partyphone
Banned
please don't stalk people on the internet. just read his posts here in this thread. it's obvious he's a gator and I fucked up by not ignoring him earlier I apologize.
Dude, those are the TOP PAGES that appear when you Google about it. I'm not pushing any damn agenda, I'm trying to READ MORE ABOUT IT and discuss it with others who have a different opinion that I'm INTERESTED IN KNOWING ABOUT.
Jesus Christ, is this seriously how you treat anyone who comes in asking about something?
Yes, my first post was confrontational with the image of Randi telling people to set themselves on fire. Everything I had experienced up to that point only showed that screengrab. People here told me there was 2nd side, I asked for more information, and you try to witch hunt me by going through archives of my personal history on other websites, only to show, what exactly? That I met a celebrity in LA? Holy shit, man.
Wow, you're really creepy and have issues.
Ok, that could relate.
What year was the original incident?
Did anyone take credit for causing the swatting?
The gaffers that didn't object - do they object to other harassment? Have they since been banned? Are they the same people who also don't object to this-threads sort of harassment?
This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.
I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).
What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.
This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "skeleton" have to do with ethics in games journalism?
Nobody was banned in that thread.
after the first month or two the only people left in the group were the unrepentant shitheads. nobody in gamergate actually cares about game journalism, it's just a way to point like-minded regressive abusers at common targets.
Finland by any chance?The replies to those tweets - holy hell. That's a deep rabbit hole of hatred.
They remind me a lot of a racist political party in my country that always act like the victim to gain sympathy (I guess?). They are constantly trying to appear like the victim and seek sympathy from the unknowing public, when they are just awful and hateful human beings.
That's because they really don't care about games journalism, it's just an intro to congregate with like minded people who hate certain people and want to troll and abuse. They've formed friends and don't want to lose that, their united hatred of people and of certain things has given their life finally some purpose.This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.
I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).
What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.
This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "SJW" have to do with ethics in games journalism?
Ok. (When was this? I'm not going searching cause I didn't bring it up.)
Do you personally feel that moderation on gaf was being inconsistently applied for similar behavior, depending on the poster's...say...political viewpoint? If so, did you report any posts at the time, as specified in the TOS?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1070003&highlight=dsp+swatted
See for yourself and spare me the inquisition.
Haha. I am to look up the background you pointed out? And then am I to formulate your argument in this thread?
It is not an inquisition to ask you to back up claims, form cogent arguments, and defend your point of view. It is, in fact, supposed to be a minimum for posting.
Given that you're inventing my claims and guiding the discussion however you like to fit your preconceived agenda, it's kinda pointless to bother.
"LOL. I gotta read what you post?!? That's not my job!"
"The report argues that rigorous oversight and enforcement of rules banning cyber VAWG on the Internet will be an essential foundation stone if the Internet is to become a safe, respectful and empowering space for women and girls, and, by extension, for boys and men."
Thats a tall order, moderating a forum is one thing but the entire web and social networks? An article from the Washington Posts raises some interesting points.
"Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.." ~ No. You can ban users who breach terms of use but profiling and policing is a big no no. I know that profiling does go on behind the scenes but its mostly for advertising (I would hope). Id hate for big sites to use it for things like this (social issues/opinions). The last thing we need is profiles with "bigot", "liberal" or "racist" tags.
"How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively." ~ OK if we are talking about legitimate harassment (doxxing, death threats, revenge porn) . Anything else would be subjective and could be easily abused.
"At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that “political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”" ~ I cant see this taking off, and to be honest I wouldn't want it too.
"In other words, the United Nations believes that online platforms should be (a) generally responsible for the actions of their users and (b) specifically responsible for making sure those people aren’t harassers." ~ Part b is worrisome, these networks should profile users to that extent.
"This U.N. report gets us no closer, alas: all but its most modest proposals are unfeasible. We can educate people about gender violence or teach “digital citizenship” in schools, but persuading social networks to police everything their users post is next to impossible." ~ I agree
"Is a reckoning — or at least rebalancing — imminent? The United Nations suggests it has to be. But it certainly won’t look like the model dreamt up in this report. For better or worse, that’s several steps too revolutionary." ~ I agree
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...future-of-the-web/?postshare=2461443164984121
Yes, they refer to Breitbart at one point but don't use that as an excuse to dismiss the entire article.
I'm not inventing your claims. I have no idea what you're getting at with anything you've said yet. That's the point of asking you what you're saying. Otherwise it feels like you expect me to read your mind.
What is my preconceived agenda? You must be better than I am at mind reading.
Oh, I READ the thread you posted. All of it. I just don't understand what you're using it to prove.
-I saw 2 posters who said an online attack was deserved. While they may not be currently banned, it is very possible that they were back when they posted it in June.
-A bunch of people who posted in the thread are currently banned, indicating a problem with their posting behavior somewhere.
-A lot of people posted just to express that severe online harassment was bad, full stop.
-At least an equal number, maybe more, posted that severe online harassment was bad, even if they didn't like the personality of the victim.
None of the thread supports your statement that neogaf posters were "perfectly cool" with the harassment. So what point ARE you trying to make?
If it's already obvious someone's concern trolling to derail a GG-themed topic I'm not sure what the point of Googling their profiles to '6 Degrees' them back to a r/KiA post proves. I can't disagree with people saying that's a bit creepy and stalkerish.
This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.
I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).
What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.
This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "SJW" have to do with ethics in games journalism?
Perhaps you should I dunno... Go back and read the post you initially replied to. You know, the one where I replied to someone who issued the claim that ending harassment online for women naturally would mean that men would be covered as well?
I pointed to DSP, a routine target for organized online harassment as an example of the disparate support networks already in place.
One does not necessarily cover the other as the initial claim posited.
Your responses illustrate my position rather well. Somehow that's my fault and linking the claim to my response is magically impossible while you busily play mod.
thought it was mostly just a false stereotype.
Unless you think Gamergate is also targeting DSP in the form of Kojima World Order, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.So...your point is that the person/people who swatted DSP are a different subset of people than those who harass other people online?
Unless you think Gamergate is also targeting DSP in the form of Kojima World Order, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Though they do share similar rhetoric.
I kinda like it.
Being anonymous is what empowers the trolls.
Take that away from them, then hopefully they are scared to show themselves. They can go crawl back under their rock (where they should be)
This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.
I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).
What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.
This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "SJW" have to do with ethics in games journalism?
I've actually had people who disagree with me on GAF find me on twitter to try and argue with me there, which has creeped me the fuck out in the past, so the off-site history digging leaves me with a bad taste.
Yeah. Fuck those PhDs in gender studies and sociology. Let's listen the girls who plays video games.Can't imagine many better
Yeah. Fuck those PhDs in gender studies and sociology. Let's listen the girls who plays video games.
Yeah. Fuck those PhDs in gender studies and sociology. Let's listen the girls who plays video games.
Safeguards – Implementing oversight and maintaining a responsible Internet infrastructure through technical solutions and more informed customer care practices
Might be my inner tin foil hat coming out but that sounds a lot like killing what little privacy is left on the internet. Not down for that at all.