Also this: http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point
Zoe Quinn tweeted today: "couldn't you just fucking not play my games. Fucking boycott me, don't work with me, just leave my dad alone". She got a dead squirrel in her mailbox a few days ago. Remember: she made a free indie game about depression and had a messy breakup with an ex. This is literally all she did. This type of reaction is no longer uncommon.
These women are really, actually suffering.
No, she didn't. This talking point has been repeated over and over despite the fact that it is factually incorrect - she did, it seems, sleep with a reviewer once. Who never reviewed her game, and only ever wrote anything about her months before they slept together.
The really laughable thing is that if this was really a campaign about corruption in games journalism then there is a ton of it to go around - numerous publications have deeply unhealthy connections to large game companies, like EA. But instead everyone goes after one independent game developer who slept with a guy who never reviewed her game.
[1] (Which is really none of my business and I feel icky even bringing it up.)
No she didn't. You are smearing her. This point has been soundly rebutted. It's disgusting that you continue to spread false information around her.
Nope. Get your facts straight. A disgrunted ex is the only source of those accusations. The guy who (very much allegedly) had sex with her did not cover her game.
In my eyes, this is a simple issue of personal safety. I would not speak under those conditions and I doubt you would either.
When you got abusive messages it was one person, marginalised and removed from a community. I assure you these people get plenty of reaction by showing their messages to their community. They will not go away if ignored.
I'm not sure what kind of fair discussion you expect here.
"Common rules" along the lines of "just ignore it" tend to make it easy to pretend such things aren't happening and ignore those calling it a serious issue.
They would probably say "don't talk to the press about it, don't give the attacker more fuel".
In the realm of internet trolls, the classic rule is "don't feed the troll". but an internet troll doesn't make death threats...
The problem is that you have a very narrow point of view. You're also limiting your viewpoint to just equality as opposed to going beyond it to ask 'what is fair?'.
http://jezebel.com/louis-c-k-on-men-we-re-the-no-1-cause-of-...
"I've read some blogs during this whole thing that have made me enlightened to things I didn't know. This woman said how rape is something that polices women's lives. They have a narrow corridor. They can't go out late, they can't go to certain neighborhoods, they can't get a certain way, because they might get-That's part of me now that wasn't before."
"Halfway through the new special, C.K. starts talking about how dating is an act of bravery for all involved. “The male courage, traditionally speaking, is that he decided to ask” a woman out. (Note the careful caveat, 'traditionally speaking.') And if the woman says yes, 'that’s her courage.' That kind of courage, he says, is beyond his imagining. 'How do women still go out with guys, when you consider that there is no greater threat to women than men? We’re the number one threat to women! Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.' A moment later he adds, speaking for all men, 'You know what our number one threat is? Heart disease.'"
Perhaps the added attention to a cause, perhaps the added news coverage is worth going against the advice of professionals when it comes to direct threats to the safety of oneself? Or perhaps the institutions and individuals there to deal with such threats are not doing their job properly? Or perhaps the level of fear of online threats is so great that no local, personal support is enough?
I don't know the answers not being in that situation. I can imagine it being very scary though. I'd want to trust someone, anyone, at the very least. Perhaps online social networks can give that level of reassurance for some, for those who depend on them?
Sarkeesian chose to not attend because she feared for her safety. Legally, the police could not prevent people from brining concealed weapons, and she did not feel safe. Your comment implies that she is somehow ignoring advice that would promote her safety, in order to gain more exposure. I don't see that happening.
I imagine that the police did not give any recommendations about the event, that they neither suggested she cancel or to go ahead.
My comment was asking questions about why someone would choose to publicise active threats against their person, assuming that police would have warned against it. I can imagine some scenarios where someone would choose to go against those recommendations - I imagine things must be very stressful and fraught.
Perhaps with Twitter, any threats are already public and so there could be no point not sharing them? Perhaps there is greater value in highlighting the online abuse and having a large amount of online support for ones cause than suffering in silence and trusting ones fate to the professionals?
I think our online networks are sorely missing effective abuse filters and controls.
Actually, the general advice is to tell everyone:
> Tell Everyone
> Report the incident to law enforcement. Notify the Commonwealth's Attorney and ask for help from your local victim/witness program. Let them know that you are afraid. Give friends, co-workers, and neighbors a description of the stalker. Ask them to document anything they see and record the time of the occurrence.
https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/victims/documents/stalking.pdf
I don't want to put words in your mouth but I also think you're implying that the male in your example believes his way is better because he's a man and therefore smarter and all that nonsense. That's just unfair. The irony in phrasing it like that given the context is quite obvious though.
Oh, definitely not. I think the guy usually has no idea what he is doing and it's just reflexive behavior.
Maybe I have to explain myself a little better. For the sake of this argument let's assume literally every time a women has a problem in this world a man talks to her and tells her what he thinks she should do. What exactly would be wrong with that?