Feminist Frequency posts critics' personal info on Twitter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

TopazFusion:

The_Kodu:
-

The funny thing about the "he had it coming" argument, is that it's the very same argument you see pop up in gun control threads on this forum. Threads with comments from people who seem to think that it's okay to gun down someone breaking into your home.

"If he hadn't have been breaking into my house, he would still be alive!" they say.
And yes, there are plenty of people on this forum who do truly believe this.

But when it's an internet troll whose trolling came back to bite them in the ass, suddenly everyone feels sorry for the troll.

I. Do. Not. Understand. This. Forum. At. All.

Being offended =/= mortal danger

Acting instantly out of anger at being offended =/= Acting out of instinct to prevent death.

An email from a Troll =/= Someone posing a legitimate threat to you potentially.

If you feel threatened by written words you report it, you have the time to do that. If however you've got a burglar in your house you don't have time to wait to act.

"If he hadn't have been breaking into my house, he would still be alive!" they say
"If I hadn't acted I might not be still alive" Is something you also hear.

Anita had time to act in her situation and didn't need to act rashly but she did.

Colour Scientist:

Are you serious, do you realise how melodramatic that is?

Melodramatic how? Whilst my scenario is purely speculative I've seen enough angry reactions coming out of Tumblr to know the level of hypocrisy such reactions display.

What diehard followers?

The ones who defend any and every action she makes or statement she states, regardless of the validity of such actions and statements.

Almost every big-name web celebrity has such followers. Can we please not pretend like Ms. Sarkeesian is exempt from this?

And besides, I never implied that everyone that supports her were like this or would react in such a manner. The vast majority would not. Hence my qualifier of "diehard".

The only people who ever bring her up do so to complain about her, it's fucking hilarious how many threads people make to bitch about her. Posting the same tired accusations over and over.

Do you also dislike the incessant denial of those accusations (namely the valid ones) by those who take the stance of defending Ms. Sarkeesian against all forms of criticism? As equally a ridiculous stance as those who seek only to attack her.

For that matter, isn't it a bit ironic to complain about people discussing Ms. Sarkeesian and her actions and claims when the very purpose behind her endeavors, including Feminist Frequency, is to encourage such discussions and debates?

You can scoff at those posing differing opinions from yourself but to laugh off the existence of the very things her videos and lectures are meant to spark seems ludicrous.

Vigormortis:

Colour Scientist:

Are you serious, do you realise how melodramatic that is?

Melodramatic how? Whilst my scenario is purely speculative I've seen enough angry reactions coming out of Tumblr to know the level of hypocrisy such reactions display.

What diehard followers?

The ones who defend any and every action she makes or statement she states, regardless of the validity of such actions and statements.

Almost every big-name web celebrity has such followers. Can we please not pretend like Ms. Sarkeesian is exempt from this?

And besides, I never implied that everyone that supports her were like this or would react in such a manner. The vast majority would not. Hence my qualifier of "diehard".

The only people who ever bring her up do so to complain about her, it's fucking hilarious how many threads people make to bitch about her. Posting the same tired accusations over and over.

Do you also complain about the incessant denial of those accusations (even the valid ones) by those who seek to defend Ms. Sarkeesian against all forms of criticism? As equally a ridiculous stance as those who seek only to attack her.

For that matter, isn't it a bit ironic to complain about people discussing Ms. Sarkeesian and her actions and claims when the very purpose behind her endeavors, including Feminist Frequency, is to encourage such discussions and debates?

You can scoff at those posing differing opinions from yourself but to laugh off the existence of the very things her videos and lectures are meant to spark seems ludicrous.

Can you show me examples then? They should be pretty easy to find if they're "incessant."

Different opinions to myself? Which opinions would those be exactly?
That people post a lot of threads bitching about her and making the same claims over and over?
They do, I can link you to countless numbers of them.

The_Kodu:

We do not know that for sure in reality. Many weird and wonderful email addresses are out there.

And for the most part the only people who seriously use them to contact anybody are teenagers, trolls, or jokesters. So there is a very high chance that the email does not even belong to the person who sent that email to Anita. And as more posts surface about the nature of the "info" displayed on the email, it's looking a lot like a faux email, than legitimate personal info.

I do not see how blaming the person who's IP address has potentially been posted is a positive approach when a criminal act has occurred.

Except for the fact that if it were truly criminal, than she would of been reported and charged by now. All I see is a lot of hot air of people declaring "She broke teh law!" and nothing actually happening to her or Feminist Frequency as an organization.

There are a number of possible retaliations Ms Sarkeesian could have picked.

And I'm pretty sure, considering all the hate she gets through her emails on a daily basis she has done all of them.

The one she chose was the illegal one.

Considering nothing has even happened to her I highly doubt what she did was even illegal.

It does not make her actions right or justified simple because she felt offended by them.

Sorry, but most objective people in this thread are finding a hard time trying to feel any sympathy for the sender of the email. If your going to send someone garbage laced with insults and no substance, than boohoo that your called out for being as shitlord.

Was it the right thing? No. But I can hardly give two fucks either way.

As I said That we know of. That doesn't mean it isn't being done, I illustrated to a previous poster that there is a trend of this. Infact some of the people pulled up by Anita have faced mass reports to have them banned.
No matter the feelings on their actions it doesn't negate the fact there is a trend of action being taken by some fans.
Also fans of Anita are pretty obsessed it's just a lot more of a rare occurrence that anyone calls them on it.

So basically a bunch of hypotheticals that will probably never occur. But hey, it's so much easier to make up imaginary "Anita fanatics". So you still have at least something to stand on in this whole argument.

Does the fact nothing has happened negate the criminal act here ?

Sure does. If what she did was such a breach of law, than why haven't any of you reported her to the EU Data Protection yet?

Probably because it's a load of hot air.

Hell maybe worse, maybe the guy can't say anything because his IP is constantly being flooded.

So....what? He can't fucking call them? Use his internet cell phone? Use someone else's computer? Come the fuck on dude.

Check back and look at the reply I posted earlier, plenty of nice name calling going on from fans.

Oh yes namecalling. Something that every group ever has done on the inside and out. That's completely in the same league as some of the stuff Anita's detractors have done- like making a flash game where you can beat up her face. Yes. Name calling. That is definitely proof that Anita's phantom "fanatics" will do horrible things to the email recipient. Like sending him 300 boxes of pizza.

Again it's entirely up to the people involved to make the claim and pass it through the EU court.

Let me rant about how Anita is a criminal lawbreaker in the same league as Al Capone, but it's not my problem if nobody reports it, but here let me make a thread about how she's a super evil criminal now and how you all should hate her for this criminal act that I'm not going to do anything about because really it's not my problem guys.

They may not even be aware of it at present or for all we know it's stuck in the 4-6 week processing time the EU court has.

Cool. So between you saying it's not your problem if they report her or not and this info I can safely say this thread is a waste time. Just like every single Anita thread ever to come into existence on this website and beyond. It's full of maybe's and hypotheticals, and things that never will actually happen, but making a big deal about it anyway.

Not even surprised.

As much as I dislike anita, doxxing isn't a problem if she is only doxxing people who themselves have crossed the line. Anonymity is not a right.

Colour Scientist:
That people post a lot of threads bitching about her and making the same claims over and over?
They do, I can link you to countless numbers of them.

It's almost like you're on a forum, and there's only a certain amount of members whom post on it.

I'm sorry, but complaining about the fact you "Keep seeing the same people" whilst on a forum in which only a certain amount of people become notable is a little silly.

Perhaps it's just that most of the people who actively post on the forum disagree with you?

TopazFusion:
snip

But do you agree with those people in those threads? Do you agree with them when they say a burglar or murderer "had it coming" after that person broke into someone's home; especially when that invader threatened the home owner's life?

If not, then you must admit to the hypocrisy of now claiming the composer of those emails "had it coming".

Also, I fail to see how you can draw parallels from someone sending an angry email and a person breaking into someone's home.

The Lunatic:

Colour Scientist:
That people post a lot of threads bitching about her and making the same claims over and over?
They do, I can link you to countless numbers of them.

It's almost like you're on a forum, and there's only a certain amount of members whom post on it.

I'm sorry, but complaining about the fact you "Keep seeing the same people" whilst on a forum in which only a certain amount of people become notable is a little silly.

Perhaps it's just that most of the people whom actively post on the forum disagree with you?

Disagree with me about what?

Edit: Also, there have been three long Anita Sarkeesian threads in the past week or so.
I'm just pointing out that while people seem to constantly point to her supposed legion of rabid fans, they're never the ones making the threads or even posting in them for that matter.

The Lunatic:

Colour Scientist:
That people post a lot of threads bitching about her and making the same claims over and over?
They do, I can link you to countless numbers of them.

It's almost like you're on a forum, and there's only a certain amount of members whom post on it.

I'm sorry, but complaining about the fact you "Keep seeing the same people" whilst on a forum in which only a certain amount of people become notable is a little silly.

Perhaps it's just that most of the people whom actively post on the forum disagree with you?

What the person meant, was that 99% of the Anita threads are literally made by the same fucking users time and time again to the point where it isn't even remotely a surprise of who the OP was.

Dragonbums:
[quote="The Lunatic" post="9.857150.21242749"]What the person meant, was that 99% of the Anita threads are literally made by the same fucking users time and time again to the point where it isn't even remotely a surprise of who the OP was.

And yet in all these threads, it's people like you and Colour taking the defensive stance.

Whilst also complaining about the fact the thread exists in the first place.

Basically, you shouldn't complain about the fire if you're one of the people fanning the flames.

Despite what Tumblr presents, echo chambers are very quiet. If nobody defended this kind of activity, there wouldn't be any threads in the first place.

The Lunatic:

Dragonbums:
[quote="The Lunatic" post="9.857150.21242749"]What the person meant, was that 99% of the Anita threads are literally made by the same fucking users time and time again to the point where it isn't even remotely a surprise of who the OP was.

And yet in all these threads, it's people like you and Colour taking the defensive stance.

Whilst also complaining about the fact the thread exists in the first place.

Basically, you shouldn't complain about the fire if you're one of the people fanning the flames.

Despite what Tumblr presents, echo chambers are very quiet. If nobody defended this kind of activity, there wouldn't be any threads in the first place.

I actually tend to avoid these threads and, when I do post, I don't actually get defensive of Anita Sarkeesian, I just find it funny when these threads pile up and people still harp on about her diehard fans.

You'd think her diehard fans would show up more often if they were so, you know, diehard. XD

Colour Scientist:

snip

You skipped over the entire point of my post.

The very purpose of her videos is to spark debate and discussion. For you to complain that people are doing that very thing, regardless of what the thread creator chooses to debate in particular, just doesn't make sense to me.

Unless you want to tell me that that isn't the point of her videos, that is. In which case I will openly accuse Ms. Sarkeesian of being a hypocrite.

The point of debate is to debate. If everyone automatically agreed on every point there would be no debate. If you don't like what someone is saying, you have two options. Debate them and refute their claims or ignore them.

Is it annoying to see rehashed threads on a forum? Of course. But does that mean those of us who find it annoying have the right to deny those that do not find them annoying the ability to participate in such threads and debates? No, certainly not.

If you don't like them just ignore them. The only reason I even hopped into this one was because it wasn't a rehash of old claims. And, due to the nature of the event, I thought it very unfortunate that she took such an action. That such an action could mar the essence of the genuinely valid claims she makes.

A disappointing turn of events, to be sure.

-edit-
In all honesty, I think you and I agree on more than a few points on this topic. I find incessant griping just as annoying as you seem to. But I think we can both agree that the only way to resolve debates is for the debates to actually take place. Even if many of them amount to nothing.

It's almost always about the long haul.

I certainly don't feel as though you and I should be arguing. It's almost as though we're yelling at each, "I like the color blue!" "No, [b]I like the color blue!"

The Lunatic:

Dragonbums:
[quote="The Lunatic" post="9.857150.21242749"]What the person meant, was that 99% of the Anita threads are literally made by the same fucking users time and time again to the point where it isn't even remotely a surprise of who the OP was.

And yet in all these threads, it's people like you and Colour taking the defensive stance.

Whilst also complaining about the fact the thread exists in the first place.

Basically, you shouldn't complain about the fire if you're one of the people fanning the flames.

Despite what Tumblr presents, echo chambers are very quiet. If nobody defended this kind of activity, there wouldn't be any threads in the first place.

And yet in all these threads, not once have I made a thread in support of Anita, nor in dislike of Anita. I hop on to these threads because I find it absolutely hilarious and ironic that the very people who hate her and wish she would go the way are ALWAYS the ones to make Anita threads that get to 18 pages of the same shit and complain about the "diehards" that don't actually exist.

If you've really payed attention to my posts in these threads you would know that I personally find Anita boring and not worth half the effort of even making a thread about.

Most of the posts in this thread are in fact, Anita bashing. Most of the people who make these threads, do so to bash Anita.

Of the 30 gazillion threads made about her on this site, I have personally only seen ONE thread that actively supported and defended her. Just one.

Dragonbums:

And for the most part the only people who seriously use them to contact anybody are teenagers, trolls, or jokesters. So there is a very high chance that the email does not even belong to the person who sent that email to Anita. And as more posts surface about the nature of the "info" displayed on the email, it's looking a lot like a faux email, than legitimate personal info.

Except for the fact that if it were truly criminal, than she would of been reported and charged by now. All I see is a lot of hot air of people declaring "She broke teh law!" and nothing actually happening to her or Feminist Frequency as an organization.

Considering nothing has even happened to her I highly doubt what she did was even illegal.

Ok, got to stop this here, as this is just wrong.

Regardless the email being real or fake, posting it as she has is still an action that is illegal.

Regardless if she is charged or convicted on the matter, committing the action is itself still illegal.

Regardless if the person who made the email is found dead in a gutter a week from tomorrow, the action she made was still illegal.

I don't get what is hard to grasp about all that, and it is logically inconsistent to try to present the argument here as you have, since neither being caught, being charged, being successful nor being responsible from vendetta-guided response from her followers matter on if her actions are within the context of the law or not.

Were the actions taken in violation of the definition of the law? Yes? Well then it is illegal. Trying to present it like the lack of immediate response means it is not criminal is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst.

Dragonbums:

Sorry, but most objective people in this thread are finding a hard time trying to feel any sympathy for the sender of the email. If your going to send someone garbage laced with insults and no substance, than boohoo that your called out for being as shitlord.

Was it the right thing? No. But I can hardly give two fucks either way.

I doubt anyone here feels the guy was in the right to be a troll. However I think a number of people have been trying to argue about equivalent response and legality and the moral debate stemming from responding to words with potential safety risk.

Dragonbums:

Does the fact nothing has happened negate the criminal act here ?

Sure does. If what she did was such a breach of law, than why haven't any of you reported her to the EU Data Protection yet?

Probably because it's a load of hot air.

This is disgusting. You have any idea how many crimes are committed daily that go unreported, unpunished or unresolved because of how the legal system works?

I can not put into words what a disgusting display of inhumanity and excuse this is that you claim that just because someone wasn't caught, they did no criminal actions, or were validated in doing so. Sickening.

Vigormortis:

Colour Scientist:

snip

You skipped over the entire point of my post.

The very purpose of her videos is to spark debate and discussion. For you to complain that people are doing that very thing, regardless of what the thread creator chooses to debate in particular, is completely ridiculous.

Unless you want to tell me that that isn't the point of her videos, that is. In which case I will openly accuse Ms. Sarkeesian of being a hypocrite.

The point of debate is to debate. If everyone automatically agreed on every point there would be no debate. If you don't like what someone is saying, you have two options. Debate them and refute their claims or ignore them.

Is it annoying to see rehashed threads on a forum? Of course. But does that mean those of us who find it annoying have the right to deny those that do not find them annoying the ability to participate in such threads and debates? No, certainly not.

If you don't like them just ignore them. The only reason I even hopped into this one was because it wasn't a rehash of old claims. And, due to the nature of the event, I thought it very unfortunate that she took such an action. That such an action could mar the essence of the genuinely valid claims she makes.

A disappointing turn of events, to be sure.

So, that's a no on the examples then?

People can debate and discuss, I'm not denying anybody anything, I'm just poking fun at the insane amount of threads made about how awful she is while at the same time complaining about her diehard fans that never seem to show up.

Dragonbums:
And yet in all these threads, not once have I made a thread in support of Anita, nor in dislike of Anita. I hop on to these threads because I find it absolutely hilarious and ironic that the very people who hate her and wish she would go the way are ALWAYS the ones to make Anita threads that get to 18 pages of the same shit and complain about the "diehards" that don't actually exist.

If you've really payed attention to my posts in these threads you would know that I personally find Anita boring and not worth half the effort of even making a thread about.

Most of the posts in this thread are in fact, Anita bashing. Most of the people who make these threads, do so to bash Anita.

Of the 30 gazillion threads made about her on this site, I have personally only seen ONE thread that actively supported and defended her. Just one.

I dunno, you've said you don't think she committed an illegal act, which, most people believe she did, given the proof.

To most people, that puts you in a defensive position of her.

Beyond that, no, I don't support I have paid much attention to anyone's posts, be it yours or otherwise.

I merely see in these threads, it's you, colour or that guy with the DBZ avatar arguing about something or other.

Vigormortis:

I certainly don't feel as though you and I should be arguing. It's almost as though we're yelling at each, "I like the color blue!" "No, [b]I like the color blue!"

Dude, nobody is yelling, well, I'm not at least.

I think you may be taking this a bit more seriously than I am. :P

This forum will never get sick of talking about Anita Sarkeesian.

Colour Scientist:
So, that's a no on the examples then?

People can debate and discuss, I'm not denying anybody anything, I'm just poking fun at the insane amount of threads made about how awful she is while at the same time complaining about her diehard fans that never seem to show up.

If you're not going to respond to the argument, it's better just to not post.

Otherwise, technically you fall foul of the "Low Content" rule.

Just pointing it out.

The Lunatic:

Colour Scientist:
So, that's a no on the examples then?

People can debate and discuss, I'm not denying anybody anything, I'm just poking fun at the insane amount of threads made about how awful she is while at the same time complaining about her diehard fans that never seem to show up.

If you're not going to respond to the argument, it's better just to not post.

Otherwise, technically you fall foul of the "Low Content" rule.

Just pointing it out.

I responded to his post.

I didn't realise you were a moderator now.
Good for you!

The Lunatic:

I dunno, you've said you don't think she committed an illegal act, which, most people believe she did, given the proof.

To most people, that puts you in a defensive position of her.

One instance of me actively taking Anita's side does not mean that I am a diehard Anita fan or someone who actively supports Anita.

Beyond that, no, I don't support I have paid much attention to anyone's posts, be it yours or otherwise.

Sure you say that, but you then turn around and say that you mostly see me, Color Scientist, and the man with the DBZ avatar posting in these threads. so either your paying attention to what people post in this thread, or we are just the most noticeable posters due to what we say or our icons being the most notable.

I merely see in these threads, it's you, colour or that guy with the DBZ avatar arguing about something or other.

So your cherrypicking? Because there sure as hell are a fuck ton more people who constantly comment on Anita threads. Yet alone being on the forefront of making these threads, and it's certainly not just three people.

Anita Sarkeesian is in the news again?

Excuse me, I'm going to go get some popcorn ready...

TopazFusion:

The_Kodu:
-

The funny thing about the "he had it coming" argument, is that it's the very same argument you see pop up in gun control threads on this forum. Threads with comments from people who seem to think that it's okay to gun down someone breaking into your home.

"If he hadn't have been breaking into my house, he would still be alive!" they say.
And yes, there are plenty of people on this forum who do truly believe this.

But when it's an internet troll whose trolling came back to bite them in the ass, suddenly everyone feels sorry for the troll.

I. Do. Not. Understand. This. Forum. At. All.

Not only is there a huge difference in threat (which is the key determinant in self defence cases) but what about those who aren't pro "let's shoot all the robbers"? Aren't we allowed to say what Anita did is wrong (without being "hypocritical") because others have different view points on other issues?

Colour Scientist:

So, that's a no on the examples then?

Sorry, I don't make a point of saving such discussions. When I see people talking about how awful suicide is and how "no one should do it" while simultaneously telling someone that "they're a misogynistic pig who should kill themselves" I tend to make a point of avoiding those people. And I'll need a bit more than "samples please" to get me to trundle around on Tumblr for screen caps.

People can debate and discuss, I'm not denying anybody anything, I'm just poking fun at the insane amount of threads made about how awful she is

Then don't be surprised if people poke fun at you.

while at the same time complaining about her diehard fans that never seem to show up.

Have you considered that the "diehard fans" being referenced aren't on The Escapist? That perhaps posters around here are referring to the internet at large?

Though, I have to point out the number of posters in this thread who are actively rationalizing Ms. Sarkeesian's doxxing of the two who wrote the emails. Some even resorting to the "they had it coming" defense.

Colour Scientist:

Dude, nobody is yelling, well, I'm not at least.

I think you may be taking this a bit more seriously than I am. :P

I didn't say we were literally yelling. I was using an example to demonstrate the back-and-forth we're currently on, even though we seem to agree on more than a few points.

Colour Scientist:

I responded to his post.

I didn't realise you were a moderator now.
Good for you!

God no.

Can you imagine? It'd be terrible.

Just stating our of interest to not see somebody get a warning for something silly!

Dragonbums:
Stuff.

Of course it doesn't! But, that's not how people will see it.

Just as you're guilty of accusing those whom post often in these threads as people whom actively bash anita, rather than just disagreeing with a single point.

Also, yeah, it's easier to keep track of the few.

runic knight:

Ok, got to stop this here, as this is just wrong.

Regardless the email being real or fake, posting it as she has is still an action that is illegal.

We still don't know if it truly was illegal yet. As I've said before, it's not the first time someone has made a callout post/journal with the screencap of someone's email and nothing has happened to them.

Regardless if she is charged or convicted on the matter, committing the action is itself still illegal.

But if it's known that she committed the crime, is charged, and nothing happens than it can be safely said that she didn't do anything illegal.

Regardless if the person who made the email is found dead in a gutter a week from tomorrow, the action she made was still illegal.

The day an Anita fan actually does that is the day hell freezes over. Until then, I'm not holding my breath.

I don't get what is hard to grasp about all that, and it is logically inconsistent to try to present the argument here as you have, since neither being caught, being charged, being successful nor being responsible from vendetta-guided response from her followers matter on if her actions are within the context of the law or not.

What do you mean neither have been caught? It's widely known that Anita has supposedly "doxxed" someone on Twitter. Where is the unknown factor in this? If that was the case than she would of been reported immediately, and if no action has been taken by the EU than that means what she did in this instance wasn't a case of doxxing.

I didn't say what she did was right. I'm just saying that it's possibly not illegal

Were the actions taken in violation of the definition of the law? Yes? Well then it is illegal.

And in my argument I'm questioning whether or not what she did was in fact illegal. Since- as someone has pointed out, doxxing is the act of using phising services to root out info on other people to use for malicious purposes. So far, it seems that all Anita did was screencap an email with the intent of displaying the message. Not the actual info of the sender itself.

Trying to present it like the lack of immediate response means it is not criminal is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst.

So is trying to say what she did is illegal when we don't even know if what she did is grounds for being charged. So lets see what happens a couple weeks later.

I doubt anyone here feels the guy was in the right to be a troll. However I think a number of people have been trying to argue about equivalent response and legality and the moral debate stemming from responding to words with potential safety risk.

Except Anita has never asked for a mob on this man in any way. Her intent seemed to be to simply screencap a garbage email laced with hate to mock her "critics" any instance of personal info seems to of been a side effect.

This is disgusting. You have any idea how many crimes are committed daily that go unreported, unpunished or unresolved because of how the legal system works?

Of course I do. But if your going to make a big stink about a particular case and then turn around and say "not my problem if it goes unreported" than you don't exactly have a moral high ground yourself to cry "foul" on now do you?

I can not put into words what a disgusting display of inhumanity and excuse this is that you claim that just because someone wasn't caught, they did no criminal actions, or were validated in doing so. Sickening.

Haha. Did you get doxxed in your lifetime or something? Seems to me that your blowing this way out of the proportions of what we are arguing about. In this case we are talking about dicklord sending a shitty email to someone else and said recipient calls them out on Twitter with more than likely fake ass info.

Take a step back and cool off alright?

I wonder if you'll be up in arms about the same thing happening to Anita? Considering the fact that she gets a lot worse shit said to her, had a flash game where you can pummel in her face, and have people excuse all of that because of a supposed incident that nobody has proof of that she "incited 4chan".

But yeah sure, I'm trash. It's easy to just label someone as a disgusting human being over one thread and be done with it.

I'll embrace my disgusting humanity and morals with vigor.

The Lunatic:

Of course it doesn't! But, that's not how people will see it.

Just as you're guilty of accusing those whom post often in these threads as people whom actively bash anita, rather than just disagreeing with a single point.

Also, yeah, it's easier to keep track of the few.

Thanks for clarifying that your just cherrypicking three people, and acting like we are the ones "fanning the flames" of Anita discussion.

NuclearKangaroo:

Jonathan Hornsby:

NuclearKangaroo:

"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

Intolerance is intolerance. The difference between hanging someone for being homosexual and simply calling them a derogatory name is measured only in degrees.

image

like i said, you have no idea what you are talking about

im curious, whats the fundamental unit for measuring intolerance? the CIS-meter? the white-kilogram? or maybe, the straight-liter?

not to mention your dimissive attitude has left me speechless, is like saying

"injury is injury. The difference between shooting a man and slaping him is measured only in blood lost"

theres a pretty damn big difference there, and there is a pretty damn big difference between insulting someone and killing him

Measuring intolerance is actually very simple. Just ask yourself the following:

Did you take negative action against someone because of their age, race, gender, nationality, creed, religion, sexuality, or other characteristic that makes them in some way different from yourself?

If the answer is yes, then you sir have committed an act of intolerance. Intolerance itself is not a crime; it is a motivation. The difference between slapping a man because he's gay and killing him because he's gay is that one crime is assault motivated by intolerance, and the other is murder motivated by intolerance. Both, however mild or extreme, remain acts of intolerance.

Looking at how the OP reported this, and how it looks like its actually played out...

I swear one-day Anita's going to fart in a crowded lift, and there will be a big rush to report her actions as 'commiting a terrorist gas attack on building full of innocent civilians'

My what active imaginations we have.
They've been bombarded to oblivion with emails from rabid Anita fans?
These poor victims might wind up in the gutter dead?
We don't even know if they even provided a true email, and yet we're going straight to murder as a possible outcome?

In the absence of facts, flights of fiction will do, I suppose.
But the outrage becomes glaringly disproportionate when we entertain such extreme hypotheticals and outright fantasies, based on such limited information.

Dragonbums:

runic knight:

Ok, got to stop this here, as this is just wrong.

Regardless the email being real or fake, posting it as she has is still an action that is illegal.

We still don't know if it truly was illegal yet. As I've said before, it's not the first time someone has made a callout post/journal with the screencap of someone's email and nothing has happened to them.

Usually I would agree, though in this case, it does seem kinda hard to deny either what she has done nor the relation to that in legality itself.

Though if it is mistaken that her actions aren't illegal then I will retract any claim of what she has done as illegal. Still will call it dickish though, and stand behind my statements about a lot here.

Dragonbums:

Regardless if she is charged or convicted on the matter, committing the action is itself still illegal.

But if it's known that she committed the crime, is charged, and nothing happens than it can be safely said that she didn't do anything illegal.

Incorrect. All that would say was that she was legally acquitted. In the same vein of someone being convicted for murder being found to actually be innocent, the state of someone doing an action determines if they committed the crime or not. The conviction or lack there of only determines if they were found guilty of it. Because courts aren't 100% accurate in rulings, it is important to remember that distinction. I recall a rather famous case about a black man being murdered, obviously so, but the murderers being let off because the court was a bunch of racist themselves. Their lack of conviction doesn't mean that their actions had not broken the law, merely that the court did not prove to society that they had and were in need or corrections.

Dragonbums:

Regardless if the person who made the email is found dead in a gutter a week from tomorrow, the action she made was still illegal.

The day an Anita fan actually does that is the day hell freezes over. Until then, I'm not holding my breath.

Well fortunate that it is as I said, irrelevant to this situation entirely if something bad happens to someone because of her posting it.

Dragonbums:

I don't get what is hard to grasp about all that, and it is logically inconsistent to try to present the argument here as you have, since neither being caught, being charged, being successful nor being responsible from vendetta-guided response from her followers matter on if her actions are within the context of the law or not.

What do you mean neither have been caught? It's widely known that Anita has supposedly "doxxed" someone on Twitter. Where is the unknown factor in this? If that was the case than she would of been reported immediately, and if no action has been taken by the EU than that means what she did in this instance wasn't a case of doxxing.

I didn't say what she did was right. I'm just saying that it's possibly not illegal

Caught as in arrested or convicted by a legal institution. As I was arguing, it is irrelevant if she is arrested or even charged in a court of law as to whether or not her actions breach the rules of the law. The action itself is still either in breach of the law or not, regardless what society decides to do in response to it, be it ignore it or come at her within the full extent of the law.

Dragonbums:

Were the actions taken in violation of the definition of the law? Yes? Well then it is illegal.

And in my argument I'm questioning whether or not what she did was in fact illegal. Since- as someone has pointed out, doxxing is the act of using phising services to root out info on other people to use for malicious purposes. So far, it seems that all Anita did was screencap an email with the intent of displaying the message. Not the actual info of the sender itself.

Alright, I can respect this aspect then, as it is based on the definition of the law and the action.

Dragonbums:

Trying to present it like the lack of immediate response means it is not criminal is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst.

So is trying to say what she did is illegal when we don't even know if what she did is grounds for being charged. So lets see what happens a couple weeks later.

I'll agree with that, though I still stand behind that the argument you seemed to be making about it before where being convicted is required before claiming it is illegal is incorrect. Too many examples of that not being true exist.

Dragonbums:

I doubt anyone here feels the guy was in the right to be a troll. However I think a number of people have been trying to argue about equivalent response and legality and the moral debate stemming from responding to words with potential safety risk.

Except Anita has never asked for a mob on this man in any way. Her intent seemed to be to simply screencap a garbage email laced with hate to mock her "critics" any instance of personal info seems to of been a side effect.

Except she is a representative of a movement and an internet and some could even argue a media celebrity. it isn't that she is screaming for the guy's blood, because of her status and reach, she does not have to. Indeed, she should be more cautious as her added range and audience could result in stupid, insane or just weird people taking her public displeasure as instruction itself.

when you have an army following you as she has, you don't always have to order them to do stuff, they tend to try to do stuff on their own. For a smaller example, many youtube critics on religion and politics have to preface things they say with orders to either not or to stop harassing people they have publicly argued with through simple video to video discussion. My mention of the extreme was hyperbole, but harassment, death threats, and scare tactics to their home address are a possibility, if the history of it happening on youtube is any indication. Off the top of my head I can think of one youtube critic who had his job threatened because of his docs were released by someone he was arguing with.

Dragonbums:

This is disgusting. You have any idea how many crimes are committed daily that go unreported, unpunished or unresolved because of how the legal system works?

Of course I do. But if your going to make a big stink about a particular case and then turn around and say "not my problem if it goes unreported" than you don't exactly have a moral high ground yourself to cry "foul" on now do you?

I don't know what you are arguing here. Where was I saying it wasn't my problem if it goes unreported? I don't quite follow what you are trying to bring up here.

I have said, and stand behind, that it is ridiculous to point to a lack of conviction of guilt in order to dismiss the excuse an action as perfectly legal itself. All a lack of conviction of guild implies is that either the case never made it to trial, or the trial came to that conclusion. It determines how the society chooses to address the action made rather then if the action was within the definition of the law. While many trials should, can and do use the definition of the law in order to determine how society will deal with the action, it is not perfect, so the presumption that a lack of conviction determines if the act itself was legal or not is arguing the absence of conviction is evidence it was not illegal.

((yes, I know this is wordy, I'm sorry. It is just important to differentiate between the legality of an action, and the response (conviction or not) to that action.Not being charged doesn't change if the action was or was not legal, it merely demonstrates there was no charges made.))

Dragonbums:

I can not put into words what a disgusting display of inhumanity and excuse this is that you claim that just because someone wasn't caught, they did no criminal actions, or were validated in doing so. Sickening.

Haha. Did you get doxxed in your lifetime or something? Seems to me that your blowing this way out of the proportions of what we are arguing about. In this case we are talking about dicklord sending a shitty email to someone else and said recipient calls them out on Twitter with more than likely fake ass info.

Take a step back and cool off alright?

I wonder if you'll be up in arms about the same thing happening to Anita? Considering the fact that she gets a lot worse shit said to her, had a flash game where you can pummel in her face, and have people excuse all of that because of a supposed incident that nobody has proof of that she "incited 4chan".

But yeah sure, I'm trash. It's easy to just label someone as a disgusting human being over one thread and be done with it.

I'll embrace my disgusting humanity and morals with vigor.

No, the point of my disgust actually only has to do with the gross lack of reason and logic on display in order to excuse an action in the same sort of way a murderer getting away on a technicality would try to excuse the murder because he too was not convicted.

As said before, whatever shit she has said or was said about her or what games were made with her face that were the exact same games made about osama, george bush, obama and pretty much every disliked celebrity or politician out there is dickish though not illegal. So they are morally wrong, and she herself is morally wrong for her own words or whatever, though neither represent a breech of law.

What is disgusting is the corrupted reasoning on display in order to excuse behavior as alright so long as legal ramifications aren't applied. A man who robs a bank has still robbed the back regardless if he is caught and convicted or not. Well that and what really comes off as you attempting to actively attack what you saw as an emotional aspect about me. Seriously dude, I said the behavior was disgusting, not that you were trash yourself. Though if your response is to laugh at that and feel an insult should be meet with the potential risk that comes from doxxing, I may just have to believe you are.

Anita was definitely in the wrong here (whether purposeful or accidental), but I'm not exactly feeling any sympathy for the miserable son of a bitch that sent her that horrible email. She was right to call him out, just not to put his personal info up with it.

In other words, if you're siding entirely with one or the other, you should calm down. Anita did something wrong in response to something wrong done to her. Both are in the wrong, regardless of who you agree with more.

Falling:
My what active imaginations we have.
They've been bombarded to oblivion with emails from rabid Anita fans?
These poor victims might wind up in the gutter dead?
We don't even know if they even provided a true email, and yet we're going straight to murder as a possible outcome?

In the absence of facts, flights of fiction will do, I suppose.
But the outrage becomes glaringly disproportionate when we entertain such extreme hypotheticals and outright fantasies, based on such limited information.

You are aware that gutter bit was hyperbole demonstrating my point about it not mattering one bit what happened to the guy in regards to if Anita was fine with doing what she did?

I get the feeling you may have missed that point to instead present it like I believe there is a likely chance of it happening. Honestly I doubt, but that doesn't excuse the actions of Anita for lack of being successful.

Fair enough, but I would suggest that sort of hyperbole is not terribly helpful as it borders on histrionics.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked