What are you talking about? There's PLENTY of resources availble to victims of cyber-threats
-
-
Have you?
Unless I'm wrong, you haven't done that.
-
Has he said gamers are dead and videogames need to be censored?
Do you think that's the only thing said that incites death threats?
-
@xaade said:
Has he said gamers are dead and videogames need to be censored?
#CITE
I believe @xaade was implying that you have not said those things, and that your not having said them is the reason you have not received death threats.
And
. And failed quote formatting, despite being a full-quote. Yay, discoursistency.
-
Have you?
No. Neither has Anita Sarkeesian. Who you're apparently on a first-name basis with, so it should be no problem phoning her up and asking her for a source on that whole "gamers are dead" thing.
-
And then to protect that position, we get the 'all x are Hitler' rhetoric.
For quite a long time in Germany, all Adolfs were Hitler.
-
Yeah, I think that the hate is being mistargeted.
So what does all this have to do with Feminist Frequency and GTA V being banned from 300 Target stores in Australia? Well, as mentioned, GTA V was on the radar of this particular sect of ideologues. It may not have been Feminist Frequency in particular that initiated the petition, but the group certainly has been reinforcing the message of games being a beacon of evil against women, with Jonathan McIntosh expressing a measure of pride in the retailers removing GTA V from store shelves. With Sweden seeking a new sexism rating for video games,
However
Much of the resistance comes from Sarkeesian’s central argument: that
the “damsel in distress” trope, a recurring trend in narrative game
design, can help “to normalise extremely toxic, patronising and
paternalistic attitudes about women.”
When will gamers understand that criticism isn't censorship?
Anita Sarkeesian has announced a new video series looking into masculinity and video games. The hate has already started, but it is misplaced
What do you think the response will be to that.
No one says, "This behavior is toxic. Not saying to stop it or censor it or police against it. Please don't change a thing. I'm just criticizing it by saying it causes people to do bad things, and that's bad."
I mean, I do say that, but I'm very explicitly clear and spell it out.
But that line of thought can never be said to be implied.
-
Oh fuck off, Xaade. I ignored you on Twitter, now I'm going to have to ignore your ass here.
This gamergate stuff is a VIRUS IN YOUR BRAIN. You seriously can't even just talk like a normal person anymore. You're like a LISP users, or people who are really into Bitcoin. You need a fucking hobby.
Look, you and the gamergate cronies on this forum had your chance to convince me. I went in completely open-minded. You blew it. Fucking blew it.
The only thing I learned about GamerGate is:
-
all their arguments are at best exaggerated and at worst completely unsubstantiated bullshit
-
people who are into GamerGate habitually lie all the time about all kinds of things...
-
... including that GamerGate is a movement, when it's only a fucking hashtag. A HASHTAG!
You had your chance. You blew it. Now fuck off with that bullshit. Go ramble on about how fire can't melt steel, at least that'd be a brand new kind of insane paranoia to start waving around like your stinking long johns.
-
-
This gamergate stuff is a VIRUS IN YOUR BRAIN.
My favorite part is my OP explicitly (and quite on purpose) didn't even mention games. And yet, the moment anyone mentions women getting harassed and sent death threats, the very first thing that comes to mind is...
Yup. Doth protest too much.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
My favorite part is my OP explicitly (and quite on purpose) didn't even mention games. And yet, the moment anyone mentions women getting harassed and sent death threats, the very first thing that comes to mind is...
Yup. Doth protest too much.
I could give a fuck less about Gamergate or even video games in general and even I assumed that is what you were talking about...
-
-
It's ok.
Not much good comes out of that part of me.
-
What a load of shit.
-
I didn't start the topic on gamergate,
But when I searched for police response and rape threats....
##Gamergate was all that showed up.
In fact, Anita was all that showed up, with one other notable mention of a girl in UK that had police helping her from moment one.
This gamergate stuff is a VIRUS IN YOUR BRAIN. You seriously can't even just talk like a normal person anymore. You're like a LISP users, or people who are really into Bitcoin. You need a fucking hobby.
even I assumed
And all this talk about men saying the same things and don't receive death threats is bullcrap.
##I can log onto CoD and get rape threats and death threats in the first match, with cflare as a callsign.
-
Ok ok....
It's not all games.
Here's another case of rape threats.
Dotdash Meredith - America's Largest Digital & Print Publisher
Dotdash Meredith is America's largest digital and print publisher, with brands including PEOPLE, Better Homes & Gardens, Allrecipes, Investopedia, Verywell, and more! Learn about career opportunities, our leadership team, and how we can help you reach audiences across our network of trusted brands.
Teen with unrealistically large breasts
Yeah, boobs that big are just impossible...
Or... wait... google sense is tingling.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-body/news/ariel-winter-breast-reduction-surgery-age-17-2015128
Yeah, she got threatened because someone felt entitled to her bust size.
#Threats are always bad. Period.
Seems there are a lot of jerks out there.
But that doesn't validate anyone's arguments here.
#The police do respond to threats.
Even if the receiver has stupid conclusions.
-
That's not what I get when I do that search.
-
the hell?
-
Threats are always bad…
What if you're tanking for a 25 player raid? Surely you'd want to have as many of the threats as you could!
-
I literally don't even know what you are arguing for or against any more. Can you post more screenshots?
-
I think @xaade is @SpectateSwamp but less sane.
-
less sane
Says the guy who just spent half an hour making a fake Google page for ... I don't even know what the heck that's all about.
-
-
Do you need help reading?
Here, let me help you with that.@xaade posted this mess:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/3/3/3341054474526fb33e008bd31799a6966233e613_1_689x269.png
@xaade was trying to equate female rape threats to video gaming.In response, I decided to take the argument to its logical conclusion and posted this mess:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/uploads/default/original/3X/4/1/41ad3ad550fadb06d374655f90cfdef443a62673.png
This image equates female grape threads to potato salad recipes, buttsex.info, fat.dog, and @xaade's avatar.This is what humans[73] call a parody[citation needed].
-
This is what humans[73] call a parody[citation needed].
Parodies (at least successful ones) usually have a fairly obvious connection to the thing they are parodying. This, not so much.grape threads
That is sufficiently similar to "rape threats" that it could work, if it were clear that your post was about threads. However, when I read that, it seems most obviously about vines, with a complete non-sequitur about pipes in the middle.potato salad recipes, buttsex.info, fat.dog, and @xaade's avatar.
These simply confuse the reader and further distract from the already unclear attempt at parody.take the argument to its logical conclusion
I'm not sure where you did take it, but you didn't take it there.Here, let me help you with that.
Your explanation did clarify what you were attempting to do. However, it didn't really make the attempt any more successful.Filed under: If you have to explain the joke, ...
-
Filed under: If you have to explain the joke and someone else already got the joke then the person you're explaining it to probably didn't think very hard
<hi mom>
-
Yami brought it up because she spews bile any time its mentioned.
-
I laughed at butt sex.
-
-
was trying to equate female rape threats to video gaming.
No, I was more or less showing that you search for threats, and you get mostly topics about gamergate.
Which is why most of my post, showing that cops do respond to women getting threatened, is in regards to gamergate related threats.
If you have to explain the joke and someone else already got the joke then the person you're explaining it to probably didn't think very hard
No, it just means that there's at least someone who understands your obscure sense of humor.
There are people that understand my satire.
Most of my posts are satire.
@Lorne_Kates said:
I literally don't even know what you are arguing for or against any more.
See above.
Cops do respond to threats.
Most of the threats have some connection to media that is heavily shared by immature people.
I get similar threats when I engage in the media that the threats originate from.
Those people have great vested interest in their appreciated content.
Maintain a close sense of entitlement to that content.
And express this ownership in the most immature manner.But none of that validates the arguments associated with or against the threats.
If you want to say that women are receiving threats, and the police do nothing, then I agree. Police have little authority or recourse to handle those cases anyway.
If you want to compare that to a hack of sensitive data and legal recourse (as opposed to protective or criminal recourse), and make the point that men are treated differently, that's not an accurate comparison.
Not only is it an entirely different situation, where authorities have more options, but there was nothing preventing women from using that site to cheat.
-
there was nothing preventing women from using that site to cheat.
I think you have to go a step farther. It can't possibly work unless a good amount of them did.
-
I saw a statistical breakdown posted somewhere. (I don't remember where, but it was almost certainly linked from that other thread.) I don't remember the actual numbers, but IIRC it was somewhere in the general neighborhood of
70:30Found it — 86:14. As for how many were using the site to cheat, the ratio of cheaters (people in relationships) to singles wassimilar59:41 among straight males, 56:44 among straight women.
-
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
And yet, the moment anyone mentions women getting harassed and sent death threats, the very first thing that comes to mind is...
That was just @Yamikuronue trollingly mentioning it, which triggered a few people.
-
That's actually a lot of women that just got doxxed.
[spoiler]I suppose, now, their husbands can prank them by sending them pizza and making them pay for it.[/spoiler]
Trigger warning
-
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
And yet, the moment anyone mentions women getting harassed and sent death threats, the very first thing that comes to mind is...
That's where this subject has come up around here, so no one should be surprised.
-
-
1 MILLION dollars
Pinky in mouth.
Mwa ha ha ha ha ha
-
A cheating site is by definition used by men and women.
True, but the statistics from the hack show that the members were about 85% men and 15% women[1]. Ashley Madison appears to be mainly used by men.
-
Cool?
-
Cool?
Just saying that the "protecting men" bit that @Lorne_Kates keeps using isn't entirely inaccurate, like you are implying.
-
No, it is completely invalid. No one is going around saying "we must protect the men". There is a high profile crime that's getting attention because it's high profile. Men may be disproportionately affected by it (though, since it's a cheating site, we can assume their families are also affected), but that has precisely no bearing on the situation. Trying to shift the focus to gender here is downright insane. It doesn't matter if you support the users of the site or not, or really how much they are hurt. The thing that matters is the number of people affected.
So, in short, anyone who believes that investigating this crime has anything to do with gender is insane, and probably a danger to others.
-
That's like saying all the fuss about 9/11 was just to protect the white people.
Having a certain group be the majority of victims represented in a crime, does not prove motive for protecting only that majority.
-
Just saying that the "protecting men" bit that @Lorne_Kates keeps using isn't entirely inaccurate, like you are implying.
Well, so responding to rape threats is protecting women and we should stop doing that because man that's sexist?
I just don't see how that has any bearing on whether the police should care more or less about this case. Of course there would be more men than women looking for hookups in this totally dumb way, but what does it matter?
-
Well, so responding to rape threats is protecting women and we should stop doing that because man that's sexist?
No one's said that.
Why are all these examples of sexism defended with false dilemmas.
"Either you agree with our wildly inaccurate comparison, or you hate women and you want them all to burn and die."
We should respond to rape threats.
But you can't use this example to prove that men get more protection.
"But I know they do.... there's so many other examples"
That mostly get debunked as they come in.
If I had been reporting all the death threats I've received while playing CoD, I'd be laughed out of the office and told to "grow a pair".
-
Well, so responding to rape threats is protecting women and we should stop doing that because man that's sexist?
Who said that? I was just saying that the dismissive tone was not supported by the data.
I don't even like the comparison between the AM breach and rape threats anyway, as they are significantly different types of crimes. One is a cyber-crime that has a high chance of leading to identity theft, the other is a
physical violation ofthreat to physically violate another person's body.I just don't see how that has any bearing on whether the police should care more or less about this case.
It shouldn't (I can't speak to the reality as I'm not a law enforcement policy maker). The actual response is probably largely due to the scale of the crime more than anything.
Of course there would be more men than women looking for hookups in this totally dumb way
[Citation Required]
Sure, the data shows that there are (or were) more men than women with accounts on a dating site targeted to people looking to have an affair, but that does not support your "Of course" claim.
-
the other is a physical violation of a person's body.
To be fair, neither a rape threat nor identity theft is that.
-
Well when a woman wants to have random sex, she really doesn't need a paid membership. 'Tis kinda how life works.
