Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grundz wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to people on line?

is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to themselves online in order to drum up sales?

Are you denying that people have issued threats of rape and violence to people online?

 Grundz wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers
Third wave feminism is not "first, blame the men"

You sure?

Yes.

My surety on the topic is amazingly abundant, whereas there is a dearth of doubt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire term "third wave feminism" is just stupid as it sounds like an "evolution" of "second wave feminism"

... civil rights movements evolve, as the needs of their constituents evolve.

This is a good thing. It boggles the mind about why you think otherwise.

 Sigvatr wrote:
which still is the most important one

That's somewhat debatable. I'd say first wave feminism is the most important, as its success was the catalyst for all future successes.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's heavily offensive to those people.

Just because you find it offensive doesn't mean you get to force your opinions on other people. You don't have that right, nor do you deserve it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.

I agree. And I'm afraid there's also appalling, disgusting misandry online, usually coming from the people complaining about the misogyny, but we rarely talk about that and the people who try get death threats from lunatics, same as on the other side.

 Psienesis wrote:


She supposedly did. In gaming journalism.
Gaming journalism. The industry where a developer gives a magazine the non-exclusive rights to some early copy of a video game for review purposes in exchange for higher review scores.
The whore, in this scenario, is the magazine/media outlet.

Now you're juts making excuses and trying to trivialize the perceived transgression. How sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Sheen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand

... and that's just a quick pick off the top of a Google search for "dudes get famous banging chicks".

I'm sorry, at a quick glimpse I didn't catch where the unjust benefits were of them sleeping around. Did they sleep with female directors to get movie roles or something?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to people on line?

is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to themselves online in order to drum up sales?

Are you denying that people have issued threats of rape and violence to people online?

I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage, yet that is never the subject, the subject is always, "you boys and your girl hatred, why are you so bad? tsk tsk tsk, here let us throw some money at this poor victim to ease her obvious pain."

at this point i'm not even sure how obvious you have to get to be caught.

 Grundz wrote:

I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage, yet that is never the subject, the subject is always, "you boys and your girl hatred, why are you so bad? tsk tsk tsk, here let us throw some money at this poor victim to ease her obvious pain."

at this point i'm not even sure how obvious you have to get to be caught.

Come on, everybody knows women don't lie about something as serious as rape

 Grundz wrote:
I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage

And I don't have a problem with this.

She shouldn't have been made a victim in the first place. Good for her ife she can turn it around and make an otherwise gakky situation in to a benefit.

You sound like you're just mad that she hasn't suffered enough, or some other nonsense.

I don't know too much of the situation, but didn't she kind of put herself into the position of being a Victim?

 Slarg232 wrote:
didn't she kind of put herself into the position of being a Victim?

By talking about video games on the internet???

 lord_blackfang wrote:


Come on, everybody knows women don't lie about something as serious as rape

I know, right? its far more logical that the account was come across in a random search about a minute after it was created while premade comments were cut and pasted into it. It couldn't possibly be that some certifiably crazy broad is counting on her feminist sisters in rushing to her aid and throwing money at her

 Grundz wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to people on line?

is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to themselves online in order to drum up sales?

Are you denying that people have issued threats of rape and violence to people online?

I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage, yet that is never the subject, the subject is always, "you boys and your girl hatred, why are you so bad? tsk tsk tsk, here let us throw some money at this poor victim to ease her obvious pain."

at this point i'm not even sure how obvious you have to get to be caught.

You accept that there is vile abuse online.

Why would you believe Sarkeesian needs to invent such claims given that it happens quite routinely to women online.

 Melissia wrote:
Just because you find it offensive doesn't mean you get to force your opinions on other people. You don't have that right, nor do you deserve it.

My wife is more of a feminist than you and your fauxminism attitude will ever even close to be. She heavily influenced better wages across tons of German industry standards, we created and actively support female help hotlines and trauma recovery centres and she is currently involved in 3 active lawsuits concerning the matter.

And you? You are just ranting on an internet forum, claiming the moral high ground while being nothing more than a bitter user on the internet, manically lashing out at anyone disagreeing with your point of view because you read up on wikis what feminism is supposed to be and then follow whatever bandtrain is currently going on.

You have no right whatsover to judge others on feminism. You have no right to claim superior moral grounds. You have no right to be pretentious about you being the go-to when it comes to feminism.

You talk big, but have nothing to back it up. Your keyboard typing will not make any actual victim's life better. It will make you feel better. Nothing else.

@ZoeQuinn if directed at her:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
I don't know too much of the situation, but didn't she kind of put herself into the position of being a Victim?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Zoe Quinn made a game about depression yet she fakes an internet "raid" of a forum that mostly consists of people very likely to suffer from or being prone depression or at least social anxiet, showing a severe lack of empathy and making her a terrible person on all possible levels.

She can be blamed. And she should be blamed.

@Anita: She basically does the same everyone who wants to get media attention does in -ism cases. Take some opiniated stuff, make it look pretty, sell out.

This is a discussion forum. The points that count here are rhetorical and logical, not what is on your or a loved one's CV.

@all: Please stick to discussing the issue and let's not make it personal.

 Manchu wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
didn't she kind of put herself into the position of being a Victim?

By talking about video games on the internet???

Anita or Zoe?

Anita didn't deserve it, I honestly don't believe; other than talking about Vidja games and taking an unpopular stance that I and many others do not agree with, she has done absolutely nothing and what she has done is not detestable.

Zoe, however, did sleep with someone whom technically could make or break her game through press, in the initial months anyway. Even with the purest of intentions (Doubtful, as I stated in the other thread) that had to have popped in her mind at least once.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The thing about this is that we see the same kind of behaviour towards for example someone who dares to suggest that Jane Austen, a woman, should be put on a new banknote.

The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.

See, I tend to lean towards the media making mountains out of molehills there as well personally.

I mean think about it, Thatcher was elected. Most of the public, even if they are not ardent monarchists, certainly respect the Queen, even Christoper Hitchens who hated the idea of a monarchy, said she was very charming and it made it more difficult for him to argue about the idea until her "gibbering jug eared son" took over.

Oh yeah, and we already had a woman on a note, and nobody said feth all about it.

How much of it is total nonsense just to generate a story?

Seriously.. do you know a single human male in the UK that has ever even remotely sounded annoyed by the idea, of putting a woman on a bank note?

Especially since one has been on the fiver for bloody ages. You know what I mean?

 Slarg232 wrote:
Zoe, however, did sleep with someone whom technically could make or break her game through press, in the initial months anyway. Even with the purest of intentions (Doubtful, as I stated in the other thread) that had to have popped in her mind at least once.

Even assuming she was cheating on her boyfriend by sleeping with the guy, this qualifies her as deserving to receive death and rape threats?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The thing about this is that we see the same kind of behaviour towards for example someone who dares to suggest that Jane Austen, a woman, should be put on a new banknote.

The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.

See, I tend to lean towards the media making mountains out of molehills there as well personally.

I don't. I deal with the people who honestly get offended by this crap every day. Both in real life and on the internet.

 mattyrm wrote:
Seriously.. do you know a single human male in the UK that has ever even remotely sounded annoyed by the idea, of putting a woman on a bank note?

I remember there being one on this forum that was offended by the idea, though admittedly that was a long time ago so I could also have been remembering it from somewhere else.

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Zoe, however, did sleep with someone whom technically could make or break her game through press, in the initial months anyway. Even with the purest of intentions (Doubtful, as I stated in the other thread) that had to have popped in her mind at least once.

Even assuming she was cheating on her boyfriend by sleeping with the guy, this qualifies her as deserving to receive death and rape threats?

The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Why would you believe Sarkeesian needs to invent such claims given that it happens quite routinely to women online.

Great question, maybe they dont exist in nearly the volume you think they do or that her cunning plan was not thought all the way through

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.

My answer is an emphatic "no."

People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.

 Melissia wrote:
So every person who is in a relationship with someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

yes lets generalize everything to make your immediate white knighting of any female that does anything for any terrible reason sound justified

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.

My answer is an emphatic "no."

People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.

There is that issue of him (or Kotaku/the other site) potentially not reporting on her shutting down that gaming charity thing because of him/her as well, though. Can that be ignored?

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.

My answer is an emphatic "no."

People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.

Definately, I disagree entirely wiht the idea that she did something wrong because she might have shagged some bloke for a favor, so what?

Men do it as well, at the end of the day if a human being wants to bang their way to success that is their perogative. It only becomes genuinely immoral if you have a convincing reason not to be doing that kind of thing, such as decieving/cheating on a loving partner or something.

If someone that is single bangs their way around the globe on some sort of... bizarre capitalist feth fest, that it their business. Jesus I dont even want to think about what goes on in the seedy world of capitlism and politics.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.

My answer is an emphatic "no."

People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.

There is that issue of him (or Kotaku/the other site) potentially not reporting on her shutting down that gaming charity thing because of him/her as well, though. Can that be ignored?

Oh yeah, that is really gakky though.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.

My answer is an emphatic "no."

People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.

There is that issue of him (or Kotaku/the other site) potentially not reporting on her shutting down that gaming charity thing because of him/her as well, though. Can that be ignored?

Be more specific. I see no such issue. Kotaku researched the problem and found that no one has violated any conflict of interest issues, and released a statement on it. He posted about it on his blog, and about how he's not going to report on her because they're dating and there's a conflict of interest.

Regarding the gaming charity thing, IIRC it was shut down because of lack of funding or something. I'm not sure there's much of an issue of it not being reported on, considering it was never reported on to begin with really.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.

And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.

So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?

Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.

My answer is an emphatic "no."

People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.

Definately, I disagree entirely wiht the idea that she did something wrong because she might have shagged some bloke for a favor, so what?

Men do it as well, at the end of the day if a human being wants to bang their way to success that is their perogative. It only becomes genuinely immoral if you have a convincing reason not to be doing that kind of thing, such as decieving/cheating on a loving partner or something.

If someone that is single bangs their way around the globe on some sort of... bizarre capitalist feth fest, that it their business. Jesus I dont even want to think about what goes on in the seedy world of capitlism and politics.

THINK ABOUT IT!

I personally would say it's also only really immoral if you gots de herpes, because then it's no longer happy happy fun fun time. There are some who take exception to that, though.

Edit: Blech, getting tired. Graveyard shifts and all that.

Yes, I do believe fething for work related favors isn't right when it's boss/worker (Which this essentially could have been/is), but if you want to have 5 Guys in yer mouth, that's your business, not mine.

The burger joint. What were you thinking.

Seaward wrote:John Smedley (the Sony Online head) has been receiving gakloads of death threats from Lizard Squad, and even had one of his flights diverted because of a bomb threat made against it - by Lizard Squad. Dudes knew which plane he was on. He hasn't fled his home, by the way.
But some guy in Ohio tweets gak at Sarkeesian, and it's the end of the world.

It's a popular topic because it involves polarised fronts. I'd wager everyone but a small amount of trolls would agree on Smedley's flight being diverted (which was in the news as well *gasp*) being a bad thing. As soon as you throw in the name of an outspoken feminist, however, the internet goes into Defcon 1.

How is this hard to understand? You're part of the reason yourself, as is everyone else posting in this thread. Don't claim moral superiority when you keep fanning the flames.

jreilly89 wrote:Yeah, the comments she would receive are plenty vulgar, but outright blocking them seems a bit much.

Nonsense. We're talking about Youtupe. Fethin' Youtube. Do you honestly, really believe you can have a civilised discussion there? Because I've seen plenty of evidence that you won't.

Totalbiscuit is blocking comments on his own videos as well, for the very same reason. I suppose that means we should flame him now as well.
Of course that won't happen, because he's not attacking somethings which an alarmingly large number of people seem to hold so dear that they have to resort to witch hunts and death threats.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah see this is what I am saying, leaping to her defence seems popular, and I'm asking you (and everyone else obviously, but I know you better than all the other random strangers on the internet!) to be as honest with yourself as possible and ask yourself why you are defending her

In my case it's a kneejerk reaction based on the amount of lies and misquotes being thrown around for the sole reason to dismantle this person, whilst at the same time the usual types of people are jumping at this incident, soaking up this flawed coverage and going "ha-ha, I told you so". It's obvious that there is an agenda at work here, and this automatically makes me sceptical.

The louder someone screams, the less likely I am to accept the veracity of their claims at face value. And the amount of hate being published on the internet makes Al-Qaeda seem like a reasonable organisation. Think on that for a while.

I've never even heard of that woman except in connection to that failed Game Jam (which was, coincidentally, sabotaged by the moderator being a sexist jerk, though) - but yes, the amount of gak being flung at her, and the type of people who do the flinging, does affect my opinion. I'm not offering my opinion of her (frankly, I don't know her well enough to have one), or whether I believe or not that she has slept with two other guys (this does seem to be the case). But in this case, I do see myself as a foghorn warning against those arguments that are obviously fabricated, and to better look twice if you realise that there is a powerful and influential segment of the internet that has committed to underhanded tactics in a concerted effort to exploit this incident.

Slarg232 wrote:Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers; especially the Kotaku writer, as a journalist should NEVER be in bed with what he's writing about. Figuratively or literally.

^ Good example for the flawed coverage and how it gets picked up without questioning, by the way.

#1 - It was not five guys. Her ex made this up as a sarcastic reference to a fast food chain, as apparently it was more than one guy. Assuming her ex's story is true.
It just seems to be that half the internet has disregarded this little piece of information of the original source and now claims that it really was five guys. Reason number one of why you should get suspicious about what those sites say.

#2 - The journalist she apparently slept with has never, ever written about her or any of her games. Kotaku released the results of their investigation regarding this matter, and you can easily verify it yourself if you simply google it.

SneakyMek wrote:Well the differences here is that Zoe already had a husband from the start,when she started to sleep with the other five guys.

Sigvatr wrote:She did not have a boyfriend.
She had a HUSBAND.

No. She cheated on her boyfriend with a husband - according to the ex-BF's own blog.
She was married to a husband who cheated on her, and this marriage was annulled before she dated said ex-BF.

Get your facts straight.

If you can.

 Lynata wrote:

It's obvious that there is an agenda at work here, and this automatically makes me sceptical.
The louder someone screams, the less likely I am to accept the veracity of their claims at face value..

with some feminists' propensity to milk troll comments for all the sympathy their little wounded gazelles can muster, there are a lot of people that will think this.

 Lynata wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers; especially the Kotaku writer, as a journalist should NEVER be in bed with what he's writing about. Figuratively or literally.

^ Good example for the flawed coverage and how it gets picked up without questioning, by the way.

#1 - It was not five guys. Her ex made this up as a sarcastic reference to a fast food chain, as apparently it was more than one guy. Assuming her ex's story is true.
It just seems to be that half the internet has disregarded this little piece of information of the original source and now claims that it really was five guys. Reason number one of why you should get suspicious about what those sites say.

#2 - The journalist she apparently slept with has never, ever written about her or any of her games. Kotaku released the results of their investigation regarding this matter, and you can easily verify it yourself if you simply google it.

You will notice with my wording I spoke as though it were hypothetical; Even if she slept with five guys, it's not her fault.

 Psienesis wrote:

She supposedly did. In gaming journalism.
Gaming journalism. The industry where a developer gives a magazine the non-exclusive rights to some early copy of a video game for review purposes in exchange for higher review scores.

That the state of the enviroment is rife with dishonesty doesn't justify dishonesty any more than society being rife with murder justifies me committing murder. It's still sheisty, and if the accusations about her are true, she deserves whatever official ramifications (i.e. being fired) she gets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Sheen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand

... and that's just a quick pick off the top of a Google search for "dudes get famous banging chicks".

Which isn't what he asked. All of the people who you've listed are famous because they're promiscuous. They didn't become promiscuous to get famous. There's a distinction there. Using your logic here, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian both fit this criteria as well.

You're right that general promiscuity is less of a social stigma for men than it is for women. You're wrong that screwing purely for material gain is only considered dishonest and shady for women.

 Lynata wrote:
The louder someone screams, the less likely I am to accept the veracity of their claims at face value.

That seems problematic, to say the least.