Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

polygon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 375 posts

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#351

Post by georgiapeach »

Fomite wrote: post #271
oldmanjay wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, what do threats have to do with insults? Conflating the two is a classic technique in this strange attempt to create some sort of right to never be offended, but they have no relationship to each other at all.

"I'm sorry, what do threats have to do with insults? Conflating the two is a classic technique in this strange attempt to create some sort of right to never be offended, but they have no relationship to each other at all." They do have a relationship - indeed, there's two of them embedded in this conversation, one of which you introduced: 1. Insults as a form of threat to one's health, in the form of pushing someone…

> Insults as a form of threat to one's health, in the form of pushing someone toward suicide.

This is not a threat. Good luck getting it prosecuted as one.

> Rape threats are insults.

This is not an insult. Good luck getting it prosecuted as one.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#352

Post by georgiapeach »

frio wrote: post #210
coldtea wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's banter? That's equivalent to being "fat" or "dorky"? First, I find this "words in my mouth" thing infuriating. Have I written anywhere that this specifically is "equivalent to being fat or dorky?" Why not respond to what I DID say? As for banter, yes it is. 99.99999% of such talk is BS bravado from kids that would never do anything to act on that, and in fact would go to bed crying if someone told their pare…

What you did say, and are saying, is that it's banter. You then go on to give qualified examples of banter that apply to the other gender ("don't (usually) get rape threats"; "do get death threats"; "do get comments that they're 'fat', 'dorky'" ). Whether you intended to draw the equivalency or not, that's what your phrasing achieved. Secondly, I agree. I don't believe it's constrained to women, but at the same time…

The volume is most certainly not the same. Men taunt each other a lot more, and far more colorfully.

As for the impact, if it's not the same, it's simply because men are more mature, and women have a lot of growing up to do.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#353

Post by georgiapeach »

Fomite wrote: post #253
wutbrodo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> b. Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas. This is a blatant twisting of his words. Women are even less represented in tech management than they are in other tech roles, and throwing in a few roles that he didn't mention at…

Higher level management, yes, they are. But it's fairly common to track women into middle management roles because they're "good with people" - and then write them off as not being engineers. There have been posts about that on HN not all that infrequently. And hell, even if you don't want to consider that, it's not a blatant twisting of his words. She's the CEO of Yahoo . That's not a "waste of a good brain".

It's the waste of a good engineering/programming brain on management. That's what he said.

You are twisting his words because you have no legitimate argument.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#354

Post by georgiapeach »

wutbrodo wrote: post #226
tonypace wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems likely, but the whole point of censoring extreme comments is to make those commenters an out group. Comment filtering would have edge cases, just like spam and porn filtering does. Do the dangers outweigh the value of pushing people who speak like this into an out group?

I don't know how you interpreted Torgo's comment as worrying that inappropriate/extreme comments would be treated as an out-group. He/she said that he/she suspects that human-rating of comments would be based more on their (dis)agreement with the popular view (particularly on controversial topics) as opposed to the extremeness/inappropriateness of the content. There's a massive difference between a comment being 100%…

China has developed a lot of technology and expends a lot of man hours to censoring what it considers to be offensive opinions, and yet, every day, people find new and interesting ways to express those same offensive opinions.

It's as much of a lost cause as DRM. You can't silence people until and unless you're willing to kill them, and possibly not even then.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#355

Post by georgiapeach »

seanflyon wrote: post #248
cyorir wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My apologies, I phrased things poorly. I don't want to say a majority of society is bad. I just think that even a small contingent, if loud enough, can make society seem more toxic than it needs to be.

Wouldn't making it harder for that small toxic contingent to be heard improve the situation?

How would you feel if a government agency or ISP or some other adversary used such technology to censor all your online communications -- so you couldn't ever contact anyone, through any protocol -- because it considered you to be undesirable/objectionable/dangerous for its own reasons?

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#356

Post by ceejayoz »

georgiapeach wrote: post #331
ceejayoz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cops (not to mention the services themselves - Twitter will close abuse reports if the tweets referenced were deleted, despite undoubtedly having a record of them) have a long history of not taking online harassment seriously. What product is being promoted by this article, incidentally?

Twitter is not the police. You file charges with the police. Twitter has no authority or responsibility to file charges on your behalf. Sarkeesian alone earned hundreds of thousands of dollars using the fiction of harassment. I'd love to see a police investigation into the veracity of her claims of being threatened. Considering how her claims of being a lifelong gamer were exposed as a complete fraud, I think we all…

Police have a long history of not standing up for victims, too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft, where a NYC cop was forcibly committed to a psych facility for recording evidence that his precinct was discouraging victims from formally reporting crimes to keep stats down.

Calling Sarkeesian's harassment a fiction appears to fly in the face of all available evidence. Lots of cites at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian for it.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#357

Post by georgiapeach »

ceejayoz wrote: post #356
georgiapeach wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is not the police. You file charges with the police. Twitter has no authority or responsibility to file charges on your behalf. Sarkeesian alone earned hundreds of thousands of dollars using the fiction of harassment. I'd love to see a police investigation into the veracity of her claims of being threatened. Considering how her claims of being a lifelong gamer were exposed as a complete fraud, I think we all…

Police have a long history of not standing up for victims, too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft , where a NYC cop was forcibly committed to a psych facility for recording evidence that his precinct was discouraging victims from formally reporting crimes to keep stats down. Calling Sarkeesian's harassment a fiction appears to fly in the face of all available evidence. Lots of cites at https://en.w…

One example is not a long history, and evidence not properly investigated by law enforcement is not legally admissible -- or credible -- evidence.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that not a single one of these shrill feminists complaining about rape and death threats ever goes to the police? Not one?

How are we to know that they're telling the truth, when they have so much to gain from lying, and they're caught lying all the time, anyway -- as Sarkeesian herself was?

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#358

Post by seanflyon »

georgiapeach wrote: post #355
seanflyon wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't making it harder for that small toxic contingent to be heard improve the situation?

How would you feel if a government agency or ISP or some other adversary used such technology to censor all your online communications -- so you couldn't ever contact anyone, through any protocol -- because it considered you to be undesirable/objectionable/dangerous for its own reasons?

That would be both terrible and dramatically different from what I was talking about. The context here is private websites filtering comments. If you are in a private restaurant expressing some horribly offensive opinion it is appropriate for the owner to ask you to leave. It would not be appropriate for the police to come in and gag you.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#359

Post by georgiapeach »

seanflyon wrote: post #358
georgiapeach wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel if a government agency or ISP or some other adversary used such technology to censor all your online communications -- so you couldn't ever contact anyone, through any protocol -- because it considered you to be undesirable/objectionable/dangerous for its own reasons?

That would be both terrible and dramatically different from what I was talking about. The context here is private websites filtering comments. If you are in a private restaurant expressing some horribly offensive opinion it is appropriate for the owner to ask you to leave. It would not be appropriate for the police to come in and gag you.

There is no difference whatsoever. All your censored communications would be attempted -- and rejected -- through private websites, too.

So how would you feel about it? How would you feel about the oppression you're looking to subject others to, being applied to you?

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#360

Post by chaostheory »

georgiapeach wrote: post #347
chaostheory wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A conductor whose properties don't change is a bad analogy to the human psych, which can change for better or worse depending on the environment. > The problem as stated was "How can I make everyone in my game studio behave the way I want?" That is like sending electricity through plastic. No it isn't. You can influence it or change it through culture and rules. We're not static machines.

Great. If you truly believe that human thought and behavior can be changed, go ahead and change your own. Stop getting offended by trivial things. You're the problem, so stop being a problem.

I'm confused. Did you respond to the right post? Where did I post in this thread that I was offended by something?
Post reply on HN