Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
I see nobody edited this, so I did.
Thank you docwario, you gave me the idea.
Credits go to him on the comic >>864980
Thank you docwario, you gave me the idea.
Credits go to him on the comic >>864980
Source
not provided yet
To put it bluntly, I feel that people on both sides of the argument have acted poorly.
Yeah, I’m not particularly fond of Sarkeesian, Quinn, or Wu myself (they just come across as incredibly unpleasant individuals to me, and in some cases I do think they exaggerate the problems they speak about), but I don’t condone the crap they’ve had to put up with. No one deserves that kind of crap, no matter how unpleasant of a person they might be.
I know. But having hope for humanity can make one vulnerable to a nasty case of SIWOTI.
I’m not really sure why you wrote that, because it’s not going to sway anyone’s opinions one iota. Sarkeesian et. al. have insulted gamers by claiming some of them are sexist, so to gamers they are all evil money-grubbing misandrists who fabricate any threats against them but they deserve those threats anyway so it doesn’t matter.
The Verge
Money quote:
It’s been a while, but on the off chance that you might be willing to listen to reason, I gathered some further sources.
There seem to be an awful lot of people in on this conspiracy to manufacture evidence.
Kotaku
(emphasis mine)
Gamespot
I’m not sure how competent you think the FBI is, but multiple falsified violent threats from the same source ought not to be too hard to uncover. You can continue being ‘skeptical’ if you want, but we’re in Obama-birth-certificate and jet-fuel-steel-girders territory here if you want to continue denying it.
Speaking of which, you’re right. Beat Up Obama exists. You know what? That doesn’t make it better. In fact, I will go out on a yaying limb and and say that pretending to beat up a public official who, in real life, can throw a punch himself and indeed has his own personal army, is douchebaggy but considerably less douchebaggy than pretending to beat up a young woman whose academic work you don’t like.
The tweets you link are not the tweets I linked. My link would be an awful lot of tedious work writing and ‘shopping tweets in the piss-poor language of halfwit douchebags.
Your breakingthescience.org link is well-named; it’s pretty broken science. Hint: when your “science” site is run by someone who doesn’t have an institutional affiliation, doesn’t publish academic journal articles – and you can do that regardless of whether you publish books – and doesn’t even link a CV, you can be your bottom dollar that this is a fake scientist. The Gelles article you link is interesting, sixteen years old, addressed in the literature and in policy responses since then…
…and not relevant to a discussion of whether Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu are being harassed. Congratulations, you have just employed Sexism Denialist Tactic #2: “but what about maaaaaaaale harassment?” (Answer: “Go find your own space to talk about male harassment, that’s not the conversation we’re having.”) Neither is a discussion of the merits of Tropes vs. Women, although you’re also listening to idiot critics there too. Neither is our discussion about ABS News.
The discussion is about whether a woman is being harassed when she is receiving more-than-hourly death and rape threats for producing a goddamn video series.
She is.
She isn’t faking it.
Claiming that the victim of anything has falsified the report is a common tool of victimizers.
And people who join them in doing so are part of the problem.
Don’t.
P.S. Oh, and FBI apparently determined that ALL threats to the Unholy Trinity of anti-GamerGaters, that is, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and Zoe Quinn, were hoaxes, but can’t be bothered to search deeper and there’s no source but text allegiations after shallow search.
It’s got one of the funniest lines I’ve encountered while reading about this, though:
After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past.
Your first link contains no actual proof. I’ve found it by myself, but consider it dubious as it’s merely text - which is much easier to fake than a full site/program screenshot with sensitive data (logins, etc) visibly blacked out.
I can’t find a proof for GDC bomb threat other than plain text. Which is, again, dubious, even more so because it’s not even a screencap, just texts alleging “GDC received a bomb threat, police were obliged to check stuff”. Until I can find proof for or against, I will consider this threat fabricated by Sarkeesian herself as publicity aid.
Here’s screenshot on one of the “Twitter threats” pointing out the dubiousness.
So does Beat Up Obama. And Beat Up [any widely known person with polarizing opinions], if only because of customization. So?
Good job at generalizing. I can say the reverse, that “these women” (except meaning feminists in general, not specifically Anita and Brianna) “are harassing and it will remain true.
Consider this - here’s a quote from it:
The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks - individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant funding be rescinded. All three of us became “non persons” among domestic violence advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books.
Here’s Anita thinking that “type in game name, if screenshot contains women, they’re background characters.
Here’s a long rant pointing out inconsistencies, problems, and plain-out bullshit in some of her videos.
Here’s a video pointing out how she got both plot and the gamer’s actions wrong.
Here’s some proof of Anita being a fraud and a liar.
Here’s a whole bunch of proof (four links) for Brianna Wu lying about “harassment. She’s also apparently loudly whined about misogyny when her game received negative response across entire Web (for being complete and utter junk, which you might witness yourself if you google it - name’s “Revolution 60”).
And here’s censorship by ABS News, who claim to be feminists.
I’m going for a walk now.
I may not return.
Well, time to unsubscribe, cause ain’t nothin’ gonna get accomplished here.
Oh. No, you’re wrong.
There isn’t really a more delicate way to put that.
There are police reports. Utah State University received a threat, which is public data. Game Developers Conference too (which made less news because she carried on with the event). Once, she dumped a week of her Twitter feed just raw.
The game Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian exists.
My God, the game Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian exists.
Go look at those things. Scroll through all 150 tweets and read them all. That’s a week. She’s been in this for years. Think about that for a second. Anybody can blow off a couple of tweets. Try doing it twenty times a day for years. Anybody gets tired of it.
Nobody in their right mind thinks these women aren’t being harassed at a level which is mind-blowingly hateful and destructive.
>The phrase “get funding” makes me suspect you have a particular, possibly high-profile example in mind of ’fabricating evidence,’
Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. Zero evidence about the alleged “harrassment” they “received”**, lots of avoidance of the issue, lots of evidence that they’re frauds, lots of funding from moneybags who love “feminists”.
** Okay used a wrong phrase in the post before that. They’re fabricating the “harrassment” itself, since they’re refusing to show the evidence, leading critical thinkers to deduce they don’t have any.
>There’s a legitimate internal debate about whether trigger warnings promote maladaptive avoidance behaviors. I don’t take a strong position on that.
I learned a thing (maladaptive coping) today. Also, I’d say that depends on severity of the thing being warned about: putting a rape warning on a graphic description of it by the victim is fine, putting it on something that just mentions “in this story, Y raped X” isn’t and degenerates the warning (and should be tagged as “spoiler” instead).
I’m fairly sure the pomegranate thing was someone fucking around. A lot of those posts are just people from reddit trying to mock sjws and not doing a very good job at it
The thing is literally anything can be a trigger to someone with trauma, so people with unconventional triggers are made fun of because the word is overused online
The only real problem is that some people end up in echo chambers of what’s needed to be warned beforehand. It starts with someone mentioning how someone could potentially be negatively affected by a thing, then people start tagging it, and then nobody objects because that would be unthoughtful and you get a loop where you start needing to trigger warn your fruits.
Believe me, this is a thing that happens. My hyper-liberal school has an unoficial forum policy that you need to content warn for your gifs. No, not potentially seizure-inducing gifs, but any gifs at all. The thing is, trigger warnings are mocked not because they help (and they can!), but because people like the Pom-anon leave their echo boxes and demand people start tagging their fruit. Truth be told, far too often the first experience people have with trigger warnings is with someone yelling how they need to start tagging pictures of lakes with cw:water, and coupled with it practically becoming a meme to joke about, it’s not much taken seriously now.
Mm? I’d say “Warning, the following footage contains graphic violence which might be disturbing” is essentially the same idea. Now that I think of it, ditto the ‘grimdark’ tag here on the ‘booru! “Here is a thing, you might wish to avoid it.”
I have no experience with the idea being misused in the way you describe as the improper use. The phrase “get funding” makes me suspect you have a particular, possibly high-profile example in mind of ‘fabricating evidence,’ but I don’t know of anyone high-profile who has done such a thing (and it wouldn’t have much to do with triggering anyway).
There’s a legitimate internal debate about whether trigger warnings promote maladaptive avoidance behaviors. I don’t take a strong position on that.
@Barhandar
P.S. I’m not watching much of news media, so can you provide a few examples of news outlets giving trigger warnings? So far my experience with them was limited to Tumblr alone (which, admittedly, has got the worst parts of what I’ve described), in which use of trigger warnings can be roughly categorized as either “This has been known to cause people with certain psychological issues problems, so please tag it so and so/I shall tag it so and so, so they can control the problem” (proper use) and “[INCOHERENT SCREAMING] THIS IS TRIGGERING I A M TRIGGERED BY THIS TAG YOUR TRIGGERS YOU COLLECTION OF STAINS” (improper use).
Do note that I put emotional manipulation (like trying to guilt-trip into removing the content) and physical manipulation (sending reports of abuse, demands to kill oneself, etc if the content is not removed) firmly into the latter category.
“Third wave feminism”, please. I’ve got nothing against the first two waves, and others who are against the third share that opinion.
While said third wave feminism is stained by, among other things: fabricating “evidence” of harrassment to appear more pitiable and get funding, claiming they fight for equality and then immediately (sometimes in the same sentence) excluding people who don’t share their sentiments (like the one below), claiming equality and then openly and sincerely wishing “all men” would “just go and die”, and to your specific example, saying they’re “empowering” women and then going on rants about how “women need protection from [insert thing here]” which is kinda the opposite of “empowered”, and other things, hypocritical and often infantile.
CMC are doing just that (finding their destiny, I mean), in wrong ways due to being kids, though.
I theorize that the pony will feel some sort of “unease” pushing them until they find their destiny, therefore trans with their requirement dysphoria fit - their destiny is on the other side of the sex road.
And as for “correctness” of the destiny it represents, there’s two problems to it: first, swap spell that ended in Twilight doing the Jesus routine and ascending to alicornhood, which very clearly demonstrated that cutie mark’s destiny can be incorrect and unfitting; and second, show has no solution to CM version of chicken and egg problem: that is, does the cutie mark define destiny, or does destiny define cutie mark?* The latter leaves significantly more wriggle room for a single pony having multiple possible fitting destinies, and thus multiple possible cutie marks.
Let’s not try to apply that to trans. That’s whole other can of worms.
Yes, but how do you define a “correct destiny”? The show pretty much established that a pony’s cutie mark represents their destiny, therefore it’s always correct.
Don’t oppress me you shitlord!!
Sarcasm
No worries! More than one style of answer can be useful to different people. :^)