Gamer Girl Jayd3Fox Bullied off web by Feminist

[Skatologist]

I can't find myself being offended by it. It's just the Right Wing Hitler card. Every time they use the term, they officially lose the argument... because if you can't make your case without using self-evident hyperbole, then I pretty much assume you're blowing everything else out of proportion, too.

I freaking HATE that stupid "rule" especially because the "lose the argument" part isn't even godwins law. godwins law is simply "as the post count in any online debate rises, the probability of something being compared to the nazis rises to 1"

NOTHING about "losing the argument"

I would think he has such a rule for himself (you're right, it's not an internet law or rule, just a person's opinion on when they stop taking someone seriously) because such comparison is faulty on multiple levels. It is often a show of desperation from one side to another and almost clearly implies that that person making the comparison can not/will not respect their opposition. He also said in the same post that he felt similarly about somebody calling someone else a misogynist and I usually do the same when someone calls someone else an asshole or racist, even if I think it is true. Name calling isn't an argument, it's quite honestly a fallacy and should be seen as such.

 

[Elijin]

Why is it significant that she's a feminist? Or allegedly one?

Because that kind of bullying has been happening since always. Boys calling girls names, Girls calling other girls names. This isnt some new form of feminist based issue. People have bullied others for always, especially in roles which can be linked with a sexual nature, however loosely.


For comparison, this would be like a news article based on a school shooting, where the headline was 'Gamer shoots up school'. What relevance does the title given to the wrong doer have other than to confirm or encourage bias?


Then again, if you drain away the bias of the title, this boils down to 'Streamer bullied into giving up streaming', which I guess doesnt make quite the splash you're looking for?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Why is it significant that she's a feminist? Or allegedly one?

Because that kind of bullying has been happening since always. Boys calling girls names, Girls calling other girls names. This isnt some new form of feminist based issue. People have bullied others for always, especially in roles which can be linked with a sexual nature, however loosely.


For comparison, this would be like a news article based on a school shooting, where the headline was 'Gamer shoots up school'. What relevance does the title given to the wrong doer have other than to confirm or encourage bias?


Then again, if you drain away the bias of the title, this boils down to 'Streamer bullied into giving up streaming', which I guess doesnt make quite the splash you're looking for?

The issue I think is the hypocrisy of someone who fits the SJW narrative doing something like that.

 

[Elijin]

Why is it significant that she's a feminist? Or allegedly one?

Because that kind of bullying has been happening since always. Boys calling girls names, Girls calling other girls names. This isnt some new form of feminist based issue. People have bullied others for always, especially in roles which can be linked with a sexual nature, however loosely.


For comparison, this would be like a news article based on a school shooting, where the headline was 'Gamer shoots up school'. What relevance does the title given to the wrong doer have other than to confirm or encourage bias?


Then again, if you drain away the bias of the title, this boils down to 'Streamer bullied into giving up streaming', which I guess doesnt make quite the splash you're looking for?

The issue I think is the hypocrisy of someone who fits the SJW narrative doing something like that.

So your issue is that someone who partakes in an group or ideal, can still be an asshole? Because thats what this was. Someone being an asshole to another person. Their belief system is only relevant for stirring the pot.

 

[Agayek]

So your issue is that someone who partakes in an group or ideal, can still be an asshole? Because thats what this was. Someone being an asshole to another person. Their belief system is only relevant for stirring the pot.

I think they meant less "Someone in a group can't/shouldn't be an asshole" and more "The people who have previously decried this exact thing and made it a public furor have remained steadfastly silent on this particular matter, and it reeks of hypocrisy".

 

[Elijin]

So your issue is that someone who partakes in an group or ideal, can still be an asshole? Because thats what this was. Someone being an asshole to another person. Their belief system is only relevant for stirring the pot.

I think they meant less "Someone in a group can't/shouldn't be an asshole" and more "The people who have previously decried this exact thing and made it a public furor have remained steadfastly silent on this particular matter, and it reeks of hypocrisy".

Well, to play the devils advocate, the times it has received coverage it has been with already established personalities, and cases where it is apparently happening en masse.

As compared to a streamer who may or may not be smalltime, and a single threat.

If anything, it lends the news sites some credibility, as they havent taken a single threat made by one individual towards another and turned it into a rallying cry against the group that person is apparently in.

 

[ExileNZ]

Sides of the argument aside, the sad music was a bit much. Did she add that, or the person reposting?

 

[Revolutionary]

I'm gonna' be balanced and say the same thing I said in the Sarkeesian thread. Okay...where's your proof?
Basically I'm at the point where I require full documented proof or I think your full of shit. I must refer back to a classical internet proverb "pics or it didn't happen."

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

y'know guys, I think the OP is trying to imply that this sounds exactly like the cases with Anita and Zoe, but since the evil person wasn't a man, the indie-circles, feminist circles, game "journalists", won't report on this because it doesn't fit their narrative. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.

One of the reasons certain cases get coverage is there's a substantial visible trail that lends objective supporting proof to the statements. You can go on YouTube and find a ton of extremely crude comments which make the accusations more substantial. I was just reading a piece on the Anita/Zoe situation and the guy is linking stuff left, right, and center. Not to YouTube commentary of people agreeing with her, links to people making similar attacks. The goal is to create an indisputable case that abuse is happening.

I don't know terribly much about this situation beyond a couple of her videos. The only evidence I see of the phone call is in her account of it, which I don't doubt. But if we're going to blame this on Feminists (and not just random assholes from gaming sites), then let's find some really nasty stuff said about her from Feminist sites and link those. If you want this to be a story, then you want to establish a trend of behavior.

And feminists will be the first to tell you that there's some crazy feminists out there. If there's a pattern of abuse, it shouldn't be too hard to track down. Do feminists spend hours upon hours refuting her videos? Do they rail against on her on their forums? I guarantee you that Zoe and Anita laid an entire package at the feet of the media, not just one incident. Reporters generally don't have a lot of time, so they can't chase down every story. Give them a story, give them the tools to verify it, and you've got a much better chance of them picking up on it.

I guess Youtube comments and twitter do contain hard evidence of harassment, but I doubt someone being attacked online by trolls counts as a genuine story each time it happens. And as far as I know, railing against someone on forums or spending hours refuting someone's assertions doesn't count as harassment.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted what you've said, please tell me if this is so.

No, but they are coming with more serious accusations of abuse, which aren't always so well documented.

We only have Jayd3Fox's word that she received that phone call. It didn't happen on-line for all the world to see, so if you're a media outlet or the police, you have to consider the possibility that it's a false report. You supply links to lots and lots of hate-filled comments, then it lends a lot of credibility to the more serious, undocumented accusations.

And how do we know it was feminists behind it. For all we know it's someone who has a personal reason for hating her and used her on-line activities as cover. If you can establish there is indeed a feminist backlash against her, then this leads credence to the person doing the harassing is a feminist.

People do come forth with more serious accusations that lack proof, but no one raised the question when Zoe Quinn said she was getting harassing phone calls from 4chan or Wizardchan, yet outlets reported on it just the same without further digging. I just think it'd be nice if some outlets stopped reporting on trolls/unprovable accusations full stop. They only cause shitstorms in the end.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'm surprised that people really care about these "issues". It just seems like a big fake drama to me from day one.

 

[Something Amyss]

People do come forth with more serious accusations that lack proof, but no one raised the question when Zoe Quinn said she was getting harassing phone calls from 4chan or Wizardchan, yet outlets reported on it just the same without further digging.

Nobody except literally thousands of forum dwellers who are now taking this instance as gospel.

That's the real problem. This isn't about evidence. It's about validating "your side." And the fact of the matter is, if everyone hadn't accused teh evul faminists of lying for attention, virtually nobody would have said anything about Jayd3dfox. My first thought was "Oh, that's horrible." Then I start to see rabid defenses by the same folks who just days ago were willing to construct elaborate conspiracy theories to insist that everyone who's claimed to have been threatened on the other side of the coin is lying. The problem is, when MRM shits decided to go down that road, they made it the acceptable standard.

Anyone who has a problem with questioning Jayd3dfox should have said something earlier when people were flat out accusing everyone who said something they didn't like with making it up for attention. Now? Well, there's an old saying: sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

In short:

If one is going to utilize the same brutal level of scrutiny for both sides, she actually does. Her channel, after all, is monetized.

 

[VanQ]

Nobody except literally thousands of forum dwellers who are now taking this instance as gospel.

That's the real problem. This isn't about evidence. It's about validating "your side." And the fact of the matter is, if everyone hadn't accused teh evul misogynists of sending rape and death threats, virtually nobody would have said anything about Anita or Zoe. My first thought was "Oh, that's horrible." Then I start to see rabid defenses by the same folks who just days ago were willing to construct elaborate conspiracy theories to insist that everyone who's claimed to not hate women on the other side of the coin is lying. The problem is, when SJW shits decided to go down that road, they made it the acceptable standard.

Seriously. A female dev's word and a couple of screenshots is good enough to insist that hordes of internet males are misogynists and hate women, but it's different when it doesn't "validate your side."

If I was on any "side" it would be the side that reports on these things without bias and doesn't feed into peoples' victim complexes.

 

[Something Amyss]

Seriously. A female dev's word and a couple of screenshots is good enough to insist that hordes of internet males are misogynists and hate women, but it's different when it doesn't "validate your side."

It's different when you're asked to evaluate based on the standard that everyone was a liar up until a FEMINIST was the (alleged) bully, yes. But that's not what you said, and unfortunately, you had to ignore part of my post to try and force that point. It's almost like people are crying specifically because the same standard they were holding "SJWs" to is now being used against them or something.

But that doesn't flip as easily, so I can see why you finessed it.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

I get threatened by males all the time. They want to rape my mother / sister / girlfriend / me or threaten to find me and kill my entire family. Maybe I just don't have a survival instinct and should run away from home and the internet...

Spoiler: Pftftftf

 

[michael87cn]

Um, well, I looked at the playlist posted in the OP, but admittedly don't have access to sound right now. But, what I saw was a girl posing her boobs and butt all over the place and at one point in a video she jerked off a dildo...

WHAT'S GOING ON?!@?!

A couple videos into the playlist she had a video called "Donations and Amazon Wishlist" where she seemed to show things people could buy for her. I think the next video was her posing half naked in a raunchy suit bending over or something...

Uhhhhh.... I don't think this person is a good example for gamers? I hope that doesn't sound offensive, but she seems like a youtube attention whore..... you know, the kind of person that posts breasts on their thumbnail to get views, and purposely has massive cleavage for the whole video... on all her videos....

 

[Something Amyss]

Thats actually absolutely incorrect. I literally just logged out of Twitter, and used the URL "www.twitter.com/search" (something I have bookmarked btw), which allows you to search without being logged in. I searched "@femfreq", which led me to see tweets sent at her. Then I just right-clicked and pressed "open in new tab", voila! My search is empty, I'm not logged in, and I can see a bunch of tweets from somebody.

I'd also note one of the other grievances is the whole "12 seconds since the last tweet" thing.

This assumes that the person doing such a thing (for example, logging out so they could screencap without their username) started to do so only after the last post. This is an assumption of convenience. That it was only after that last tweet that anyone cared. Not during the part two minutes prior when the threatened to rape her or shove a tire iron up her. The screen capper might have thought it was over at any point. Or not, I don't know. The point is, assuming the opposite to exclusion is a conspiracy theory tactic. "How did they know to screen cap it 12 seconds after the final tweet?" Why do we assume this is the final tweet (is there evidence that this is all that was written?), and why do we assume they only started acting at that point?

 

[DrOswald]

Whoever harassed her over the phone is no feminist, even if they claim to be. That is exactly the kind of behaviour feminism is meant to fight against.

This is going to be a long answer, but I think it is important you understand exactly why that response doesn't work.

I think this reaction is exactly what the OP is looking for. You basically just said "not all feminists" to us.

There are a number of issues associated with feminism and gaming going around right now, and one of the biggest is the mass assumption of guilt of all gamers. Even if a gamer isn't sexist they still get the flak for being sexist. Right now there is a petition going around to shut down Steam for an hour in protest to the harassment Anita received. There are all sorts of problems with the idea, but one of the biggest is best shown in this quote from the proposal:

"If the games community as a whole refuses to police itself, we feel that games distributors and the industry as a whole should make some gesture strongly condeming this kind of intimidation."

Another quote from a different article:

"When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you?re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum."

From Devin Faraci - "Gamers, you're like a dumb terrorist who blows himself up making his jihad video. Well done."

The general attitude is that because all gamers are part of gaming culture the gamers who are not sexist are responsible for the behavior of the gamers who are sexist. Because gamers "allow" this sort of thing in their culture gamers in general are responsible for the harassment. We are told to police our own. All self proclaimed gamers (members of the gaming culture) are responsible for the behavior of all other self proclaimed gamers because if we really cared we would prevent this sort of thing. We wouldn't allow it in gaming culture.

Some gamers, naturally, don't like this. They are being held accountable and, lets be clear here, attacked for the actions of some other anonymous persons they cannot possibly control. This puts a significant number of gamers on the defensive, which then try to defend themselves. It's like the #notallmen thing. Trying to defend gamers in general as not sexist (just that there is a small but loud percentage of us) is seen as proof of sexism.

So then a self professed feminist is acting like an ass. So the charge is made by these defensive gamers: Why can't you police your own? After all, by your own argument, a culture that allows this sort of thing is responsible for those actions.

Of course, neither side can control their extremist. It is impossible to do so. No one in the history of mankind has been able to do so. I am not sure why we suddenly expect people to be able to do so when the extremists suddenly have near perfect anonymity to hide behind. It is ludicrous.

That's the problem. Vast over generalizations and frankly stupid behavior on both sides has made this not a war about defeating sexism but a war about who is responsible for the reprehensible behavior of others. And that is just one small aspect of this whole debacle.