A petition to black out Steam for an hour

[hermes]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

 

[MerlinCross]

Steam? Really?

I've heard way worse on Xboxlive than anywhere on steam. I mean if you really want to boycott something, start there. 13 year olds should not message a woman in that way across Xboxlive.

 

[Six Ways]

And there are despicable people out there.

Spoiler

There are despicable people out there. To claim that any one person is one, you need to back it up or as I say, you are yourself despicable.

And she would have to fake death threats that have her address posted on them or fake them if they weren't as psycho as the ones she posted.

Again, she's basically the most reviled woman on the internet. I have no trouble believing people have managed to find her personal details.

And I'm referring to her saying that Hitman Absolution encourages you to kill strippers and drag their bodies around when the opposite is true.

'Lying' (read: misinterpreting, since this is not a factual matter, but a matter of criticism and opinion) on that scale has absolutely nothing to do with lying on the scale of faking death threats. Sorry, but I don't know how I even have to say that. Told your friend you liked their painting when you thought it was mediocre? You're probably crying wolf about being mugged that time.

I just wanted to say that I really dislike dismissive people who say 'people who take this position are jerks' without addressing what they say.

You didn't really give me a chance. You were, in fact, the one jumping in without considering my position.

Ad hominem would be something like "you dropped out of high school, therefore we can ignore whatever you have to say". It's dismissing an argument based on the person who said it not just an insult.

You dismissed my feminism as white knighting.

E: Why do I assume you just dismissed them? Well because you say they're all misogynists.

Didn't say that.

EDIT: I'm not trying to flame you - I respect that you listened to my counter-arguments on the death threat stuff, and apologies if I'm coming across as blunt. But I do still feel like most of your post is based on a couple of false assumptions.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

 

[Six Ways]

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

It's more about burden of proof. As I've said earlier, you need to have rock solid evidence of fakery before you accuse someone of faking something so terrible (and statisically unlikely).

 

[barbzilla]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is often the correct one. In this situation, the simplest solution is that Anita did receive the death threats, and decided to use them to fuel the controversy engine. So in this situation it does work that way.

It is far more common to receive death threats online than it is to fake them. Anita has received plentiful threats from which to choose, and as such it is likely she has received threats such as this on her twitter since I know she received plenty of them on her kickstarter. In this situation, it would make more sense to watch and wait for a new one to crop up to use as fuel than it would to risk the flip controversy of faking one. This also explains the short time gap between the posting of the threat, and the screen capping of said threat (since she was waiting for one, it seems logical that she would jump on it when it appeared). As for the account being created for this purpose, that is also common practice. I mean, if I was going to threaten someone online, I certainly wouldn't use my personal account (not saying that I would mind you, just that if I did, I wouldn't want it linked to me).

All of that said, Occam's Razor doesn't account for all potential situations, it only states the most probable outcome. So she probably received the threats, but she may have forged them.

 

[GenuflectHonesty]

I think we should propose to black out Twiter for a year... THAT would actually help the conversation about games, cause you could do it in a place where A CONVERSATION can actually happen...

I think we should go a step further and just burn Twitter to the ground, because what I've seen on it lately has shown me that it has no right to exist.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

I think we should propose to black out Twiter for a year... THAT would actually help the conversation about games, cause you could do it in a place where A CONVERSATION can actually happen...

Where can I sign that petition?

So remember when feminists like Anita said that they're not trying to take video games away?

I'm not having this. At all.

A reminder: there's no indication Anita Sarkeesian had anything to do with this petition. It's likely just one of her loony fans trying to "help", or maybe one of her loony detractors pretending to be one of her loony fans in order to stir the pot.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is often the correct one. In this situation, the simplest solution is that Anita did receive the death threats, and decided to use them to fuel the controversy engine. So in this situation it does work that way.

How is someone else sending her death threats more simple than her making the death threats? They'd both involve someone taking the same steps (make twitter account, post threats). And you're simplifying what Occam's Razor is.

And in this case it would be that she found the death threats almost immediately after they were posted, logged out for no apparent reason then took the screenshot. Occam's Razor is about assumptions, so we'd have to assume she found them immediately, assume that she logged out because ... I don't know. If we go by 'she faked it' that explains both of those. It wouldn't rely on the luck of finding the posts within a time window.

It is far more common to receive death threats online than it is to fake them. Anita has received plentiful threats from which to choose, and as such it is likely she has received threats such as this on her twitter

I really doubt that. This sounds like a movie stalker rather than a real person. And Anita's been fading from obscurity before her this. I doubt she gets threats daily now.

since I know she received plenty of them on her kickstarter. In this situation, it would make more sense to watch and wait for a new one to crop up to use as fuel than it would to risk the flip controversy of faking one. This also explains the short time gap between the posting of the threat, and the screen capping of said threat (since she was waiting for one, it seems logical that she would jump on it when it appeared).

She would also have to wait for someone who knows her address. And if she was waiting for one that raises serious doubts about her "I was so scared I slept at my relative's house" story. Just saying.

 

[Six Ways]

How is someone else sending her death threats more simple than her making the death threats? They'd both involve someone taking the same steps (make twitter account, post threats).

Considering the amount of death threats she is already known to have received, the probability of her receiving further death threats is virtually 1. That makes it the simpler answer statistically.

And in this case it would be that she found the death threats almost immediately after they were posted, logged out for no apparent reason then took the screenshot. Occam's Razor is about assumptions, so we'd have to assume she found them immediately, assume that she logged out because ... I don't know. If we go by 'she faked it' that explains both of those. It wouldn't rely on the luck of finding the posts within a time window.

When someone tweets at you, you get a notification. It's not hard to believe she'd see that quickly. It's also not hard to believe that it was in fact someone else doing the screencapping, for example someone quickly sent a link to the profile via chat. These are both at least as simple an explanation as "it's a conspiracy".

And Anita's been fading from obscurity before her this. I doubt she gets threats daily now.

I absolutely do not doubt that. She may have slipped from her peak notoriety, but once again - basically the most reviled woman on the internet.

 

[BeerTent]

I like how I go to the last page to check out some of the responses, and the first post I see is "She's clearly faking it, Rape/Death threats are like, whatever man. She should stay until someone knows where she lives."

Let me tell you about this thing called the internet. Seems that this is your first time here, @WhiteNachos .

If people can be swatted starting only from a twitch account, people can be tracked frok Kickstarter, Google and Twitter. People already know where she lives. I may not agree with everything in her videos, but to say things like death threats are nothing? Rape threats, pfft. Whatever? No. Just... Just go. Stay on Xbox Live Halo.

 

[barbzilla]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is often the correct one. In this situation, the simplest solution is that Anita did receive the death threats, and decided to use them to fuel the controversy engine. So in this situation it does work that way.

How is someone else sending her death threats more simple than her making the death threats? They'd both involve someone taking the same steps (make twitter account, post threats). And you're simplifying what Occam's Razor is.

And in this case it would be that she found the death threats almost immediately after they were posted, logged out for no apparent reason then took the screenshot. Occam's Razor is about assumptions, so we'd have to assume she found them immediately, assume that she logged out because ... I don't know. If we go by 'she faked it' that explains both of those. It wouldn't rely on the luck of finding the posts within a time window.

It is far more common to receive death threats online than it is to fake them. Anita has received plentiful threats from which to choose, and as such it is likely she has received threats such as this on her twitter

I really doubt that. This sounds like a movie stalker rather than a real person. And Anita's been fading from obscurity before her this. I doubt she gets threats daily now.

since I know she received plenty of them on her kickstarter. In this situation, it would make more sense to watch and wait for a new one to crop up to use as fuel than it would to risk the flip controversy of faking one. This also explains the short time gap between the posting of the threat, and the screen capping of said threat (since she was waiting for one, it seems logical that she would jump on it when it appeared).

She would also have to wait for someone who knows her address. And if she was waiting for one that raises serious doubts about her "I was so scared I slept at my relative's house" story. Just saying.

No I am not simplifying it. I allow for the possibility that the more complex solution may be the correct one, but in the absence of certainty, the solution requiring fewer assumptions is most likely correct. Even if we just take one aspect of the situation, we know that she receives death threats (I never said she receives them daily, thus my indication she would have to wait for one) already, why complicate the situation by faking a threat when she could just simply wait for one? As for the address, it is not hard to find documentation for someone online. Hell, people do it all the time with nothing but a screen name, yet we know her actual name (though I will give you that that is a point in favor of her having done it herself concerning OR).

I explained all of my reasoning in the previous post, if you disagree with me, that is fine. However without certainty we have to go with the less complex solution, and forging her own death threats (no matter how strange they may be) is always going to be the more complex solution without base evidence one way or the other. Now, as I said before, she may well have faked her own death threats, I am not discounting that possibility; however until we have a piece of non-circumstantial evidence that points to it being faked, we must assume it is real (at least if you go by traditional means of assuming guilt in America).

 

[Cybylt]

I can't help but feel this petition misses the spirit of all of the Tropes vs Women videos. Also all the parts where Anita explicitly states, "this isn't about taking away games."

It's a bit like protesting gun violence by participating in a mad minute, don't you think?

 

[Zontar]

I can't help but feel this petition misses the spirit of all of the Tropes vs Women videos.

You have a point, I see no way Anita can make money off of this.

 

[Mid Boss]

The funny thing is statements like

Spoiler

are pretty common and allowed to go unchallenged in SJW circles.

Here is a copy of what's being said in the reblogs of the post which is supposedly going around unchallenged. Took me all of two minutes to find the post and look at what people are saying about it. Which means you didn't even bother to fucking look. You just assumed. Proving that you're just as much of a reactionary dumb ass as the person who wrote that post!


607 notes
Jun 14th, 2014

metal-eluveitie reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

Are you stupid? Guys play games so that they don?t go outside and rape anything they see? We play them because they are...

thewhoreofasgard reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme
silentevil77 reblogged this from spiffyblargh and added:

What the fuck kinda bullshit is this This Is just ridiculous!

exotic-two likes this
philipishh reblogged this from slumkillage
the-time-sprinkler reblogged this from clitbutter
slumkillage reblogged this from clitbutter and added:

lmao

mishapocalypse-survivor likes this
marathething likes this
demon-sil reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

your logic makes no sense

skranime reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU FUUUUUUUUUUUUCKINGGGGGGGGGGGGG SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

venom517 likes this
thederpartist likes this
clementinesfuckinghat reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

Guys. It?s not just men. As a womyn I play video games 25/8 so I don?t r*pe my little brother. You dumb fuck.

vaelrisian reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

I am a 21 year old man, and I can honestly say that I cannot remember ever having any sort of urge to rape anyone. I...

pearlinperil likes this
wordsineyes reblogged this from officialjipersnoe
k-inetic reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme
sobudd reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

Playing video games prevent rape. Spread the word.

pizzagrrrlz reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

This is the shit. Not all men are rapist. People play video games because they are fun. Women also play video games....

moodynaivety reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme
sasukesluder reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

Can someone please get her some education?the stupidity level coming from her blog is incredible

nyanshadowforce reblogged this from lil-purrfect-femme and added:

I??. just??.WHAT THE JUST WHATIS THIS EVEN REAL LIFELIKEARE YOU SERIOUS

 

[tzimize]

For fucks sake.

Let's, for a minute, ignore the fact that people are asking for Valve, a company that has done absolutely nothing wrong, to shut down their business for an hour, for the fault of others.

Let's forget about that potential lawsuit Valve could have leveled at them for intentionally denying game access to their customers (Whether the lawsuit would be successful or not).

Let's gloss over how attempting to strong arm a company into emulating the SOPA outages is not the same as companies volunteering and working together towards a particular goal that is not only right for the public, but for their personal and financial benefit.

Lets just let that all go for a minute and ask one question:

Why does anyone think that because a few dumb, impotent internet hornets stung you, that setting fire to the hornet nest where millions of hornets that have no interest in coming after you live is a good idea?

This phrase may be terrible to say, but I think it applies: Why are you asking for it?

Look out people! We got actual logic here! Move along, try to ignore it as best you can! God knows we wouldnt want anyone to THINK about their actions....

On a more serious note: "sigh" and "why is this not obvious to everyone?"

 

[Naqel]

Blacking out Steam isn't going to make me angry at the people making the threats. The people asking for the black out will have pissed me off though.

Pretty sure annoying more people isn't the best way to go about things.

If anything, it would get people who make those threats(assuming they even exist), to act upon them, as a part of the escalation of conflict.

 

[Majinash]

Firstly, Compared to multiple countries across the world that still have laws limiting education, job opportunities, dress code, marriage rights, etc, the history of just about every country of widespread gender discrimination, and the fact that the number of women in political and financial power is still substantially lower than that of men. I certainly say men's rights issue do not compare.

Secondly, no one's forgetting anything, women's rights issues obviously far outweigh that of men's and as such take precedent.

Thirdly, I never said anything about intention, I have no idea where you got that from

Wait is this now a dick measuring contest of who has it worse?

In that case shouldn't we completely ignore the problems of all men and women in first world countries, and focus on all the people who have to go to sleep every night wondering if they'll be murdered in their sleep by some passing warlord, or die of Ebola, or just plain starve?

Seems pretty shitty to simply say "you guys will get your turn when we are done". Who is first in line? women? racial minorities? religious minorities? homosexuals? the poor? What order are we lining up in?