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

A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

developers.kongregate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#131

Post by ijk »

slash3r wrote: post #123
rtpg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel pulled advertising from Gamasutra under pressure from these people, some women independent game developers have "ragequit"(read: harassed beyond belief so did the only logical thing) from twitter and the like. It's violent if you follow the independent games scene These are also the same group of people who forced Phil Fish off the internet, basically.

You seem to believe that Intel can be intimidated by internet trolls. It also seems that you don't know nothing about Phil Fish and that almost (if not all) the awards that Fez won were from the investors of Fez themselves. [don't get me wrong, I actually loved Fez] (let the downvotes pour)

The accusations about Phil Fish, Fez, Polytron's investors, and the IGF judging process are blatantly false. It's a conspiracy theory that's mostly based on misinformation about the IGF voting process and misinterpretation of dates.

http://igf.com/2014/09/igf_statement_re_judging_proce.html

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#132

Post by yummyfajitas »

dang wrote: post #122
crassus2 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to say that I'm deeply uncomfortable with how quickly hacker news mods have moved to kill comments they disagree with since the new "professional" management came in. Is yummyfajitas hell-banned now? He had nearly 7 years of history. All his comments here are dead-ed. For the record, this is what the grandparent said that got him hell-banned: "According to the article, the author received one unwanted mes…

We haven't done any of those things. No moderator touched any of those comments, let alone killed them. Also, "professional" management? Ugh. It's difficult for me take your "deeply uncomfortable" seriously when you haven't taken any trouble to find out whether what you're saying is true. It's not like it's hard. Edit: Also, it's disingenuous to quote that out of context to make it seem like comparing sexual harrassm…

Of course I know I'm being provocative. I'm intellectually questioning an emotional conclusion. Back in the day, HN was a good place for that.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#133

Post by DanBC »

meowface wrote: post #99
wismer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a really good reason for it and it's up to you to figure that part out.

There is no reason to delete a post that presents a rational argument without use of insults or ad hominem attacks, regardless of if you think the viewpoint is "destroying [insert any topical political or current events issue here]".

There's plenty of reason to downvote trolls.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#134

Post by JulianMorrison »

ANTSANTS wrote: post #74
wismer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A racist man says: "I'm not racist; I have black friends." Do you see what's wrong with that statement?

Another racist man says "hey black person, your opinions are invalid because you've internalized racism. Please, let me, a liberal white man, speak for you."

What you fail to see, implied under your comment, is that in any situation where it's up to the white people to decide who's the Uncle Tom, that fact itself is racism, in the metagame of the discussion itself, staring you in the face.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#135

Post by JulianMorrison »

meowface wrote: post #98
gohrt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, Twitter allows this content on their network?

Obviously not. The account was deleted and banned shortly after the tweets were made. Note that that screenshot was taken about 3 minutes after the account was created. It's basically just Internet trolls registering Twitter accounts behind proxies and saying the edgiest things they can think of to stir the pot.

"It's just trolls" is a mixture of monstering (it's them not us) and trivializing.

This is misogynist male supremacist terrorism. Twittering threats of violent sexual assault is like phoning in bomb threats - even if you don't have any explosives, the communication itself is an attack.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#136

Post by JulianMorrison »

gohrt wrote: post #81

Hi, mods: Look at this thread. What does it mean for the appropriateness of "GamerGate" on Hacker News?

It's not just appropriate, it's overdue.

Look at all these ugly, ugly critters crawling out of the woodwork. They were already here before the scent of mass misogyny drew them out into the open.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#137

Post by Pxtl »

DanBC wrote: post #104
Pxtl wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to think Gamergate was a brewing culture war that was just looking for a spark to start the fire. Gamer culture has had a persecution complex for well over a generation, particularly with respect to the press - even the gaming press. Being repeatedly insulted and attacked by the media has made them circle their wagons instinctively. Combined with a substantial fraction of gamers that are intensely misogynistic…

It's weird to see the term "sjw" used by someone who isn't a repellant fuckwit. It's been a reliable flag -at least on HN- so far. That's something you might want to be aware of.

I'd gotten the impression they and their supporters had started to self-identify with the term.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#138

Post by slash3r »

ijk wrote: post #131
slash3r wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to believe that Intel can be intimidated by internet trolls. It also seems that you don't know nothing about Phil Fish and that almost (if not all) the awards that Fez won were from the investors of Fez themselves. [don't get me wrong, I actually loved Fez] (let the downvotes pour)

The accusations about Phil Fish, Fez, Polytron's investors, and the IGF judging process are blatantly false. It's a conspiracy theory that's mostly based on misinformation about the IGF voting process and misinterpretation of dates. http://igf.com/2014/09/igf_statement_re_judging_proce.html

The issue is about IGF lying and you give me a link to an IGF article to prove your point. They have their right to defend themselves, but that doesn't mean that whatever they say in their defense is actually true. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and more than one independent report should be taken into consideration when forming an opinion, especially on controversial topics.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#139

Post by knowtheory »

defen wrote: post #70
knowtheory wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but saying "supposedly" is leaving the door open. The door is not open. No such thing ever happened.

If you ask Google to define "supposedly" it says: "according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement)." I hate these sort of semantic arguments. In case my sentence was not clear, I don't support the things that have been done to people under the guise of "Gamergate", I don't think she slept with anyone (nor do I care nor see why it is releva…

Hey man, i'm not criticizing you. You're making a good point. I want to make that point even stronger.

It's not semantics in the sense that we're quibbling over the definition of words. Your point can be even more definitive. Gamergaters are claiming something that is not true.

It doesn't matter if Gamergaters believe it to be true. It's not. <3

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#140

Post by ijk »

slash3r wrote: post #138
ijk wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The accusations about Phil Fish, Fez, Polytron's investors, and the IGF judging process are blatantly false. It's a conspiracy theory that's mostly based on misinformation about the IGF voting process and misinterpretation of dates. http://igf.com/2014/09/igf_statement_re_judging_proce.html

The issue is about IGF lying and you give me a link to an IGF article to prove your point. They have their right to defend themselves, but that doesn't mean that whatever they say in their defense is actually true. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and more than one independent report should be taken into consideration when forming an opinion, especially on controversial topics.

Well, there's the small matter that the backers weren't actually on the 2012 jury. [1] And the fact that Fez got its first win before IndieFund existed. [2] And the video that made the original accusation against Phil Fish was taken down, probably because it was a combination of libel and evidence of the illegal hacking. So it's become a source-less accusation that gets trotted out with no evidence to support it, as it was here.

[1] http://theflounce.com/gamergate-seem-understand-ethics-nearl...

[2] https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/508734779617849344

Post reply on HN