It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Dem Gamergatorz are the only ones doing dem harassmentz; again : https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3de7fj/canadian_man_facing_six_months_in_jail_for_tweets/
Seriously? Posing as a 13 y/o on twitter and accusing an innocent guy of pedophilia?
MY!!! GOD!!! That's got to be worth posting here.

Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.

He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger ...

Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor’s “hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience” and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game.

Elliott disagreed with the tactic and Tweeted he thought the shaming “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”...

... the idea that all it takes to end up charged with criminal harassment is vigorous participation in online debate with those who will not brook dissent “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter”...

...Guthrie pointed out once in cross-examination that feelings of fear, like all feelings, “develop over time”, and snapped that she was sorry she wasn’t “a perfect victim” who behaved like a conventional victim.

The criminal harassment charge is rooted in the alleged victim’s perception of the offending conduct.

The statute says if that conduct caused the alleged victims “reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety”, that’s good enough.

Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn’t behave as though they were remotely frightened or intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile)...

... “They are very accomplished, politically savvy women. If they can’t handle being mentioned in the tail end of a political discussion (on Twitter), then they’re in the wrong business.”

of the meeting both women attended in August of 2012, to discuss how Elliott would be called out, “That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott.”

That Reilly, who was anonymous on Twitter and who directed her own volley of hateful tweets at Elliott, should come “to this court and the police and say she’s being criminally harassed is an abuse of the system.”

Prosecutor Marnie Goldenberg made only the briefest remarks, and refused to provide Postmedia with a copy of her written arguments, saying it wasn’t her practice.
So, breaking this thing down.

Two neofem twitter activists - Guthrie and Reilly - start a harassment campaign against the maker of the Face Punch Sarkeesian "Game".

One of their cohorts - Elliot - refuses to participate claiming said campaign is "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”.

Neofems then deliberately plan (conspire) to direct hate campaign at Elliot including false allegations of pedophilia.

Said twitter neofems then proceed to have him charged and arrested for criminal harassment causing him to lose his job. This after they have conspired and carried out harassment on two seperate individuals (and god knows who else).

NO ONE IS SAFE PEOPLE! NO ONE IS SAFE! And what can anyone do but react in total disgust and outrage at what is happening? Let us hope this man is found innocent and that he makes some kind of counter-charge against these criminal pieces of garbage.

EDIT: Syntax
Post edited July 16, 2015 by noncompliantgame
Talking about no one being safe, I noticed some latest posts by two users being labeled as low rated, but I found nothing in them a sane man could find objectionable, so my assumption is a group of our local opposers came here to use bully tactics again.
Post edited July 16, 2015 by LeonardoCornejo
low rated
avatar
TStael: U refer to Anita Sarkeesian by "Anita"?

Have you really reflected on the fact that "Anita" neither developed/wrote any computer games; nor did she commercially review them?

If not before, do so now, and tell me: why are u so touchy about "Anita"?
avatar
WBGhiro: Why I'm getting touchy about her? I just mentioned her passingly as an example, it's you who got their panties all in a twist because i dared as much as mention her name, which apparently is only allowed to be written in quotation marks.
I am pleased u noted "Anita" - but this was merely because you did not bother to address to Anita Sarkeesian in a way that would allow source critical ones to know whom u meant.

Anita S. is neither a game journalist nor a developer.

So, even, in passing - what is your angle in improving ...gaming?
avatar
TStael: So, even, in passing - what is your angle in improving ...gaming?
The quote you originally responded to:

"You know what has hurt indie game press the most the past years? Things like rigged Indiecades, Putting complete hacks and frauds like Fish, Anita and a whole slew of "journalists" on pedestals and making them arbiters of what is morally acceptable in gaming, making what social circle your game was born in matter more than its actual quality."

It was obviously centering around the journalists, not her (that's what "press" means, you know). The disingenuous contortions you and others have continued to perform throughout this thread to make it seem like anyone gives a damn about Sarkeesian beyond the blind regurgitating of her many baseless points journos vomit out despite knowing better is really getting old. Let's call it what it is: nitpicking until the original point is lost because the facts are against you and arguing against the actual points brought up would put you at a disadvantage.
low rated
avatar
TStael: So, even, in passing - what is your angle in improving ...gaming?
avatar
227: The quote you originally responded to:

"You know what has hurt indie game press the most the past years? Things like rigged Indiecades, Putting complete hacks and frauds like Fish, Anita and a whole slew of "journalists" on pedestals and making them arbiters of what is morally acceptable in gaming, making what social circle your game was born in matter more than its actual quality."

It was obviously centering around the journalists, not her (that's what "press" means, you know). The disingenuous contortions you and others have continued to perform throughout this thread to make it seem like anyone gives a damn about Sarkeesian beyond the blind regurgitating of her many baseless points journos vomit out despite knowing better is really getting old. Let's call it what it is: nitpicking until the original point is lost because the facts are against you and arguing against the actual points brought up would put you at a disadvantage.
Eh, oh?

How about a proper personal; individual response, "227"? Not possible..?

But then again, what was it about "Fish"?
Funny thing is I just pointed their bully tactics and my reputation goes down the toilet too. I know who you are, and I will be watching you.

Also I found this video on one of the less likable beings related to the debate (If there is one)
https://youtu.be/ePCMMFJIolo
avatar
Emob78: Egalitarianism as Interpreted by a Feminist (this is gold)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seq7EYDyIGE
So you see Sargon too? welp, at least the male feminist doesn't have his head up his arse and can deal with people having an opinion and doesn't ban them unlike his other brethren
avatar
Emob78: Egalitarianism as Interpreted by a Feminist (this is gold)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seq7EYDyIGE
avatar
GioVio123: So you see Sargon too? welp, at least the male feminist doesn't have his head up his arse and can deal with people having an opinion and doesn't ban them unlike his other brethren
Sargon is a great source of information, and he is quite well centered, he is notably neither a conservative nor a liberal.
low rated
avatar
LeonardoCornejo: Well, at least you admit it is considered a mental disorder, as it should be, it is kind of a delusion not unlike that mental condition in which the patient believes he/she is dead, or that condition in which the patient believes a part of its body is someone else's and often ends up in the amputation of limbs. Otherkin are even worse because at least trans people still percieve themselves as humans.
Lots of things have been incorrectly classed as mental disorders over time, you might find this gets reclassified soon as well.

For mine, the crucial point is that even those who consider it is a mental disorder, say that the proper treatment of that condition is to alter the body to match the psychological gender identity. If it is a mental disorder, I don't see why people get so worked up about the treatment of it.
high rated
avatar
LeonardoCornejo: Well, at least you admit it is considered a mental disorder, as it should be, it is kind of a delusion not unlike that mental condition in which the patient believes he/she is dead, or that condition in which the patient believes a part of its body is someone else's and often ends up in the amputation of limbs. Otherkin are even worse because at least trans people still percieve themselves as humans.
avatar
htown1980: Lots of things have been incorrectly classed as mental disorders over time, you might find this gets reclassified soon as well.

For mine, the crucial point is that even those who consider it is a mental disorder, say that the proper treatment of that condition is to alter the body to match the psychological gender identity. If it is a mental disorder, I don't see why people get so worked up about the treatment of it.
Because it's highly dysfunctional people trying to tell the 'normies' what normalcy is. It's the inmates taking over the asylum.

I was in a few bands back in the day, worked some crazy clubs... I've met my share of trannies. Almost every single one of them was highly fucking disturbed and troubled. They were not failing at life because they 'weren't understood'. They were failing at life because they had mental problems, not to mention having the issue with associating WAY too much value to the one thing they said didn't matter... what was between their legs.

If identity is nothing more than a concept, and we should just acknowledge and respect anyone's personal identity choice, then I might as well say that deep down I'm a psychopathic cult leader who wants to rid the world of all non-believers. So does that mean I should have the right to carve a swastika in my head and go a-pillagin'? Of course not. Why? Because that would make me a crazy person, and that kind of crazy should not be condoned or endorsed. You want to wear women's clothing and jerk off to nature documentaries? Go right on ahead with whatever kind of crazy you want. But don't expect the general public to agree with endorsing... let alone subsidizing it.

I mean, for crying out loud there's 'other-kin' out there on the internet now that claim to be ancient dragon serpents or reincarnated aliens... or even bug people. These people should not be cuddled and coddled. They should be seen as being emotionally and mentally disturbed. They're either crazy, or they're normal people who are mocking mental illnesses for their own selfish interests in gaining attention. Either way they're fucking crazy.
avatar
TStael: But then again, what was it about "Fish"?
Phil Fish? "Suck my dick choke on it"? The archetype of pretentious indie dev. The type who calls gamers entitled, and then asks youtube to give him all ad money made fom LPers advertising his game.
high rated
avatar
TStael: snip
avatar
RWarehall: How can you claim Anita is not a critic? She complains about specific games and calls them problematic. She frequently Tweets about games she dislikes, yet somehow she deserves some sort of free pass for her attacks on certain games? Get real!!

Counter-criticism of her is not harassment. She chose to go after video games and by publicly espousing her opinions, she has put herself in a position which others have every right to publicly disagree with her and showed the levels of dishonesty in her own obviously biased criticisms.

When idiots like her claim video games cause mass shootings, she is deservingly going to get a lot of flak. Because what she said is just promoting her agenda. When she lies about the Witcher games, she shows herself to be a dishonest individual.

The fact you wish to make claims about Gamergate "harassing" Anita for no reason and claiming it tells something about Gamergate, no your comment says something about you. You are a liar. You are a deceiver, you are a troll. She is clearly a critic as she gets paid quite a bit to do speeches doing exactly that.

You've been given many links before, how about you actually read them. Instead, coming back every week and pretending Gamergate has done nothing but harass...

We've told you about positive results, what are you actually bringing to this discussion besides your feeble attempts at trying to paint us here as something we aren't. You are the prototypical example of a delusional SJW at work...
Well said! But hey, the trolls on the Gamergate forum here, they come and go. This one will break like all the rest.
high rated
avatar
WBGhiro: Why I'm getting touchy about her? I just mentioned her passingly as an example, it's you who got their panties all in a twist because i dared as much as mention her name, which apparently is only allowed to be written in quotation marks.
avatar
TStael: I am pleased u noted "Anita" - but this was merely because you did not bother to address to Anita Sarkeesian in a way that would allow source critical ones to know whom u meant.

Anita S. is neither a game journalist nor a developer.

So, even, in passing - what is your angle in improving ...gaming?
If someone is charging money for something; they're liable for being critiqued for that work. Simple. Was that so difficult?
avatar
LeonardoCornejo: Talking about no one being safe, I noticed some latest posts by two users being labeled as low rated, but I found nothing in them a sane man could find objectionable, so my assumption is a group of our local opposers came here to use bully tactics again.
Or a guy forming a group with a few Smurf accounts. That way, he'll be able to keep his own rep up and keep ones he doesn't agree with low. Now who in this thread hasn't had their rep reduced I wonder...............
Post edited July 16, 2015 by Shadowstalker16
avatar
monkeydelarge: Every time I see people bring up "white male privilege", I just face palm. Why? Check out the attached images below because a picture is worth a thousand words.
That's heartbreaking. The thing is that they're laughing at them. The homeless are a major source of "humor" (such as that is). It's [url=http://i.imgur.com/mCWHiWa.png]disgusting.Hard to believe really.
low rated
avatar
Emob78: Because it's highly dysfunctional people trying to tell the 'normies' what normalcy is. It's the inmates taking over the asylum.

I was in a few bands back in the day, worked some crazy clubs... I've met my share of trannies. Almost every single one of them was highly fucking disturbed and troubled. They were not failing at life because they 'weren't understood'. They were failing at life because they had mental problems, not to mention having the issue with associating WAY too much value to the one thing they said didn't matter... what was between their legs.
Who are the dysfunctional people you are referring to? The body of psychologists and physicians who contribute to the ICD-10 CM and the DSM-5? The physicians who comprise the international standards of care revisions committee?

Do you really think because you have met a few "trannies" you are somehow more qualified than the medical and psychological professionals who have dedicated years to studying this issue and discussing and debating with their colleagues how best to deal with it?

Isn't this a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect?

avatar
Emob78: If identity is nothing more than a concept, and we should just acknowledge and respect anyone's personal identity choice, then I might as well say that deep down I'm a psychopathic cult leader who wants to rid the world of all non-believers. So does that mean I should have the right to carve a swastika in my head and go a-pillagin'? Of course not. Why? Because that would make me a crazy person, and that kind of crazy should not be condoned or endorsed. You want to wear women's clothing and jerk off to nature documentaries? Go right on ahead with whatever kind of crazy you want. But don't expect the general public to agree with endorsing... let alone subsidizing it.
Isn't the difference that:

1. Permitting you to be go a-pillagin causes harm to others;
2. Permitting transexuals to undergo treatment (be it a sex change, hormone therapy, etc) harms noone and has been demonstrated to help?

Isn't this something that should really be best left to qualified people to look into, rather than the ignorant masses, or as you put it, "the general public"? I mean do we let the general public decide how best to treat depression or cancer or PTSD?

avatar
Emob78: I mean, for crying out loud there's 'other-kin' out there on the internet now that claim to be ancient dragon serpents or reincarnated aliens... or even bug people. These people should not be cuddled and coddled. They should be seen as being emotionally and mentally disturbed. They're either crazy, or they're normal people who are mocking mental illnesses for their own selfish interests in gaining attention. Either way they're fucking crazy.
I assume by 'other-kin' you are speaking about what is informally known as species dysphoria?
Isn't the obvious difference that there is no consensus amongst physicians and psychologists as to treatment of that issue (and no consensus that it really is an issue at this stage)?