The harassment argument isn’t valid. Celebrities arguably face the greatest deal of social media negativity so it’s very hard to take Anita’s claims seriously especially when multiple big name personalities online face get mean spirited replies. This isn’t a attempt to crack down on people who legitimately abuse and stalk online either it’s just a official way to silence dissenting opinions and paving all discourse to align with Anita and SJW’s narrative.
It’ll probably end up being the new obscenity with that fuzzy wuzzy “I’ll know it when I see it” leeway for judges.
#ripSRKflamewars, #mIRCcan’tLoveMatriarch, #McRibsAreBack
Well I’m just curious to what extent dissenting views will be censored. Will it be a situation where any anti-feminist/SJW is considered harassment or do you need to follow certain guidelines in order to disagree.
- What in the world. By whose source did you read that from? The fbi didnt even define forceable rape in a way that a male could be a part of the statistic until 2012. I’ll just post some links you can read, that you unfortunately wont. Also, implying guys who are involved in domestic violence are just getting shoulder tagged is stupid. Guys are also much more likely to be better at defending themselves from a womans attack, than the other way around. If i had let two of my girlfriends, and an aunt just straight hit me with the blows they were swinging, or the objects they were throwing, id have multiple concussions, scars all over my face from stiches, and fractured bones.
Fortunately for them, and in always being on my shit, ive never walked away with more than some scratches. Also, i never called the cops, or reported it in some fucking survey, where as though, if i back hand a bitch, and shes bruised, and embarrassed to go to work, school, etc…, even if its her fault, im going to jail, while she heals, filling out some shitty domestic violence survey online.
I have the complete and utmost empathy for any person, especially a woman who is dealing with unprovoked physical violence from a man, but please stop fronting with your stupid shit all the time on these topics.
The CDC’s Rape Numbers Are Misleading http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
- I dont even know why i bolded that, considering your entire post is stupid as shit. Consider online harassment hate speech, and enact penalties? Wut. We dont even do that for hate speech right now, thats done publicly in your face.
Twitter would be gone in 6 months if you had to give your social security number, and copies of your id to use the service. Most social media services would be gone in 6 months that tried to do that. Just stop it. You will never see a day, unless we are in a futuristic dystopia, where all the people online, have no access to encryption technologies or anonymous services, and every single person online is trackable by any other person online.
People saying repulsive shit online is the least of everyones worries right now. There is no increase in crime directly related to peoples ability to be anonymous douches online.
Why is it a big deal if someone’s a jerk over the internet? You either just ignore them or troll back for kicks and giggles. People need to grow a thicker skin IMO.
Hate speech is more than just calling someone a racial slur. It also encompasses words that incite unrest as well as targeted speech to make someone worry about physical violence. Harassment falls under that umbrella and is penalized by the law almost every day. Twitter hate is going through that right now in European countries. They are finding these people and tossing them in the can or giving them high penalties. I can see that happening in the US. Enough people complain about anonymity on the internet and you’re going to see police get IP addresses on the people talking shit online, just like they already do in the U.K.
I read your rape articles and they aren’t so much as unreported rape as they are for trying to change the definition of rape and sexual assault. Changing the metric will OBVIOUSLY change the results. So please, don’t bother. Those fall under molestation and you know it. You and I both know what it means when we say sexual assault or rape.
The rest of your stupid post is just that, stupid. Twitter gone for asking for real identities? Lol, as if. People who use it now would be glad to do it since a lot of users are already using their real identities. The ones who would complain are privacy advocates and trolls who don’t want to get caught. So take that argument and stick it square up your ass.
It’s funny.
Ask a UN official to solve the Israli-Palestinian conflict, they’ll say something to the effect of ‘How?’, ‘It’s too broad an issue’, ‘There’s no effective method’, or ‘There will always be conflicts like this and we can’t effectively police them’
Trying to stop internet trolling? UN would probably see that as feasible, even though the same answers apply
Don’t worry UN. We don’t look down on you for being ineffectual. Just for being behind the times
Take note that this study is more focused than than the purposely inflated surveys used to come to a “1 in 5” conclusion for women. Had they used the same methodology by asking leading questions tailored toward men (e.g. Has anyone ever struck you in or squeezed your genitals?) the numbers would be even higher. Also notice that the perpetrators are overwhelming female.
Good shit trying to use extremes in a thread about shielding women from text on a screen. You may still have a caveman like mind but early man has since created tools, some of which are used to harm others and don’t require much strength to use.
In any case, domestic violence is much more than intimate partner violence. It also includes familial relations and cohabitation. The focus on IPV is feminist posturing to further ignore the suffering of men, because they’re bigots who care about no one other than white women. Even with that said, 70% of non-reciprocal IPV is committed by women. That’s not a small amount, but you can debate with yourself the severity under the bias of believing male distress is much less important.
Oh good, I’m glad we got to this point right away. One of feminism’s goals isn’t to solve problems and reduce victimization. Pushing falsehoods so the blame lands on men and solidify negative stereotypes of men.
The idea that rape and domestic violence are more of a problem for women is borne from puritan and chivalrous ideation. Males are the victims of the overwhelming majority of crime of every other category, yet these two are selected as specific to women. And, unsurprisingly, they’re centered as some of the worst crimes one, well at least a man, can commit. Gee, I wonder why?
The sooner you two, and so the rest of the ‘western world’, move away from your exigent need to protect white women the better. We can focus on more important things while not having awful people to distract us.
I dont believe people are willing to start shooting companies their id’s, home address, and social security numbers to maintain their social media accounts, unless somehow in this weird hypothetical, no other mediums existed to socialize on the net, not even im, or irc.
There is absolutely no way if twitter tried that next year, it would survive. IMPOSSIBLE. Your logic is somewhat sound, but i dont believe people would take that step at all. They may over share on social media, but giving up their government for a website like twitter, facebook, reddit, etc… would be a mega leap.
Countries that have, and are currently tracking people by what they say on the net, and fining them are asking for trouble imo. Especially countries that werent doing it before. If that shit happened in america, it would be a shit storm.
No judge would sign that warrant anyways. Hey judge, this guy keeps calling my cousin a whore on facebook, i need a warrant for facebook to release to me his ip and then if he isnt using vpn everytime he uses facebook, imma need another warrant to take to the ISP to pull that ip’s history and account. Yeah, thats not happening in america anytime soon. Lawsuits galore on some shit like that.
Stop it, you sound crazy right now, or youre doing a piss poor job at playing devils advocate.
Need more people to clown on. He went full SJW before leaving. I miss his comedy.
Like our laws are written in stone…
Just read through the topic and that article and holy shit. That might be the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard that hasn’t come out of Anita Sarkeesian’s mouth. Damn SJW’s getting “triggered” or offended by absolutely everything and people catering to that shit is 10 times more offensive than any of the things they claim to be upset and worried about. If straight white guys have to “suck it up” on everything, then guess what, they should shut the fuck up and do it too.
That’s not me discriminating against them. It’s actually the opposite because I’m not going to play that fucking game and act like I have to treat them different because they’re women, or gay, a minority, or some different religion or anything like that. And I’m not going to do so because if I did, then THAT would be discriminatory, offensive, and sexist.
You mean like this http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech ?
You honestly want that? Dont want people shit posting?
What ever happened to “sticks and stones”?
https://twitter.com/fucktyler/status/285670822264307712
Get triggered.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will kill white women.
You’re lucky online fighting games and pretty much any online game you can think of have low rage quit rates compared to Awesomenauts where I’d say conservatively 90% of players raqe quit several games a day, the majority of them rage quitting at the drop of the hat to the point of being able to accurately predict when it’s about to happen:
-When the first death occurs
-Within the first minute of the game
-When the enemy team has certain characters
-When the first turret is destroyed
-When the enemy team pulls off some GDLK play
-When the game is about to be lost
-When…you get the point
Not only does Awesomenauts have a much higher RQ % than just about any other game around, but there is no penalty whatsoever for doing it, and unlike fighting games it’s a 3V3 game so a teammate quitting is replaced with a bot so it basically becomes 2v3 AKA pretty much unwinnable unless the enemy team is dog shit. Also the majority of players in this game do worse than rage quit they “grief” which is intentionally dying/playing poorly to piss off your teammates and make them lose, and sadly this too is not punished even though it’s stated to be against the rules as anyone who is griefing can be reported to the developer by sending them the match replay but doing so give them 1 strike, and so if they get 3 strikes they are banned for a week…oh and the strikes on anyone’s record go away after 2 weeks. So basically everyone rage quits and greifs and the game is about who gets stuck with the least amount of rage quitters, it’s not uncommon to play 1 match with 4 rage quitters or more. Awesomenauts has by far the most toxic community of any game no debate, I’ve heard DOTA and LoL are bad too, but they don’t have a 90% RQ rate and from what I understand if you rage quit and grief a lot then you get banned or transferred to low priority server so really it’s miles ahead of Nauts.
/rant.
…Oh no. No no no no. Oh hell no. This is not good. Anyway, let’s dig into a few things.
Actually, I know some folks at Microsoft who rock dyed hair and are considered important staff. Minor point, mind you.
Whoa, let’s make an important distinction here. What they’re up to is actually misandry (that is, the hatred of men), not feminism per se (which is, in its proper form, the advancement of women without harming men). While anita sarkeesian and her ilk are awful people, let us not confuse the issue by using sexual slurs against them; they are bad people because they hate and hurt others, and that should be all that’s needed to condemn them.
(That is, I agree with your sentiment but not with how you’re expressing it; I don’t think that kind of word choice helps us or makes us credible)
Emil brings up some valid points, but they are ones I do not feel defend these individuals. I find anita’s circle dishonest, and frankly dangerous; people who oppose them suddenly find their careers under very curious ‘scrutiny’ indeed. They started with a valid premise (“there are social issues that need to be looked at and improved on, especially in relation to how women are treated in entertainment”)… then went waaaay off the rails and began hanging out with people who are more about tearing down men than specifically advancing women. They do all this in the guise of academia and ‘social justice’.
Are there issues regarding women in video games that bear further improvement? Yes. Are these the people to tell us how to do it? Absolutely not. The idea that they got an audience before the United Nations is very, very worrying. That they took up UN agenda time when there are way bigger issues requiring a global-scale response is ridiculous. It might be fitting though, given they have come up with their own flavor of 1984-esque ‘Newspeak’ to limit how people can criticize them.
The underlying cause (“help women in gaming”) is totally valid and commendable. People like anita and zoe do this cause no favors, and I suspect they, like political talk radio hosts, don’t want the situation to improve because it would take away their main source of income: Shrieking about a problem and stoking the flames of fear and anger, instead of trying to find solutions.
EDIT: I’m not done yet. They’re calling this ‘cyber violence’? Utter newspeak nonsense! We already have words in the English language to cover the concept: Try ‘online bullying’ or something like that. Cyber violence, indeed. Shall I send them Winston Smith to help with their PR efforts? I suppose they wouldn’t like him very much because he’s male, but he is otherwise very skilled at twisting language to do the very sort of thing they want.
Looks I’ll be quitting my PornHub account pretty soon. I’d rather not end up in trouble for my posts that could be considered sexual harassment and misogynistic toward women.
Yo, this nigga mirc is killing my sides today. Spittin flames. haha
On a brief side note, @SadQuotes , who’s this ‘Chris Benoit’ dude you’re talking about? Did you mean Krispin Wah?
Just gotta say Red Rick, I agree with a lot of your points from your long post except the implication that Feminism at its core is about a sort of equality. I don’t think that a group that focuses solely on the issues and struggles of 1 group and 1 group alone can ever truly be considered to be striving for equality, which is why I’ve never been for Feminism and always been for Egalitarianism.