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

Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 348 posts

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#311

Post by ceejayoz »

le_hackour wrote: post #180
vlunkr wrote: post #87

I don't understand these people that hate her so much, even if you disagree with her. All she has done is create a series of videos pointing out what she thinks is wrong with the gaming industry and she gets death threats. Why is no one allowed to be critical of video games? If anything, they are just proving her point by responding with violence.

Perhaps the reason for your confusion is because there has never actually been a response with violence against her?

Per Wikipedia, the WHO defines violence as:

"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation..."

Death threats would certainly qualify under that.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#312

Post by ceejayoz »

kaivi wrote: post #216
grecy wrote: post #41

So where are the police in all of this? Are you telling me I can send an email threatening mass murder to whomever I want and there are no consequences. We've seen kids thrown in jail for indirect comments on Facebook, surely this is more tangible.

This made me wonder: has there ever been a death threat, that has actually been carried out later by the same person or group? Why would anyone announce a premeditated murder before it really happens?

> This made me wonder: has there ever been a death threat, that has actually been carried out later by the same person or group?

ISIS does it with Westerners on a near daily basis these days. The IRA would generally phone in bomb threats in advance of bombs. I'm sure there are other examples.

> Why would anyone announce a premeditated murder before it really happens?

Intimidation. Do it once and the next time you threaten to kill someone if they don't do what you want they're a lot more likely to take you seriously.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#313

Post by ceejayoz »

seany wrote: post #257

Why do we care about this? She's been proven to be full of crap, so who cares if she isn't speaking? (I'm not saying that threats are acceptable in any fashion)

Your post may be full of crap, but I'd care if someone threatened you with death for it.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#314

Post by ceejayoz »

imaginenore wrote: post #304
ben0x539 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, the same Anita that previously got caught with making fake death threat against herself, the standard feminist tactic these days. This is bullshit, there's not the slightest bit of evidence that she faked anything. Sarkeesian supposedly fabricating attacks against herself is a gamergate meme that's repeated as fact long before this thing happened and it's always been completely ridiculous.

There's quite a lot of evidence. http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/2eub5g/anita...

"She opened a Twitter notification in an incognito window soon after receiving it" is a pretty interesting definition of "quite a lot of evidence".

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#315

Post by anonymousab »

ben0x539 wrote: post #260
iamdave wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please break it down for me? I'm clearly not seeing it (we often fail to see the failings in ourselves, it's just human), I for my part tried to clarify my stance; repeating "false equivalency" doesn't help me understand your response any better.

As far as I can tell, there's the gamergate people organizing the harassment of people, posting their victims' private addresses, sending them death threats and all kinds of abuse, bullying people into withdrawing from their online identities, all under a propaganda screen of fabricated pretenses and smear campaigns. Then there's the "feminist" crowd which wants that sort of thing to not happen, and also talk about v…

That "feminist crowd" is just as guilty of harassment, doxxing and threats.

Like mailing syringes filled with unknown chemicals. Or threatening ten year old "comedians" with "a shanking".

The fact is that you cannot attribute such things to the majority for any side in such matters. It's intellectually dishonest.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#316

Post by anonymousab »

smackfu wrote: post #45
hnha wrote: post #28

oh, what a fruitful discussion this might trigger.. What I don't get is how they constantly counter-act the common rules on how to deal with trolls or stalkers. It really feels like they are bathing in the outrage, not interested in actually solving it. And that's one reason why I sadly don't feel any sympathy but rather understand the vocal (non socio-/psychopath) critics. There is no fair discussion so I wish the m…

Funny how the default male response to a women's problem is almost always, "I will tell you a better way to handle this." Almost a cliché at this point.

The default netizen position has always been "don't feed the trolls".

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#317

Post by Houshalter »

llamataboot wrote: post #185
iamdave wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is no one allowed to be critical of video games? There's a lot of vitriol going back and forth by both sides of this latest iteration of the 'Battle of the Sexes'. I think abstracting back, a lot of very good points are being brought up that need to be discussed (lots of bad ones too, in the interest of intellectual honesty). It's not until you get a bit more granular that ugly heads start to rear up and we ulti…

I'm sorry, but this is a false equivalence. On one side you have people literally threatening people with violence to the point of being forced to leave their homes, cancel speaking appearances, etc. On the other side, you have people pointing out this unfortunate fact.

"Your opinion is wrong because someone associated with your opinion did something bad."

Death threats have, unfortunately, always been very common among controversial figures. Obama gets 30 a day, about 40,000 in total.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#318

Post by Houshalter »

Argorak wrote: post #18
mturmon wrote: post #13

Her video series, which you can see on YouTube, is actually quite good and well-researched. You might disagree with her conclusions (I agree with them) but even if you disagree, you have to admit she's done a lot of legwork.

Even if they were poor or badly researched, death threats are just way out of scope. Like: NEVER, EVER, IN ANY INTERACTION ARE THEY OKAY, NO POINT TO ARGUE. They are also no joke. (sorry for using all caps for once) (I take explanations for downvotes)

Saying that death threats are bad is not something anyone disagrees with, as far as I know. It's just an applause light (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/) at best.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#319

Post by applewut »

ijk wrote: post #294
sb057 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that those sites both have much more objective coverage, yes. That being said, there is considerable evidence of corruption at Gawker. http://www.historyofgamergate.com/kotaku-in-action.html

There's no corruption on the part of Kotaku described at that link. None. It's also excellent evidence that this is all about harassing Zoe Quinn and has nothing to do with ethics or journalism.

No corruption at all, none, not for years:

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/343871/Corruption-co...

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#320

Post by [deleted] »

ijk wrote: post #294
sb057 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that those sites both have much more objective coverage, yes. That being said, there is considerable evidence of corruption at Gawker. http://www.historyofgamergate.com/kotaku-in-action.html

There's no corruption on the part of Kotaku described at that link. None. It's also excellent evidence that this is all about harassing Zoe Quinn and has nothing to do with ethics or journalism.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN