>implying I'm a moron for having a disdain of hypocrisyKamui-Moshiri said:Was anyone apart from morons saying anything even remotely resembling that?AJ_Lethal said:"Because abuse and harassment are A-OK if I'm fighting for social justice!"
>implying that people here are definitely hypocrites and there is no way to not have cognitive dissonance on this issue from a feminist/social justice perspective but it's okay for for the other side because the victim is smaller and agrees with you.AJ_Lethal said:>implying I'm a moron for having a disdain of hypocrisyKamui-Moshiri said:Was anyone apart from morons saying anything even remotely resembling that?AJ_Lethal said:"Because abuse and harassment are A-OK if I'm fighting for social justice!"
I don't have a particular horse in this race or anything, but I've seen stuff about evidence arise here, anything to do with Anita, and the whole Zoe Quinn issue.MarsAtlas said:Yeah, you're going to have to provide actual evidence for all of this. No, getting that screencap of some forumites saying "Well I didn't see anything" doesn't count as evidence, seeing as its fairly easy to miss a flamewar even on this forum. And no, a reddit post that itself did not put forward any of its own evidence does not count as evidence of her defrauding the organization. And lastly, some idiot trying to poke holes in the screencap of the person making threats to Anita via twitter doesn't count, because even I, as somebody who uses Twitter very, very rarely, I can poke a dozen holes in their reasoning that it was fake.
>implying I did such accusationSkatologist said:>implying that people here are definitely hypocrites and there is no way to not have cognitive dissonance on this issue from a feminist/social justice perspective but it's okay for for the other side because the victim is smaller and agrees with you.AJ_Lethal said:>implying I'm a moron for having a disdain of hypocrisyKamui-Moshiri said:Was anyone apart from morons saying anything even remotely resembling that?AJ_Lethal said:"Because abuse and harassment are A-OK if I'm fighting for social justice!"
>Implying that i was serious when I actually did that for a minor lol (well at least the first part of it). Seriously though, no one here has even said they just don't straight up believe her like Sarkeesian and Quinn threads. Kumai didn't imply YOU were a moron, as far as I can tell that, he was saying those okay with the harassment in the name of SJ are morons and no one here takes them seriously either. So yeah, mind if you wipe that egg off your face and admit when you misinterpreted someone else's words?AJ_Lethal said:>implying I did such accusationSkatologist said:>implying that people here are definitely hypocrites and there is no way to not have cognitive dissonance on this issue from a feminist/social justice perspective but it's okay for for the other side because the victim is smaller and agrees with you.AJ_Lethal said:>implying I'm a moron for having a disdain of hypocrisyKamui-Moshiri said:Was anyone apart from morons saying anything even remotely resembling that?AJ_Lethal said:"Because abuse and harassment are A-OK if I'm fighting for social justice!"
Or a release that was rushed out so fast it was effectively unplayable until patched by the developer. Or stupid copy protection like code wheels or cryptograms printed in the instruction manual. Yeah, I miss those times as well. The problems were still bad, but they had solutions. This sort of thing...it's got no fix, other than society wide change. That's a long, slow, painful, and sometimes bloody process that spans generations. Assuming, that is, that Moore's Law doesn't apply to societal shifts as well.Asuka Soryu said:I really do miss the days when the biggest complaint in video games was a glitch.
eh, whatever. no beef here.Skatologist said:>Implying that i was serious when I actually did that for a minor lol (well at least the first part of it). Seriously though, no one here has even said they just don't straight up believe her like Sarkeesian and Quinn threads. AJ Lethal didn't imply YOU were a moron, as far as I can tell that, he was saying those okay with the harassment in the name of SJ are morons and no one here takes them seriously either. So yeah, mind if you wipe that egg off your face and admit when you misinterpreted someone else's words?AJ_Lethal said:>implying I did such accusationSkatologist said:>implying that people here are definitely hypocrites and there is no way to not have cognitive dissonance on this issue from a feminist/social justice perspective but it's okay for for the other side because the victim is smaller and agrees with you.AJ_Lethal said:>implying I'm a moron for having a disdain of hypocrisyKamui-Moshiri said:Was anyone apart from morons saying anything even remotely resembling that?AJ_Lethal said:"Because abuse and harassment are A-OK if I'm fighting for social justice!"
Doesn't make it right to harass her, but it took me about two minutes to stumble across a video where she's mocking the harassment of people she doesn't agree with.disgruntledgamer said:
How much you want to bet Journalist will ignore this completely and try to sweep it under the rung because you know this act of harassment wasn't committed by a man?
Not exactly, look carefully:MarsAtlas said:As for what goes for internet evidence, circumstantial evidence does not count. Going "Look, they were logged in while they made that screencap! Totally fake" isn't viable because it presumes that a person behaves in a very specific pattern, and that all deviations from such are not viable. It reminds me of all those assholes who, during the Sandy Hook shooting, went "Look, that parent who just had their children isn't behaving in the singular way that I approve of!", which is especially notorious because when people do, they'll just say it was bullshit. If somebody who was logged in when they grabbed a screencap of those threats toward Anita, they'd have to black out their name to avoid massive harassment, which would mean people would go "well obviously it was made while they were logged into that account!". If they did post their name, then a bunch of people would just go "Well they're obviously in cahoots with Anita! Anita was logged out while they screencapped!" and if Anita herself screencapped it, people would just plain be saying "well obviously somebody else was paid to do it by Anita! How else could she be so prepared?" Its an extremely notorious line of thinking that allows somebody to shape the narrative, in any way possible.