AhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaa... a Zoe Quinn movie.

[Something Amyss]

You really think 'Zoe Quinn' is a radical new identity?
She's no more oppressed for people finding out her original name than Robert Van Winkle was.

Except neither of those statements change the fact that you were wrong previously.

Also, Rob Van Winkle's identity was publicly listed. Again, this is a false comparison.

Deadnaming is not trans exclusive. She was deadnamed. You claimed otherwise on both accounts. You were wrong.

 

[Josh123914]

You really think 'Zoe Quinn' is a radical new identity?
She's no more oppressed for people finding out her original name than Robert Van Winkle was.

Except neither of those statements change the fact that you were wrong previously.

Also, Rob Van Winkle's identity was publicly listed. Again, this is a false comparison.

Deadnaming is not trans exclusive. She was deadnamed. You claimed otherwise on both accounts. You were wrong.

What's the big deal about deadnaming anyway? They're the same person. Burying the shady crap they did by changing their name (which ZQ only legally did about 3 months ago) doesn't absolve them of past wrongdoing.

Deadnaming is useful in that regard, go back 2 years and you'd be deadnaming me, because my account name was different to what it is now.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

You really think 'Zoe Quinn' is a radical new identity?
She's no more oppressed for people finding out her original name than Robert Van Winkle was.

l

Except neither of those statements change the fact that you were wrong previously.

Also, Rob Van Winkle's identity was publicly listed. Again, this is a false comparison.

Deadnaming is not trans exclusive. She was deadnamed. You claimed otherwise on both accounts. You were wrong.

Her name was public record too. Her original name does her no harm, I don't know what kind of 'gotcha' you think you have there.
Do publically listed names remove whatever harm 'deadnaming' does?

I was answering Dazzle.

I'm not sure how that at all detracts from the point made. Forums are not one on one things you realize, yes?

Read the posts properly, I never said 'deadnaming' was criticism.

I'm not having any trouble whatsoever with seeing that he talked about 'deadnaming' and you responded about criticism. I mean unless you intended to be making a total non sequitur?

 

[Dizchu]

What's the big deal about deadnaming anyway? They're the same person. Burying the shady crap they did by changing their name (which ZQ only legally did about 3 months ago) doesn't absolve them of past wrongdoing.

Deadnaming is useful in that regard, go back 2 years and you'd be deadnaming me, because my account name was different to what it is now.

I think it depends on the situation. Obviously if Ted Bundy changed his name to Ed Lundy and insisted "no, officer, you got the wrong guy" that'd be ridiculous. But I think it's completely respectable to leave someone's birth name in the past if they choose to change it.

However this whole argument depends on an analysis of Zoe Quinn's prior actions. Is she a shady individual? Absolutely. But unless she's running away from crimes she has not been held accountable for, I don't think there's any reason to bring up her prior name. It's entirely possible that she is covering up some illegal stuff, I honestly don't expect much better from her. But solid evidence is required to justify snooping around. Which is kind of a paradoxical situation, you need to violate her privacy to find this stuff and the only way to justify violating her privacy is by... violating her privacy.

Personally I'd just stay the hell away unless murder is involved (inb4 someone says it is).

 

[FireAza]

Man, looking at all the suspensions and warnings, it looks like posting in this thread is like playing Russian Roulette.

I don't really see this movie getting made. The topic is incredibly niche (who outside of people deep in the gaming community even know who these players even are?) and by the time the movie gets made, the whole GamerGate issue will have died down and been forgotten. At least, I hope it will have died down and been forgotten.

CAPTCHA "full of stars"
Don't get too ambitious, CAPTCHA.

 

[Schadrach]

Are they going to touch upon the time of her life as a porn star?

Otherwise it will be incredibly boring.

I didn't know any of the 5 guys had videoed what happened.

LOL, but seriously, she did porn for a short while (under the pseudonym "Locke") for a couple of sites that basically wanted to be Suicide Girls but weren't remotely as big. That was the source of her nudes that got passed around a year ago -- someone bought them from the sites she posed for. One of her photographers actually wrote a bit on having dealt with her as a model, and it wasn't exactly a shining representation of her, though it does paint the events as rather colorful (including Zoe Quinn admitting to stabbing someone, a bit of trespassing, etc).

If it's an actual movie I wonder how they'll show the Gamergate crowd, good chances it will be as sexist as fuck.

An endless field of identical white men who are also only about a dozen in total, some wearing masks that look like women or blacks, all screaming "GO HOME GAMER GIRL!" How else would they show them? I mean otherwise the movie might not be as good as Civ 5 with the Brave New World expansion pack.

If this is true I am hoping there's a scene when they have a chat-off over IRC, where Zoe has to out-chat the Leader of GG. That would totally be legit.

As legit as Hackers, and twice as funny.

 

[Schadrach]

"Dead naming"? Seriously? That's for trans people taking on new identities, not for slebs taking on stage names.

No no no, haven't you been following along? It's for anyone who's using a pseudonym, especially if they may have behaved badly under their legal name or other pseudonym, but only if they hold the right political views. Kind of like how "doxxing and harassing" isn't meaningfully different than "naming and shaming" as far as what the tactic involves, but rather who it is targeted at. Or how writing to attack someone's source of income is OK if they engage in wrongthink, but totally unacceptable if used against people who Partythink.

Except it's not a stage name, which is one of the reasons certain people had to actually dig it up.

"Digging it up" literally just involved doing a WHOIS on her websites (if you aren't familiar, WHOIS gives you the publicly published contact details for a domain name, as set by the person or organization that registered the domain). She was publicly listed as administrative and technical contacts on her websites, with multiple physical addresses, both her names and a couple of her email addresses. She has since changed her listings.

I have never been able to figure this one out -- is posting publicly available info on someone doxxing or not? It seems like it depends on who it is more than anything else.

For example, idledilletante posted info about Mike Cernovich (including a photo of his home) that magically wasn't doxxing because it came from a publicly available source (a professional listing), and Zoe Quinn retweeted that info (which was totally not distributing it because Zoe), but posting info about Zoe from a publicly available source was doxxing, and retweeting it was distributing dox?

Patreon did something similar where they created new rules specifically so cancelling Fredrick Brennan's patreon wouldn't just be arbitrary, but as far as I can tell they've never enforced those rules against anyone else.

I wish we'd at least have some consistent rules and guidelines for this stuff, and those rules would actually be applied across the board.

Is it ironic that I think it would be funny to see you thrown in a furnace with a couple of friends, or just hostile?

Depends on if it's just meant as play on the username or not. =p

Also, didn't see this until after you were warned. Not sure if mods acting on own or someone else reported you, but I was amused.

 

[Something Amyss]

No no no, haven't you been following along? It's for anyone who's using a pseudonym, especially if they may have behaved badly under their legal name or other pseudonym, but only if they hold the right political views. Kind of like how "doxxing and harassing" isn't meaningfully different than "naming and shaming" as far as what the tactic involves, but rather who it is targeted at. Or how writing to attack someone's source of income is OK if they engage in wrongthink, but totally unacceptable if used against people who Partythink.

Am I supposed to answer your question to me in good faith after you open your post with such a massive strawman?

Serious question, for the record. If that was just grandstanding, fine. But I'm curious as to why anyone would expect any sort of discourse when this is what's being offered.

 

[Something Amyss]

Her name was public record too.

So are trans names. The better solution than making up new rules on the fly would be to stop saying things which are untrue.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

A movie guaranteed to have at least five different sex scenes in it?

How on earth will we tell it apart from it's porn parody?

 

[R.K. Meades]

Will Ice-T read on Kotaku that it's better than Civ V with the Brave New World expansion pack?

 

[Paradoxrifts]

A movie guaranteed to have at least five different sex scenes in it?

How on earth will we tell it apart from it's porn parody?

Um, it's actually about ethics in circulating discredited memes about a random woman's sex life?

I formed my opinion while researching primary sources, while they were still available online. I do not know of these discredited memes you are referring to. These resources led me to believe that Zoe Quinn was a terrible excuse for a human being. Contrary to what social justice warriors would have us believe it is not a crime to be a terrible excuse for a human being.

We are all human, we all make mistakes to one degree or another. Nobody is perfect. To expect perfection from human beings is irrational.

However, if someone is going to get up on a soap box and begin lecturing other people on their perceived moral failings is it too much to ask that they get their fucking house in order first? That your own behaviour is both exemplary and worthy imitation before you start judging others for their shortcomings?

I find it sadly ironic that those involved in social justice are all too willing to hold other people up to impossible standards of behaviour, but will squeal the loudest when those same standards and expectations are leveled upon them.