Crazy isn't a loaded word with hate behind it. Nigger and retarded are.

The person who asked her to reply? You mean the one who called her a lying whore? Why do you THINK?

Yes. You can be intolerant of the idea. Being intolerant against something isn't necessarily bad. I'm intolerant against murderers. Not a bad thing. When people are talking about being intolerant in THIS case though, they're mainly referring to being intolerant against certain demographics. Which IS a bad thing.

Simply put, using words like "retarded" is simply being insensitive and intolerant towards the mentally disabled. That's just how it works, so don't you tell me I'm just looking to get offended.

Yes. But here's the thing. Words mean things. You can't walk up to someone and say "I'm going to murder your entire family" and walk away, and when the police knock on your door you can't say "They're just words". Also, it may sound childish but words hurt. When a gay kid is called a faggot over and over again every time at source until he shoves a revolver barrel into his mouth just to make it stop, they aren't just words

You still haven't answered my questions from the earlier post. And you're just leaving?

Zachary Amaranth:

NuclearKangaroo:

people thinking jontron using a word that literally can mean "stupid"

See the usage note, because the way you're using the word derives from the pejorative term.

anita, trapped inside her chronic delusion remains convinced legitimate criticism and the right to rebuttal is sexism

I knoooow, right? Why would anyone think that calling a woman a whore and a cunt and accusing her of lying without good faith basis was sexist?

Don't forget the rape threats. They always get thrown around whenever people "disagree" with a man on the internet. It has nothing to do with a vile attitude toward women it's that these people genuinely believe rape to be an appropriate way to end a discussion. I mean look at Dan from No Right Answers article about antisemitism, the comments section was just chock full of rape threats.

The_Kodu:

Supdupadog:

She may not be the most hateful or aggressive, but what she is, is a very loud advocate of censorship to a medium she both shows no understanding of and admits to not being a consumer of, coupled with argument after argument that range from intentional misrepresentation to blatant lies.

Basically it comes down to the internet hating censorship, especially when advocated by a lying hypocrite who is in all likelihood a con artist.

Where is the actual legitimacy of this narrative?

It can't be the videos I watched. She doesn't call for explicit censorship of the many things she puts on trial. It can't for the lies, since pretty much everything she displays is something that actually happened in whatever game she is talking about. One could argue they aren't as good for the point she tries to make, but that's a case by case thing that barely anyone seems to do it anyway.

I'm just not seeing this monster other people do.

Read her tweets she claims neutrality and allowing unmoderated comments on news sites causes sexual harassment. She literally said that and called for sites to not be neutral but to moderate comments before allowing them to be posted.

She, in her latest video, essentially called all those who enjoy games with violent or sexualised content rape apologists.

It's very clear she's trying to guilt or pressure people into feeling their choice is wrong and only hers is right. Her claim that any representation even in a negative context is wrong echos the era of the comics code authority telling Stan Lee he couldn't include spiderman saving a guy high on drugs throwing himself off a building because it showed drugs, despite it showing someone nearly being killed due to drugs. If you claim something is wrong and context doesn't matter then you are calling said content wrong to include at all even if it's being included to place said thing in a negative light.

1) Asking for pre-moderation of comments is not an uncommon request. Especially when it's been know for a comment section to spiral down into trolling and inflammatory remarks. there is a difference between censoring and moderators.

2) At no point did she say just that in her women as back ground videos. The point was more nuanced than what your summation. It was about the lack of respect directed at these avatars, and while not making you a murder in real life, it does probably reinforce the thought on how much one should care about prostitutes or other sexualized figures, or not care, as the case being made. You wanna argue the human brain isn't so easily affect, you can do that. But chalking it up straight as her calling violent games a way to turn people into monsters is unfair.

3) Even in context, those where bad displays of people. She made that case. The male prostitutes in fallout don't make the female one's ok. They are just as hollow and no-name as any bloatfly, and ultimately, the game doesn't do anything to make you care about them. They're just there as a weird attempt at sexual cheesecake.A big point of the video is just looking at all the sexualized figures that don't do anything and why should they be there.

Another unethical action in a long line of unethical crap. Why is anyone surprised?

ayvee:

Zontar:

She may not be the most hateful or aggressive, but what she is, is a very loud advocate of censorship to a medium she both shows no understanding of and admits to not being a consumer of, coupled with argument after argument that range from intentional misrepresentation to blatant lies.

Basically it comes down to the internet hating censorship, especially when advocated by a lying hypocrite who is in all likelihood a con artist.

God this is such a strawman.

And the con artist argument is just as ridiculous now as it was two years ago.

Funny, given what a straw man argument is, that seems to describe her own claims more so then my post.

As for the con artist argument, lets look at the facts:

She had a studio set up with all the equipment she needed to make videos before the kickstarter.
She made videos before her kickstarter of comparable low quality but (amazingly) greater frequency then after her kickstarter.
She already had the three consoles of the current generation as well as a large number of games for them before her kickstarter (and even used them in the video for it).
She then spammed /b/ with ads for her kickstarter, and was shown uncharacteristic restraint before the real backlash started.
She then used the backlash she (intentionally) got sent towards her as part of her campaign to get money for a project that she already had everything she needed to make.
She then went on to get all the money she needed and then some (understatement), and yet she hasn't held to her kickstarter promises in terms of both the timely release of her videos (which even people with full time jobs have managed with ease to make with greater quality and in a more timely manor) coupled with her having yet to actually give out the tiered rewards to her backers.

It's a textbook scam that any criminology 101 student should be able to spot a mile away.

The "critics" were assholes.

Anita is an asshole.

Everbody's an asshole! The system works!

Zontar:

ayvee:

Zontar:

She may not be the most hateful or aggressive, but what she is, is a very loud advocate of censorship to a medium she both shows no understanding of and admits to not being a consumer of, coupled with argument after argument that range from intentional misrepresentation to blatant lies.

Basically it comes down to the internet hating censorship, especially when advocated by a lying hypocrite who is in all likelihood a con artist.

God this is such a strawman.

And the con artist argument is just as ridiculous now as it was two years ago.

Funny, given what a straw man argument is, that seems to describe her own claims more so then my post.

Strawmanning isn't the Highlander of logical fallacies.

ayvee:

Zontar:

ayvee:

God this is such a strawman.

And the con artist argument is just as ridiculous now as it was two years ago.

Funny, given what a straw man argument is, that seems to describe her own claims more so then my post.

Strawmanning isn't the Highlander of logical fallacies.

Neither is ignoring the fact that an objective look at what has happened makes the conclusion of her arguments being at best worthless and her whole campaign being a scam the only logical conclusion.

Her old videos where about 6-8 minutes, her new ones usually about half-an hour.

That might affect production time. Also I'm pretty sure she has other things to do, especially as she got shot into pseudo internet celebrity.

As for the kickstarter goals, no idea what those where.

LostGryphon:
The "critics" were assholes.

Anita is an asshole.

Everbody's an asshole! The system works!

Except she's not. At worst, petty for sharing really offensive personal e-mails.

She committed a Doxx attack that didn't happen, despite having plenty of time to happen, and probably won't happen now because who cares about tweets from weeks ago.

Her character is being vilified for no reason. That's not right. That's not a thing that should happen.

Supdupadog:

Look at the tweets I linked yourself.
Are your eyes telling you lies ?

Pretty sure that sex toy isn't a lie.

I can't find any Anita tweets directly at this Coregamer or Dawson. There is no declaration of attack or anything. These two don't sound like very enjoyable people and the tweets that relate their actions towards @femfreq are pretty tame and more upset that how the other party acted.

What I'm saying is this is a bad example. Unless you got some favorites you wanna pull out that aren't cherry picking, this seems like another good example of how non-bullies her fans are.

You can't find the Tweets where she pulls them up ?

Really ?

Allow me

https://twitter.com/femfreq/statuses/476150034795204609

https://twitter.com/femfreq/statuses/418826304910131201

How are these poor cherry picked examples ?
they are the two most recent ones available that I plucked out, no need to vet, no need to pull out of context.
Anita pulled them up as terrible people and they get harassed.

So I ask again for evidence the same isn't being done to those mentioned in the email. I ask for proof this trend isn't continuing.

I'm sure there are far more examples but I'm replying on a computer less powerful than most smartphones so scrolling back further is really time consuming.

Also note these are the tweets left who knows how many have been removed etc.

Quadocky:
OH SHEEET, THE FEMINAZIS ARE MARCHING INTO MY ROOM, TAKING MY GAMES!

FEMINISTS LIED! GAMING DIED!!!

Can we please just use this comment as the posterchild for every description of an Anita/feminist thread in videogames ever?

I'm pretty sure Anita herself has been doxxed a bazillion times by now anyway.

Also from what I understand...this is an email address? Like...that's not even doxxing? Hello?

Seriously. I see dozens of posts monthly about people screencapping shit said in email messages and posting them on their blogs. That shit gets like. 100k notes and not a single person is calling it doxxing. But...Anita does it and suddenly she doxxed some fuckers?

Do people know what doxxing is? Doxxing is actively finding information on this person that may or may not be public or highly public info.

Someone sending a person an email, and the recipient screencapping it and posting it online is not doxxing. A breach of privacy? Yes. Doxxing no.

The_Kodu:

Supdupadog:

Look at the tweets I linked yourself.
Are your eyes telling you lies ?

Pretty sure that sex toy isn't a lie.

I can't find any Anita tweets directly at this Coregamer or Dawson. There is no declaration of attack or anything. These two don't sound like very enjoyable people and the tweets that relate their actions towards @femfreq are pretty tame and more upset that how the other party acted.

What I'm saying is this is a bad example. Unless you got some favorites you wanna pull out that aren't cherry picking, this seems like another good example of how non-bullies her fans are.

You can't find the Tweets where she pulls them up ?

Really ?

Allow me

https://twitter.com/femfreq/statuses/476150034795204609

https://twitter.com/femfreq/statuses/418826304910131201

How are these poor cherry picked examples ?
they are the two most recent ones available that I plucked out, no need to vet, no need to pull out of context.
Anita pulled them up as terrible people and they get harassed.

So I ask again for evidence the same isn't being done to those mentioned in the email. I ask for proof this trend isn't continuing.

I'm sure there are far more examples but I'm replying on a computer less powerful than most smartphones so scrolling back further is really time consuming.

Also note these are the tweets left who knows how many have been removed etc.

You mean those nice people might have gotten some stern words from other twitter users despite no actual order to do so? Like that maybe sitting back and letting those awful awful things go under the radar is kinda wrong?

She highlighted those for a reason. They are just, so, so, so awful and no one should think that's ok.

Why are you defending them? Why do you think they're free from some random twitter people calling them out on such awful words?

I'm sure I'm going to regret engaging with this but here we go.

Zontar:

As for the con artist argument, lets look at the facts:

She had a studio set up with all the equipment she needed to make videos before the kickstarter.
She made videos before her kickstarter of comparable low quality but (amazingly) greater frequency then after her kickstarter.

Yes and the technical and visual quality of her videos has gone up dramatically since the Kickstarter. She used some of the money to improve her setup. I'm not sure why this would be an issue.

Zontar:

She already had the three consoles of the current generation as well as a large number of games for them before her kickstarter (and even used them in the video for it).

I legitimately do not understand why you even brought this up.

Zontar:

She then spammed /b/ with ads for her kickstarter, and was shown uncharacteristic restraint before the real backlash started.
She then used the backlash she (intentionally) got sent towards her as part of her campaign to get money for a project that she already had everything she needed to make.

No she didn't.

Zontar:

She then went on to get all the money she needed and then some (understatement), and yet she hasn't held to her kickstarter promises in terms of both the timely release of her videos (which even people with full time jobs have managed with ease to make with greater quality and in a more timely manor) coupled with her having yet to actually give out the tiered rewards to her backers.

Yes, she got exponentially more money than she asked for to do a thing and she didn't immediately have a solution for what to do with all of the extra money that people had given her specifically to do that thing. She also made appearances based on the publicity that both her project and the backlash got, which couldn't have been part of the original timeline. The horror.

Zontar:

It's a textbook scam that any criminology 101 student should be able to spot a mile away.

If they want to fail, maybe.

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.

Yeah because the recipient who had an email laced with nothing but insults like cunt, and whore was clearly only looking for a rational unbiased discussion.

Supdupadog:

Except she's not. At worst, petty for sharing really offensive personal e-mails.

She committed a Doxx attack that didn't happen, despite having plenty of time to happen, and probably won't happen now because who cares about tweets from weeks ago.

Her character is being vilified for no reason. That's not right. That's not a thing that should happen.

Ignoring the fact that she is who she is...if this were some random internet person, it'd be an asshole thing to do.

She threw up people's personal email/information on the internet in an attempt to shame them/get them attacked. It does not matter if it "worked" or not. The fact of the matter is that it was done with that being an immediate potential consequence.

She's an asshole.

The guy who sent her the initial email calling her a cunt and the like...is an asshole for doing that.

I'm not sure why you're having a hard time admitting mutual douchery on the parts of the parties involved here. And frankly, just because she's been doxxed before does not, in any way, make her doing it all right or justified. The people who did it to her are assholes for doing it. She's an asshole for doing it. I'm not sure if you're taking "asshole" as being a horrific insult or something. I'd liken it to being a dick. Or a prick. Or a jerk. Or a meanie, if you're so inclined.

Pretty cut and dried. :/

ayvee:

Yes and the technical and visual quality of her videos has gone up dramatically since the Kickstarter. She used some of the money to improve her setup. I'm not sure why this would be an issue.

Sure haven't noticed it, but then again with how often she posts new videos it's probably worth looking back to check given how each one takes more time then she claimed the whole series was supposed to.

Zontar:

She already had the three consoles of the current generation as well as a large number of games for them before her kickstarter (and even used them in the video for it).

I legitimately do not understand why you even brought this up.

Because it begs the question: if she had everything she needed (no way the equipment for making the videos costs 6k, unless she really, REALLY doesn't know where to look for half decent prices) why did she need so much money? I've seen people using a budget of less then 1k do much better work, and most of the time they can finance it themselves because 1) it isn't that much money for a long term project, and 2) they usually use ad revenue, which, given the viwership of her older videos, should have easily covered the 6k costs. It's not like she was living off her Youtube channel, she wasn't posting nearly often enough for that to be the case.

Zontar:

She then spammed /b/ with ads for her kickstarter, and was shown uncharacteristic restraint before the real backlash started.
She then used the backlash she (intentionally) got sent towards her as part of her campaign to get money for a project that she already had everything she needed to make.

No she didn't.

Actually yes, yes she did.

Zontar:

She then went on to get all the money she needed and then some (understatement), and yet she hasn't held to her kickstarter promises in terms of both the timely release of her videos (which even people with full time jobs have managed with ease to make with greater quality and in a more timely manor) coupled with her having yet to actually give out the tiered rewards to her backers.

Yes, she got exponentially more money than she asked for to do a thing and she didn't immediately have a solution for what to do with all of the extra money that people had given her specifically to do that thing. She also made appearances based on the publicity that both her project and the backlash got, which couldn't have been part of the original timeline. The horror.

So her making more money then she planned to... excuses her not honouring her backers tired rewards and taking more time to make each (low quality content) video then she claimed the whole series would take (a realistic time table that someone with basic editing skills could have stuck to mind you)? If she was an employ, she would have been fired long ago. If she was a company, she would have been sued. The only reason she hasn't had legal reprimand is due to how kickstarter is set up. She only has to promise to at some point finish the work that should have been done (and by a competent person WOULD have been done) 2 years ago.

Zontar:

It's a textbook scam that any criminology 101 student should be able to spot a mile away.

If they want to fail, maybe.

Funny, I got a pretty high mark in that one. Not the highest, mind you, but mid 90s isn't something to shake a stick at.

Spot1990:
So when someone gets tracked down and their info posted and sent threats, they get abused, harassed, people are encouraged to go after this person, things get racist when ethnicity is involved, homophobic when sexuality is involved and misogynistic and downright rapey when gender is involved they just need to suck it up and grow thicker skin, or deal with it, or accept that that's what happens on the internet but when some cunt is being a cunt, when the abusive one is suddenly the abused we need to stop the presses and throw the one-time victim to the wolves for having the cheek to use the same methods used to attack them?

Two wrongs don't make a right, they never make a right. She shouldn't have done that, it was wrong. But where the fuck was all this defense for her when she was the one being abused? For fuck sake I don't even like her, I think her videos are wrongheaded and she's frankly a total arsehole at times, despite supporting feminism and believing that there is a massive problem with misogyny and bigotry in general within the gaming community (because there fucking is) I think her videos are just plain dumb at best and lazy, lying, attention seeking garbage at worst. But fucking hell a person uses the exact same tactics to attack the people who attacked her and that's when it crosses the line? And don't get me wrong, I'll make this totally clear she should not have done that.

ONCE AGAIN: SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT!

It's illegal and despicable but equally despicable is the attitude and behaviour of her "critics" (a very diplomatic way of describing these people) that led to this happening and if you only give a shit about shitty behaviour now that she's engaged in it then you're shitty too.

Where was all the support for her ?
$158,000 that's where.

Pride of place on frontpages of most gaming sites for her videos, that's where the support for her was.

It's amazing that apparently that was completely earned and not the result of a show of support towards her.

If you're claiming Doxxing is wrong (as Anita has done in the past) then using it yourself is firstly illegal and secondly pure hypocrisy. I mean her lastest swing is that Equality isn't enough and only social justice is right. Thats right some-one claiming to support feminism which at it's core should be about equal rights and treatment is claiming that equality isn't enough and justice needs to be done in their eyes.

Social justice was done in the old west by lynch mobs. That's why there's a court system now.

There's no point claiming the moral high ground if you plan to dig mine shafts under it.

Supdupadog:

1) Asking for pre-moderation of comments is not an uncommon request. Especially when it's been know for a comment section to spiral down into trolling and inflammatory remarks. there is a difference between censoring and moderators.

2) At no point did she say just that in her women as back ground videos. The point was more nuanced than what your summation. It was about the lack of respect directed at these avatars, and while not making you a murder in real life, it does probably reinforce the thought on how much one should care about prostitutes or other sexualized figures, or not care, as the case being made. You wanna argue the human brain isn't so easily affect, you can do that. But chalking it up straight as her calling violent games a way to turn people into monsters is unfair.

3) Even in context, those where bad displays of people. She made that case. The male prostitutes in fallout don't make the female one's ok. They are just as hollow and no-name as any bloatfly, and ultimately, the game doesn't do anything to make you care about them. They're just there as a weird attempt at sexual cheesecake.A big point of the video is just looking at all the sexualized figures that don't do anything and why should they be there.

1) On who's standards. Also claiming it's wrong to try and remain neutral while reporting news really does baffle me as surely a critical thinker would want neutrality and people to be able to judge not to be told what to believe Fox News style. Also again it entirely depends on the moderation standard.

2)More nuanced. Oh yeh she said people believe and will propogate rape myths. In essence a rape apologist. Just because it's not got a tag saying Rabbit on it doesn't mean the fluffy small four legged animal with long ears who likes carrots and lives in burrows isn't a rabbit here.

3)Except I've been through these before. The Farcry one being a huge example.
Also are you really arguing that equal representation and treatment is sexist now ?
Are you claiming sexualised = sexist ?
OMG so many cosplayers are so sexist then by dressing as they do. Oh wait it's ok in reality but not games now ? How is that not calling for changes in a medium to fit a persons world view and impose restrictions to them ?

Supdupadog:
Her old videos where about 6-8 minutes, her new ones usually about half-an hour.

That might affect production time. Also I'm pretty sure she has other things to do, especially as she got shot into pseudo internet celebrity.

As for the kickstarter goals, no idea what those where.

LostGryphon:
The "critics" were assholes.

Anita is an asshole.

Everbody's an asshole! The system works!

Except she's not. At worst, petty for sharing really offensive personal e-mails.

She committed a Doxx attack that didn't happen, despite having plenty of time to happen, and probably won't happen now because who cares about tweets from weeks ago.

Her character is being vilified for no reason. That's not right. That's not a thing that should happen.

Her videos came out more frequently when she was working on other projects too / full time work

They were shorter but comparatively she should have so much more time now to produce them that there should be no reason for the long (6 month+) time between videos.

I posted links to her dropping the Doxx, do you ignore them wilfully or simply ignorantly ?
She dropped the information. That is the Doxx,what comes from it we do not yet know so claiming it isn't happening requires evidence from those two it involves.

She's being vilified because she's using every trick in the book to vilify anyone who doesn't 100% agree with her. Meanwhile playing variations of the victim card (seriously initially maybe it was ignorance but you don't announce your going to live stream on twitch when you could google+ stream and prevent any comments.)

She's being vilified because she claims to promote critical thinking but won't let people attempt it and instead provides manipulated and biased evidence claiming it as unbiased.
She's claiming her work as academic while misrepresenting lots of information and objecting to all criticism claiming it's baseless or because she's female and therefore she shouldn't have to address the criticism.
She's misrepresenting others academic work to fit her purpose knowing that due to Journal subscriptions not everyone will be able to check the research themselves.
Shes further displacing others better suited from the spotlight.

SaneAmongInsane:

Except the first guy just flat out calls her a whore, so why should I have sympathy for anything bad that happens to them? It would've what? Taken a few more minutes to properly write an email that wasn't insulting that conveyed the same point?

I don't even like Anita. If they got the legal ground to sue her, they should. But as an independent 3rd party, fuck em.

I've already agreed that the emails were bad. But here's a question, why the hell do you have to like, agree, or even not think someone is a complete asshole to think illegally handing out their private information that could put them at risk is a bad thing? It's shitty behavior that no one should be doing, and the fact that people are defending it is bullshit.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked