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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So you think a "normal" troll would stalk someone for months, despite the fact that they're being ignored and not giving any response to their troll attempts, attempt to learn their rel name, their IRL address, and send threatening emails saying that they're going to come over there and rape them, that "I'm glat your cat is dead and you're next" followed by the person's real address?

Yes actually. I'm maybe weird though as I've had that happen to me more than once back when I ran a CoD4 clan. I'll also bring up the Bioware forums again. There are people over there who hang around for years, pretty much just to rain on the parade. Infinity Ward forums too.

I've had to ask the moderators to ban people on this very forum because of this kind of stalking. Also on IGMB. Also on other forums as well.

No one seems to have read the article I posted... it's just one of many, many such articles by feminist bloggers, but it is probably the most influential and famous, amongst this particular subculture. You're just making excuses and justifications for it and it's pissing me off, hatlord.

 Manchu wrote:
"Playing the victim" in this case apparently is talking about women in video games.

Playing victim in the sense that they thought she orchestrated the events of her comment section to build sympathy and shut down criticism.

And this is why I didn't want to go here. Cause now we're just banging our heads together. Again. Over something completely unproductive.

Melissia wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
I'm sorry about your cat.

I was actually referring to the article I posted above.

I thought Anita's name and location were both fairly common knowledge...oh wait...you were referring to the blogger lady.

Oops.

LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So you think a "normal" troll would stalk someone for months, despite the fact that they're being ignored and not giving any response to their troll attempts, attempt to learn their rel name, their IRL address, and send threatening emails saying that they're going to come over there and rape them, that "I'm glat your cat is dead and you're next" followed by the person's real address?

Yes actually. I'm maybe weird though as I've had that happen to me more than once back when I ran a CoD4 clan. I'll also bring up the Bioware forums again. There are people over there who hang around for years, pretty much just to rain on the parade. Infinity Ward forums too.

You hang around some bad chaps mate.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Culture is the set of learned behavior and common knowledge within a group, specifically things that travel in a memetic fashion.

Wait if culture is a learned behavior, then how is it instinctual?

 Manchu wrote:
The distinction I am making is between what the first FemFreq video accomplished and what more can be said on the issue. I don't see what your point about attributing motive has to do with that one way or the other.

That we came to the same conclusion after watching the video (whether or not we agree) implies that there may have been intent.

 Manchu wrote:
Also, I don't agree that consequences necessarily imply motive.

In every case, it is posible that they do not. In this case I believe that they do.

 Melissia wrote:
.

I've had to ask the moderators to ban people on this very forum because of this kind of stalking. Also on IGMB. Also on other forums as well.



I knew it happened to you.

I wonder what the odds of a female having an e-stalker are. Probably 3 to 2.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Culture is the set of learned behavior and common knowledge within a group, specifically things that travel in a memetic fashion.

Wait if culture is a learned behavior, then how is it instinctual?

He meant that the origins of culture are derived from instincts.

That said, culture has LONG since deviated from instinctual behavior.

 LordofHats wrote:
Cause now we're just banging our heads together. Again. Over something completely unproductive.

I find the current discussion quite productive because I am learning a lot about rationalizing violent prejudice as righteousness. I mean, would you say the people who made this game are on a mission to criticize everyone who uses the media for profit?

 Amaya wrote:
Has the Beat up Anita Sarkeesian game been mentioned?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/06/internet-trolls-online-beat-up-anita-sarkeesian-game_n_1653473.html
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/598591

lol the game got blammed.

Do you know what that means? That means users downvoted it so much that they yanked it from the site for being a bad game. Keep in mind this is a website where nude dress up dolls and "Kill Justin Bieber" videos are standard fare.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/542687

^^^^ higher rated than your game. OMG EVIDENCE OF MISANTHROPY

In case you haven't noticed, Newgrounds has bad content and Huffingtonpost is full of mindless, sensationalist journalism.

 Amaya wrote:
I wonder what the odds of a female having an e-stalker are. Probably 3 to 2.

According to this, the ratio of reported cyber-stalking attempts is somewhere around 10:3, female to male.





Hatlord, please stop making excuses and justifications for what they do, you're encouraging them to continue doing it.

 Monster Rain wrote:
That we came to the same conclusion after watching the video (whether or not we agree) implies that there may have been intent. [...] In every case, it is posible that they do not. In this case I believe that they do.

Okay, I think I explained that your last post struck me as a nonsequitur. So given that, I admit I can't understand these further comments at all.

 Amaya wrote:
You hang around some bad chaps mate.

It was only two people really (and maybe ironically for this situation, both women... well sort of). The rest of the guys and gals were great. Still know most of them and still operate the old TS server.

That's a good place to stop then.

 TedNugent wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Has the Beat up Anita Sarkeesian game been mentioned?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/06/internet-trolls-online-beat-up-anita-sarkeesian-game_n_1653473.html
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/598591

lol the game got blammed.

Do you know what that means? That means users downvoted it so much that they yanked it from the site for being a bad game. Keep in mind this is a website where nude dress up dolls and "Kill Justin Bieber" videos are standard fare.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/542687

^^^^ higher rated than your game. OMG EVIDENCE OF MISANTHROPY

In case you haven't noticed, Newgrounds has bad content and Huffingtonpost is full of mindless, sensationalist journalism.

How does that make the game any less relevant? There was still intent and it was still created. The fact it was downvoted is really meaningless in regards to its creation.

Given how you described your experience, compared to the combined, overall experiences of many, many feminist bloggers and female activists of various kinds, you really don't have much experience on the topic, LordofHats.

Again, Hatlord, please stop making excuses and justifications for what they do, you're encouraging them to continue doing it.

 Amaya wrote:
The fact it was downvoted is really meaningless in regards to its creation

Agreed. I think the poster is a bit confused. It's one thing to shout a slur in public. It's another thing to get a standing ovation for doing so. Either way, the slur is still a slur.

It was blammed because it was incredibly unpopular and people hated it.

Ergo people hate misogyny?

 Manchu wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
The fact it was downvoted is really meaningless in regards to its creation

Agreed. I think the poster is a bit confused. It's one thing to shout a slur in public. It's another thing to get a standing ovation for doing so. Either way, the slur is still a slur.

The person did not get a standing ovation for it, the person got blammed, trashed, put in the garbage, the video is no longer available.

It's comparable to Westboro baptist. They come out, spread their vile message and then people throw rocks at them. The thing you should pick up on is that people overwhelmingly opposed the message.

 TedNugent wrote:
It was blammed because it was incredibly unpopular and people hated it.

Ergo people hate misogyny?

Most people ostenbily are not pro misogyny or pro racism. Does that mean both of those magically do not exist?

It's easy to draw such a conclusion. But given the very long history of our society, both recent and distant, I wouldn't say we've gotten over it yet.

If "people don't like misogyny", then decades-long (and probably longer than that) campaign of hate focused specifically against women activists in general and feminists in specific wouldn't still be going on.

But it is. "People" are more complex than you give them to be.

 Amaya wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
It was blammed because it was incredibly unpopular and people hated it.

Ergo people hate misogyny?

Most people ostenbily are not pro misogyny or pro racism. Does that mean both of those magically do not exist?

I didn't realize I was taking the position that misogyny did not exist. Misanthropy exists too. Can I cry about it now?

I thought the point of the video was as it regards the prevalence of misogyny in our culture rather than that some isolated someone, somewhere, happened to say something misogynistic one tiem.

Are you having a giggle mate?

 TedNugent wrote:
I thought the point of the video was as it regards the prevalence of misogyny in our culture

A single incident does not make prevalence, nor does it deny prevalence.

 Melissia wrote:
Again, Hatlord, please stop making excuses and justifications for what they do, you're encouraging them to continue doing it.

And that's the reason the game got made in the first place. To mock that anyone who even suggests the hate directed at her might not necessarily be a result of her biology gets accused of encouraging sexism, being sexist, misogynist, etc. There's a difference between attempting to identify the source of backlash and encouraging backlash, especially when the source of the backlash is at the heart of the issue. To shut down any attempt to do so as encouraging the behavior is to shield the target through a false dichotomy.

 TedNugent wrote:
The person did not get a standing ovation for it

It was merely a rhetorical point -- i.e., reception does not change motive. Whether someone takes offense is not what makes a joke offensive.

 TedNugent wrote:
The thing you should pick up on is that people overwhelmingly opposed the message.

I am one of those people who are opposed. I am not going to stop being opposed to it once a lot of other people also are. Yes, it's good that a bunch of people are opposed. The problem, the source of the opposition, is that the game was made in the first place. However many people oppose it, it remains unacceptable.

More excuses, more justifications.

Are you trying to act like CNN, now?

 Melissia wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Culture is the set of learned behavior and common knowledge within a group, specifically things that travel in a memetic fashion.

Wait if culture is a learned behavior, then how is it instinctual?

He meant that the origins of culture are derived from instincts.

That said, culture has LONG since deviated from instinctual behavior.

OK, fair enough.

I am not going to stop being opposed to it once a lot of other people also are.

It's also worth mentioning the game was only taken down recently. It was up for months. That thing sat there being played for awhile.

 Melissia wrote:
No one seems to have read the article I posted... it's just one of many, many such articles by feminist bloggers, but it is probably the most influential and famous, amongst this particular subculture.

I read it back when you linked it originally. It wasn't surprising to me, but is important context for anyone trying to comment on whether Anita Sarkeesian was "playing the victim." This stuff is depressingly common for women who write about sexism, especially in whatever pop culture you care to name.

 LordofHats wrote:
to shield the target through a false dichotomy

Do you actually believe that misogyny played no role in creating that game or is this just academic -- some kind of reductio ad absurdum argument that no one can know the true motives of the game's creators except (and maybe not even) them?

 Manchu wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
The person did not get a standing ovation for it

It was merely a rhetorical point -- i.e., reception does not change motive.

 TedNugent wrote:
The thing you should pick up on is that people overwhelmingly opposed the message.

I am one of those people who are opposed. I am not going to stop being opposed to it once a lot of other people also are. Yes, it's good that a bunch of people are opposed. The problem, the source of the opposition, is that the game was made in the first place. However many people oppose it, it remains unacceptable.

I oppose the content of the message.

As Voltaire said, I do not approve of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "Unacceptable" seems to me one step further than disapprove, and that's where I part ways. Art, free expression, and free speech are always acceptable.

Take solace in the fact that you are in the majority and the fact that you are in the right.

Meet words with words and meet action with action.