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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I freaking love tropes. I spend more time on TV Tropes than I do on Dakka

Do you mean that Tropes Are Not Bad ? Tropes are not bad, but they can be overused or misused.

Are you suggesting that, as inanimate objects and completely lacking a will of their own, a trope is in itself morally neutral?

MADNESS!

sirlynchmob wrote:
There is proof she is lying about the death threats. You two are rejecting the facts. They have been provide and stated.

All the actions she took and the threat itself stinks of a hoax. Show me the police report. All evidence points to she lied about it for attention.

What evidence? Can you please provide linked and sourced evidence? Not just conjecture and theories. Frankly, I would be surprised if the woman hadn't had death threats.

sirlynchmob wrote:

She should refund all her's backers money, those poor saps that gave her 160k for 5 videos got ripped off.

Simply put, if there were no insanely expensive stretch goals that would take up the cost of all that money, then people kept giving her money to produce what she said at the start and the money was given to her, and that's that.

 LordofHats wrote:
Why do you think I watch so much anime? I'm all about the melodrama

I am really sorry for you !

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Why do you think I watch so much anime? I'm all about the melodrama

I am really sorry for you !

Don't you feel sorry for me!

 LordofHats wrote:
Are you suggesting that, as inanimate objects and completely lacking a will of their own, a trope is in itself morally neutral?

No, that is not what I am implying. I am implying that I spend too much time on TV-Trope too. That is what I was implying.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Are you suggesting that, as inanimate objects and completely lacking a will of their own, a trope is in itself morally neutral?

No, that is not what I am implying. I am implying that I spend too much time on TV-Trope too. That is what I was implying.

I was joking

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I freaking love tropes. I spend more time on TV Tropes than I do on Dakka

Do you mean that Tropes Are Not Bad ? Tropes are not bad, but they can be overused or misused.

They can also have Unfortunate Implications. It's one of the big things to keep in mind about media. All media has a message even if it as never intended to have one.

sirlynchmob wrote:
There is proof she is lying about the death threats.

Then provide them.

sirlynchmob wrote:
All the actions she took and the threat itself stinks of a hoax.

Conspiracy theory isn't evidence.

Your suspicion is not evidence.

Your opinion is not a fact.

I don't like this.

People like me who don't like Sarkeesian and particularly dislike that Quinn figure, are fated to always be lumped in with the self-defeating "trolls" who keep harassing and pulling gak. So I'll say something like "I don't like Zoe Quinn", and people assume that I'm a raging, misogynistic troll and ignore everything else I say.

I'd never make a death threat or harass someone and I feel sorry for her. Nevertheless, she's still no friend of mine.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
I don't like this.

People like me who don't like Sarkeesian and particularly dislike that Quinn figure, are fated to always be lumped in with the self-defeating "trolls" who keep harassing and pulling gak. So I'll say something like "I don't like Zoe Quinn", and people assume that I'm a raging, misogynistic troll and ignore everything else I say.

I'd never make a death threat or harass someone and I feel sorry for her. Nevertheless, she's still no friend of mine.

I won't lump you in. I won't even criticize you personally for an option you hold. However if I find fault with your position or reasoning. I might just question it.

 Melissia wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
There is proof she is lying about the death threats.

Then provide them.

I too would love to see proof about this, if there actually is any.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
So I'll say something like "I don't like Zoe Quinn", and people assume that I'm a raging, misogynistic troll and ignore everything else I say.

Educated people won't.

nomotog wrote:

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
I don't like this.

People like me who don't like Sarkeesian and particularly dislike that Quinn figure, are fated to always be lumped in with the self-defeating "trolls" who keep harassing and pulling gak. So I'll say something like "I don't like Zoe Quinn", and people assume that I'm a raging, misogynistic troll and ignore everything else I say.

I'd never make a death threat or harass someone and I feel sorry for her. Nevertheless, she's still no friend of mine.

I won't lump you in. I won't even criticize you personally for an option you hold. However if I find fault with your position or reasoning. I might just question it.

Thing is, I agree with Pants, and I don't care about the feminism issue because as I explained, I am happy to say I am a feminist, and most of the men and women I know are too, I think its the radical militant "wimmin" that men seem to be so scared of, and there are hardly any of them. Certainly none of the women on dakka are. I don't know a single militant feminist, in fact I hardly even read about the (not usually their fault admittedly, emotionally damaged Valerie Solanas type) ones who say that all men despise womyn, and see offense in absolutely everything. They are to feminism what Fred Phelps is to Christianity and Osama is to Islam, they are a minuscule group that get too much press.

Anyway.... but my issue is the exact same as what Pants said. I don't have an axe to grind with feminism, I think women should be absolutely equal in every aspect and I think that men make mountains out of molehills about it, but I do think its starting too look like there is a strong bias in favor of the two lasses in question. For example, when Mel said

 Melissia wrote:
You're the one that claimed she was lying. She provided proof of the death threats existing via a screenshot of them before they were deleted. If you want to assert that was faked, it is up to you to prove that, not me to prove that it wasn't faked.

I take issue with that because isn't that the type of evidence all of their detractors have posted, and then you guys say it could be lies/faked?

Zoe Quinn for example (who again I merely took a dislike to this week because I didn't know who she was so its just a judgement based off the evidence I have seen) had a sad act boyfriend who actually took the time to make a fething massive blog with gak loads of texts and pictures (I have to say I view him about as unfavorably as her for being such a fething loser at this point obviously!) isn't that good enough evidence then?

If "There is evidence" and that evidence for Anita is "some pictures of the abuse before it was deleted" than surely the evidence provided by their detractors is ample as well right? I mean, do we think that the blokes who post all their pictures are fabricating everything? All of those iPhone screen shots and emails and such looked pretty damning to me. I mean gak, that the sole reason why I think ZQ sounds fething horrible, its got absolutely nothing to do with the fact she has ovaries because that would be absurd.

 mattyrm wrote:
If "There is evidence" and that evidence for Anita is "some pictures of the abuse before it was deleted" than surely the evidence provided by their detractors is ample as well right?

That depends on the nature of the evidence. None of the evidence I saw regarding Zoe Quinn showed anything other than the boyfriend claiming she did things, rather than showing she actually did them.

What Sarkesian showed was a log of someone actually doing what she claimed they were doing.

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
If "There is evidence" and that evidence for Anita is "some pictures of the abuse before it was deleted" than surely the evidence provided by their detractors is ample as well right?

That depends on the nature of the evidence. None of the evidence I saw regarding Zoe Quinn showed anything other than the boyfriend claiming she did things, rather than showing she actually did them.

What Sarkesian showed was a log of someone actually doing what she claimed they were doing.

Yeah, and that sad bloke with far too much time on his hands (her ex!) put absolutely gak-loads of texts between him and her (like screen shots of his phone) and pictures of gchat logs and stuff where he is whinging and she is apologizing and saying she feels like gak because she always said she would never cheat on anyone and all of that jazz.

Isn't it pretty much the same thing?

Although i hasten to add, I'm not even that bothered about her either, none of us know if the relationship sucked, and most people cheat on a partner at some point in their lives, I don't think it makes her a disgusting human being (although the rank hypocrisy definitely does bother me more than the cheating thing, perhaps he was a gak boyfriend) I'm just saying that we should demand the same standards of evidence from everyone if we hope to remain impartial.

 mattyrm wrote:
Isn't it pretty much the same thing?

In Sarkesian's death threat case, I can see for a fact that there was a multiple, scary threats, including an address. And that's exactly what she claimed she received.

Now compare that to the accusations against Zoe Quinn; It's like someone showing a picture of them having a black eye, and they raged at someone they didn't like, then posted an image of the person saying "I'm sorry I got mad at you". That's some very circumstantial evidence. I don't consider it the same thing. Again, it never shows her having committed any of the acts she was accused of. It showed her trying to appease him after he got angry at her. Since I don't know the context of that appeasement, I don't know if in fact she cheated.

While it might seem strange for someone to do that, to you, I've seen people apologize for something they didn't do all the time, especially people in abusive relationships.

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Isn't it pretty much the same thing?

In Sarkesian's death threat case, I can see for a fact that there was a multiple, scary threats, including an address. And that's exactly what she claimed she received.

Now compare that to the accusations against Zoe Quinn; It's like someone showing a picture of them having a black eye, and they raged at someone they didn't like, then posted an image of the person saying "I'm sorry I got mad at you". That's some very circumstantial evidence. I don't consider it the same thing. Again, it never shows her having committed any of the acts she was accused of. It showed her trying to appease him after he got angry at her. Since I don't know the context of that appeasement, I don't know if in fact she cheated.

While it might seem strange for someone to do that, to you, I've seen people apologize for something they didn't do all the time, especially people in abusive relationships.

Fair enough, it was enough to convince me though because of the back and forth, but its certainly not inconceivable considering he took the time to make the fething thing in the first place. Although, I like detective novels, I reckon Sherlock would probably assume my premise was more likely than yours, but I remain open to being proved wrong.

The one thing that does lean me towards outright fraud is the simple fact that whenever I or any of my friends have had a messy break-up, we just went on the beer to try and find a better girlfriend, what would motivate you to spend however many (im guessing fething lots!) or hours making that whole thing anyway? But yeah, I read it a week ago and it was enough to convince me she was not the type of lass id want to meet my bloody ma! Im willing to be swayed though obviously.

Same as with God, if he does another one of them miracles that they were apparently knocking out every other week back in the old days Ill be in church the very next Sunday!

Sometimes, the only motivation you need for something like that is spite. And some people have a lot more spite than others.

I still remember someone at my high school setting a guy up with a date in order to get the girl's basketball-playing, giant boyfriend pissed off at him as an excuse to watch the boyfriend beat him up.

Out of spite for some really petty grievance.

Spite is a really big motivator for some people.

I love spite.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Spite is a really big motivator for some people.

I love spite.

For a second there I misread that as you loving sprite. Maybe you mean both?

nomotog wrote:
It became very clear that very few people played that game.

Yeah. Only about 3.6 million people.

 Grimskul wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Spite is a really big motivator for some people.

I love spite.

For a second there I misread that as you loving sprite. Maybe you mean both?

It's ok, but I'm a cherry coke/pepsi man.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Spite is a really big motivator for some people.

I love spite.

You can't use it as a reason for returning a jacket, though.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Spite is a really big motivator for some people.

I love spite.

You can't use it as a reason for returning a jacket, though.

You can if you poured sprite all over it to make it sticky before returning it.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Spite is a really big motivator for some people.

I love spite.

You can't use it as a reason for returning a jacket, though.

You can if you got it as a gift from someone.

So I know it's early in the day, but have we heard anything of her "Plan" to Jim Carrey herself?

Edit: Zoe, not Sark.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Spite is a really big motivator for some people.

I love spite.

You can't use it as a reason for returning a jacket, though.

You can if you got it as a gift from someone.

 Melissia wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
There is proof she is lying about the death threats.

Then provide them.

sirlynchmob wrote:
All the actions she took and the threat itself stinks of a hoax.

Conspiracy theory isn't evidence.

Your suspicion is not evidence.

Your opinion is not a fact.

So how goes the investigation? did they arrest anyone yet?

Is there some letter writing campaign going on to demand action from her local police department I could help with?

It's been a week, the cops must have some good leads on whoever sent the threats right, are there any statements from the police yet?

I couldn't find anything on google about it, so I figured I'd ask you in case you had more information from some other site keeping track of the issue.

The more time goes on, and nothing comes of it, with no criticism of the police for inaction, the greater the chance it is a hoax and she fabricated the whole thing.

To play devil's advocate here:

Cyber harassment is nigh-untrackable. In order to actually identify someone you need absolute evidence and getting that is troubling to say the least, unless people do so on facebook etc. Anonymous e-mails are completely safe unless you offend a high priority target that can either strike back on his own or is a member of a large institution with the means to strike back.

Up to this point, there has neither been evidence for nor against her actually having been harassed. Anita is an attention seeking individual, so it might just be another low-blow attempt by her, but she might also be honest. Both possibilites are equally likely right now - so don't rush to any conclusions yet.

Uh, there's been plenty of evidence of her being harassed. You only need to go on youtube and look at the comments section of her videos before she closed all comments to see evidence of that.

Including of people publicly wishing she'd get raped and killed. All things considered, Sarkesian's really not been very "attention-seeking" in that regard, since if she wanted to seek attention for harassment, she'd have way more ammunition than just a single death threat.