Jimquisition: The Wacky Harassment Blame Parade

[b3nn3tt]

Also, Schadenfraude is apart of human nature. Until it's not, trolls are going to exist.

That does not mean we should excuse their behavior. But neither does that mean that we can plead innocence when we purposely seek them out. Besides, these trolls feed on attention. Surely "do not feed the trolls" is sound advice still?

There is a massive difference between Schadenfreude and threatening somebody and their family. Schadenfreude is a largely vicarious enjoyment in the misery of others, it's something different if you're the one causing that misery.

Further to that, who's actively seeking out trolls? This is the same argument I see brought up whenever something like this kicks off, and I'm yet to see definitive proof of anyone actively seeking out threats from random internet strangers. Regardless, that still doesn't excuse the behaviour of people that act like this. This is victim-blaming of the highest order, and there is no need for it.

This goes right back to what Jim was talking about in the video; coming up with an excuse as to why the aggrieved party 'deserved it'. They didn't. They never do.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm sure the trolls are delighted that their exploits continually get given attention by internet journalists and celebrities. It's surely far greater validation than anything any one faceless user could possibly offer.

 

[Deadcyde]

Also, Schadenfraude is apart of human nature. Until it's not, trolls are going to exist.

That does not mean we should excuse their behavior. But neither does that mean that we can plead innocence when we purposely seek them out. Besides, these trolls feed on attention. Surely "do not feed the trolls" is sound advice still?

There is a massive difference between Schadenfreude and threatening somebody and their family. Schadenfreude is a largely vicarious enjoyment in the misery of others, it's something different if you're the one causing that misery.

Further to that, who's actively seeking out trolls? This is the same argument I see brought up whenever something like this kicks off, and I'm yet to see definitive proof of anyone actively seeking out threats from random internet strangers. Regardless, that still doesn't excuse the behaviour of people that act like this. This is victim-blaming of the highest order, and there is no need for it.

This goes right back to what Jim was talking about in the video; coming up with an excuse as to why the aggrieved party 'deserved it'. They didn't. They never do.

Victim blaming.. Victim means innocence. If you antagonize someone you are not innocent and you need to accept responsibility for your actions. You cannot expect everyone to sympathise with you if you encouraged the trouble. What you "deserve" is inconsequential. That is how life works.

 

[Deadcyde]

ugh. won't let me delete it.

By it, meaning this double post

 

[b3nn3tt]

Also, Schadenfraude is apart of human nature. Until it's not, trolls are going to exist.

That does not mean we should excuse their behavior. But neither does that mean that we can plead innocence when we purposely seek them out. Besides, these trolls feed on attention. Surely "do not feed the trolls" is sound advice still?

There is a massive difference between Schadenfreude and threatening somebody and their family. Schadenfreude is a largely vicarious enjoyment in the misery of others, it's something different if you're the one causing that misery.

Further to that, who's actively seeking out trolls? This is the same argument I see brought up whenever something like this kicks off, and I'm yet to see definitive proof of anyone actively seeking out threats from random internet strangers. Regardless, that still doesn't excuse the behaviour of people that act like this. This is victim-blaming of the highest order, and there is no need for it.

This goes right back to what Jim was talking about in the video; coming up with an excuse as to why the aggrieved party 'deserved it'. They didn't. They never do.

Victim blaming.. Victim means innocence. If you antagonize someone you are not innocent and you need to accept responsibility for your actions. You cannot expect everyone to sympathise with you if you encouraged the trouble. What you "deserve" is inconsequential. That is how life works.

Zoe Quinn antagonised the people abusing her? How? When? More to the point, why? I haven't seen anything to suggest that she "encouraged" any of this.

 

[Bruce]

Funny, you keep putting the onus of evidence upon me... I'm not the one saying I was harrassed, no?

Where's her evidence apart from a couple of out of context neckbeard comments which unless she went to the site purposely mysteriously coalesced out of nowhere.

EDIT: That's not the source BTW. There is no source. Because it's made up. Find me the original thread on wizardchan. That would be the point right? Probably far more then your constant need to attack me.

Because without evidence she was actually attacked, this is all coincidental. Right?

EDIT EDIT: also, read up on the rules of wizard chan and the board this all apparently came from (v9k or whatever). Explain to me wtf she was even doing there if not to antagonize.

for those that don't want to look, wizardchan is a site specifically for Male virgins over the age of 30 and v9k is the depression board in which women, or men in relationships, are specifically asked not to enter and discussion about women expressly forbidden

Who said she was there at all before the harassment began? You. You're the one making these claims with precisely nothing to back them up.

 

[Lightknight]

What Jim is touching on here is the bystander effect. That otherwise decent members of the community do not give assistance to victims if other witnesses are present. As the number of bystanders increases, the liklihood that any single person will be the first to act decreases.

People have died because of this natural tendency. It's likely because of a sense of diffused responsibility. Many victims would be better off if there had been only one witness to their assault because that person may have then acted.

In places where we can determine who the individuals are, they should be held accountable for their actions. Harrassment being a problem. Both the people who harrassed her and the people who specifically encouraged it as something she deserved are at fault here. The internet is full with people like this. Those who troll around and those who actively encourage those trolls. As long as the community is passive, they will win out as the norm. If enough individuals shake off the bystander effect and try to be the first to act, these kind of people won't get anywhere as far as they do now.

To say that a person cannot respond or retaliate, even in anger, when someone attacks them in this manner is wrong. She may have made some unwise decisions in retaliation. I don't know and I'm not going to spend time researching it, but that doesn't mean she deserved those kinds of actions to begin with and it doesn't mean she should somehow be punished for responding to them further. That's ridiculous. Every one of us typically gets defensive if someone treats us that way. Why do we get to look down our noses when someone else does it? Retaliation for being attacked is not antagonising anymore than self defense is assault. If someone throws a punch in self defense because they just got hit and then gets the shit kicked out of them, do we blame them for trying to defend themselves? That's dumb. Of course we don't. This woman was being harrassed and was just trying to defend herself. It's not her fault that she was assaulted in the first place and it's not her fault for defending herself.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm sure the trolls are delighted that their exploits continually get given attention by internet journalists and celebrities. It's surely far greater validation than anything any one faceless user could possibly offer.

It would be interesting to see their usernames and pertinent information included in such a piece. I wonder how trolls that view themselves as righteous in their trolling would view trolling these trolls right back? Not that I condone such eye for an eye nonsense. I'm merely wondering what would happen if anything. Would they, in turn, be harrassed and shamed for their actions when anonymity is broken? Seems like the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory would be applicable when taking away that one component that seems to make everyone an ass. The anonymity or lack of fear of consequence.

 

[Deadcyde]

Also, Schadenfraude is apart of human nature. Until it's not, trolls are going to exist.

That does not mean we should excuse their behavior. But neither does that mean that we can plead innocence when we purposely seek them out. Besides, these trolls feed on attention. Surely "do not feed the trolls" is sound advice still?

There is a massive difference between Schadenfreude and threatening somebody and their family. Schadenfreude is a largely vicarious enjoyment in the misery of others, it's something different if you're the one causing that misery.

Further to that, who's actively seeking out trolls? This is the same argument I see brought up whenever something like this kicks off, and I'm yet to see definitive proof of anyone actively seeking out threats from random internet strangers. Regardless, that still doesn't excuse the behaviour of people that act like this. This is victim-blaming of the highest order, and there is no need for it.

This goes right back to what Jim was talking about in the video; coming up with an excuse as to why the aggrieved party 'deserved it'. They didn't. They never do.

Victim blaming.. Victim means innocence. If you antagonize someone you are not innocent and you need to accept responsibility for your actions. You cannot expect everyone to sympathise with you if you encouraged the trouble. What you "deserve" is inconsequential. That is how life works.

Zoe Quinn antagonised the people abusing her? How? When? More to the point, why? I haven't seen anything to suggest that she "encouraged" any of this.

Why else was she on a male only site on a board that forbids even discussing women? You can't prove she didn't antagonize them. I imagine the how would be with that evidence I've been asking bruce for that he continues to ignore in favor of attacking my arguement. Failing to even realize the flaw in his. You haven't even seen evidence to suggest this is actualy what happened and that it's not a complete fabrication let alone a simply biased one. The point of that board is you can post -anonymously- can you prove she didn't write them herself? Can you prove she didn't antagonize the apparent harrassers (seeing as she had no reason to even be there to get the screen caps.... ) Can you prove that there was actually more then one harasser, can you prove that this isn't a publicity stunt.

YOu and bruce can attack my points all you want but you can't answer those questions so as far as I see your points are empty. You're defending coincidence at best and a hoax at worst. But hey, I can't prove that either so I must be the one that's wrong... Never mind that i'm not the one claiming i was harassed and that the gamer community (you included) must be ashamed for not leashing and gagging these misanthropes..

when you're done arguing for the sake of being right, find that evidence to support the claims you're defending. Bet you can't. If you can't, doesn't matter what I have to say, because you can't prove it wrong either......

 

[Deadcyde]

Funny, you keep putting the onus of evidence upon me... I'm not the one saying I was harrassed, no?

Where's her evidence apart from a couple of out of context neckbeard comments which unless she went to the site purposely mysteriously coalesced out of nowhere.

EDIT: That's not the source BTW. There is no source. Because it's made up. Find me the original thread on wizardchan. That would be the point right? Probably far more then your constant need to attack me.

Because without evidence she was actually attacked, this is all coincidental. Right?

EDIT EDIT: also, read up on the rules of wizard chan and the board this all apparently came from (v9k or whatever). Explain to me wtf she was even doing there if not to antagonize.

for those that don't want to look, wizardchan is a site specifically for Male virgins over the age of 30 and v9k is the depression board in which women, or men in relationships, are specifically asked not to enter and discussion about women expressly forbidden

Who said she was there at all before the harassment began? You. You're the one making these claims with precisely nothing to back them up.

How did she get the screen caps, how did she know to go there? You can't link on to Chans on steam.. soooo she had foreknowledge.. use your brain.

Simply put, unless you can prove she didn't antagonise them, the possibility she did casts reasonable doubt upon her innocence. In a court of law that equals case dismissal.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Victim blaming.. Victim means innocence. If you antagonize someone you are not innocent and you need to accept responsibility for your actions. You cannot expect everyone to sympathise with you if you encouraged the trouble. What you "deserve" is inconsequential. That is how life works.

Zoe Quinn antagonised the people abusing her? How? When? More to the point, why? I haven't seen anything to suggest that she "encouraged" any of this.

Why else was she on a male only site on a board that forbids even discussing women? You can't prove she didn't antagonize them. I imagine the how would be with that evidence I've been asking bruce for that he continues to ignore in favor of attacking my arguement. Failing to even realize the flaw in his. You haven't even seen evidence to suggest this is actualy what happened and that it's not a complete fabrication let alone a simply biased one. The point of that board is you can post -anonymously- can you prove she didn't write them herself? Can you prove she didn't antagonize the apparent harrassers (seeing as she had no reason to even be there to get the screen caps.... ) Can you prove that there was actually more then one harasser, can you prove that this isn't a publicity stunt.

YOu and bruce can attack my points all you want but you can't answer those questions so as far as I see your points are empty. You're defending coincidence at best and a hoax at worst. But hey, I can't prove that either so I must be the one that's wrong... Never mind that i'm not the one claiming i was harassed and that the gamer community (you included) must be ashamed for not leashing and gagging these misanthropes..

when you're done arguing for the sake of being right, find that evidence to support the claims you're defending. Bet you can't. If you can't, doesn't matter what I have to say, because you can't prove it wrong either......

No, I can't prove a negative. It's logically impossible. But that's beside the point, you are the one claiming something (she antagonised people), so the burden of proof lies with you I'm afraid.

I'm far more inclined to believe that she was actually harassed by people than that she set this whole thing up as a publicity stunt. For the simple reason that it's the far simpler explanation, and doesn't veer towards conspiracy theory territory.

I'm fine with dropping the argument at this point too, because I honestly can't see any way that I would be able to change your views on this, given that I can't prove that Zoe Quinn didn't do something. If you would like to back up your claims with some sort of proof to back up your claims that she antagonised a message board, then I will be all ears.

Good day to you sir *tips hat*

 

[MPgmr]

Seriously 4chan isn't a hivemind where everyone has the same opinion and not all users are responsible for everything that a minority of users do. This is akin to blaming everyone with an account at the Escapist for one reviewer giving a game a bad review. In summary just because a minority of a larger group acts badly doesn't mean everyone in this group is equally bad, nor should they all be tarred with the same brush simply because it's easier than actually trying to figure out who should be blamed.

This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

As a frequent /v/ user, I can with 100% certainty say we've been dealing with a massive case of Poe's Law and shitposters that started around the time of the first /v/gas [footnote]which in hindsight were an awful idea that many of us have since disowned, but a handful of (figurative) fags for some reason keep making them. Please do not encourage those people.[/footnote]. If you ever see a wave of explicitly sexist posts anywhere, it's either filth from /b/ or /pol/, trolls or aforementioned Poe's Law people that actually think we're sexist/racist/edgy preteens/etc., which should either be:

1) IGNORED, depriving them of the attention("delicious tears") they're looking for, or if you're feeling confident,
2) told to go back to /b/,/pol/, Gamespot's "System Wars" forum or something, in a broken-record manner,[footnote]ONLY use this if you are absolutely sure that you know what you're doing, and should only be done two or three times in a single instance[/footnote]

and then reported for good measure. No, reporting is not giving them attention; as long as you do not acknowledge them in a way that they can respond in an effective manner, you're breaking the cycle.

Yes, we don't like a lot of people in or around the industry (Hamburger Helper, Anita, anyone writing for Slowtaku, etc.) for many reasons (terrible writing, flimsy reasoning, clickbaiting, etc.), but NEVER, NEVER for any intrinsic trait such as race/sex/gender/whatever.

TL;DR - Don't blame 4chan's /v/, we're got our own crap we're trying to deal with. Don't blame entire demographics, either; it doesn't solve anything and ultimately amounts to stirring the pot.


[HEADING=1]P.S. - 4chan had nothing to do with the Depression Quest dev. As was stated very early in the thread, that was Wizardchan's doing, NOT us.[/HEADING]
[small]P.S.S. - Joel McHale was the only redeeming thing about VGX[/small]

Edited, formatted, and self-quoted for visibility since I ain't gonna repeat it again. I'm out, my planet needs me.[footnote]Note: MPgmr died on the way back to /v/.[/footnote] Have a good Festivus, peeps.

 

[Deadcyde]

Victim blaming.. Victim means innocence. If you antagonize someone you are not innocent and you need to accept responsibility for your actions. You cannot expect everyone to sympathise with you if you encouraged the trouble. What you "deserve" is inconsequential. That is how life works.

Zoe Quinn antagonised the people abusing her? How? When? More to the point, why? I haven't seen anything to suggest that she "encouraged" any of this.

Why else was she on a male only site on a board that forbids even discussing women? You can't prove she didn't antagonize them. I imagine the how would be with that evidence I've been asking bruce for that he continues to ignore in favor of attacking my arguement. Failing to even realize the flaw in his. You haven't even seen evidence to suggest this is actualy what happened and that it's not a complete fabrication let alone a simply biased one. The point of that board is you can post -anonymously- can you prove she didn't write them herself? Can you prove she didn't antagonize the apparent harrassers (seeing as she had no reason to even be there to get the screen caps.... ) Can you prove that there was actually more then one harasser, can you prove that this isn't a publicity stunt.

YOu and bruce can attack my points all you want but you can't answer those questions so as far as I see your points are empty. You're defending coincidence at best and a hoax at worst. But hey, I can't prove that either so I must be the one that's wrong... Never mind that i'm not the one claiming i was harassed and that the gamer community (you included) must be ashamed for not leashing and gagging these misanthropes..

when you're done arguing for the sake of being right, find that evidence to support the claims you're defending. Bet you can't. If you can't, doesn't matter what I have to say, because you can't prove it wrong either......

No, I can't prove a negative. It's logically impossible. But that's beside the point, you are the one claiming something (she antagonised people), so the burden of proof lies with you I'm afraid.

I'm far more inclined to believe that she was actually harassed by people than that she set this whole thing up as a publicity stunt. For the simple reason that it's the far simpler explanation, and doesn't veer towards conspiracy theory territory.

I'm fine with dropping the argument at this point too, because I honestly can't see any way that I would be able to change your views on this, given that I can't prove that Zoe Quinn didn't do something. If you would like to back up your claims with some sort of proof to back up your claims that she antagonised a message board, then I will be all ears.

Good day to you sir *tips hat*

So you can't prove she didn't antagonize them, so that means that there is a possibility she did... finally you've admitted it. In fact neither of us can prove anything substantial

I'm happy to leave it at that.

 

[Bruce]

Funny, you keep putting the onus of evidence upon me... I'm not the one saying I was harrassed, no?

Where's her evidence apart from a couple of out of context neckbeard comments which unless she went to the site purposely mysteriously coalesced out of nowhere.

EDIT: That's not the source BTW. There is no source. Because it's made up. Find me the original thread on wizardchan. That would be the point right? Probably far more then your constant need to attack me.

Because without evidence she was actually attacked, this is all coincidental. Right?

EDIT EDIT: also, read up on the rules of wizard chan and the board this all apparently came from (v9k or whatever). Explain to me wtf she was even doing there if not to antagonize.

for those that don't want to look, wizardchan is a site specifically for Male virgins over the age of 30 and v9k is the depression board in which women, or men in relationships, are specifically asked not to enter and discussion about women expressly forbidden

Who said she was there at all before the harassment began? You. You're the one making these claims with precisely nothing to back them up.

How did she get the screen caps, how did she know to go there? You can't link on steam to chans.. soooo she had foreknowledge.. use your brain. Nonetheless.. like i said, you can't prove that what i'm saying is untrue so I need no proof. Only. you. do.

Or alternatively somebody told her, maybe one of the people phoning her let it slip, and she Googled.

There are all sorts of claims you could say that I can't disprove - that doesn't mean jack shit.

I could claim to have a pet unicorn that shits yetis on planet Mars, which I visit on the weekends in my invisible space ship and you couldn't prove that statement untrue. That wouldn't magically give me the unicorn or the space ship.

She can demonstrate that she has been harassed, that the source of the harassment was in fact those boards, and that according to the harassers, they did it specifically because she is female.

She has evidence on her side, you have little more than conjecture and assumptions you have pulled out of your ass.

 

[b3nn3tt]

No, I can't prove a negative. It's logically impossible. But that's beside the point, you are the one claiming something (she antagonised people), so the burden of proof lies with you I'm afraid.

I'm far more inclined to believe that she was actually harassed by people than that she set this whole thing up as a publicity stunt. For the simple reason that it's the far simpler explanation, and doesn't veer towards conspiracy theory territory.

I'm fine with dropping the argument at this point too, because I honestly can't see any way that I would be able to change your views on this, given that I can't prove that Zoe Quinn didn't do something. If you would like to back up your claims with some sort of proof to back up your claims that she antagonised a message board, then I will be all ears.

Good day to you sir *tips hat*

So you can't prove she didn't antagonize them, so that means that there is a possibility she did... finally you've admitted it. In fact neither of us can prove anything substantial

I'm happy to leave it at that.

There's also the possibility that she is secretly a bear. Or that she doesn't truly exist, and is merely a creation of Jim's twisted imagination. The fact that something is a possibility doesn't give it any credence whatsoever in an argument.

As much as I hate myself for not just dropping this now, I'm curious as to why you are so vehemently opposed to the idea that she was genuinely being harassed by people for no reason. I am at least open to the possibility that it is a publicity stunt, although I remain highly sceptical of it. You seem utterly unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, Zoe Quinn has been the victim of harassment.

 

[chiefohara]

Pathetic.

The fact that people are trying to justify this harassment is also pathetic.

Gaming culture is pathetic. The fact that there STILL needs to be a discussion on why this bullshit is tolerated and rationalised away is WHY gaming culture is pathetic.

For the tin foil hats turning logic on its head saying this is a PR stunt, why? what the hell does it matter? This is contemptible behaviour regardless of how it started. Nothing justify's this sickness.

I love gaming, i love talking about games, but this ... if defending or excusing this shit in any way is part of what constitutes the culture of a gamer then I'm not a gamer and never will be.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yes, we don't like a lot of people in or around the industry (Hamburger Helper, Anita, anyone writing for Slowtaku, etc.) for many reasons (terrible writing, flimsy reasoning, clickbaiting, etc.), but NEVER, NEVER for any intrinsic trait such as race/sex/gender/whatever.

You agee with someon who says you're not a hivemind, then you go and explicitly state that none of you ever do a specific thing. Kind of odd.

I also note the use of Kotaku. Hasn't /v/ been the origin or more than one false article used to slander one of the women on that site pretty much solely for that reason? People blame bad writing but it always (far as I've had any reason to note) comes back to an article that can be traced back to /v/, rather than her own writing.

Of course, I'm sure that no true Scotsman would ever fake an article to attack someone, and that every bad person in the community must be a poe or a troll, but that goes back to the hivemind thing....

 

[Deadcyde]

And there you have it, Ad nauseum arguements and strawman tactics, you can't disprove my statements so you extend them to exaggerated lengths to ridicule it. Bravo. And your evidence could be easily fabricated and has been in the past (why screen cap the entire screen, why not just the posts that make you look good). Good work there. Face it, you can't prove it's not a stunt. You just enjoy jumping on the rage bandwagon because these days we have to justify our bigotry. I mean with racism and sexism now considered to be bad form i guess we have to find other ways to be generally bad people while still being able to sleep at night.

Pathetic.

The fact that people are trying to justify this harassment is also pathetic.

Gaming culture is pathetic. The fact that there STILL needs to be a discussion on why this bullshit is tolerated and rationalised away is WHY gaming culture is pathetic.

For the tin foil hats turning logic on its head saying this is a PR stunt, why? what the hell does it matter? This is contemptible behaviour regardless of how it started. Nothing justify's this sickness.

I love gaming, i love talking about games, but this ... if defending or excusing this shit in any way is part of what constitutes the culture of a gamer then I'm not a gamer and never will be.

Justifies this sickness? Surely you mean how low people will sink to pull off a PR stunt, using the lowest common denominator because they make the easiest ragebait? Who would defend a bunch of misanthropic misogynists? Whether or not they did anything wrong isn't the point. Yay bandwagons! Boo free thinking!




*cups hands* NONE OF YOU CAN PROVE SHE DIDN'T MAKE IT UP SO GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSES.

Self important elistism is still rampant i see. But now it's politically correct! yay....

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I mean surely personal responsibility should never be as important as percieved sexual harrassment. /sarcasm

How about the harassers take personal responsibility, and stop being jerks ad harassers?

The fact it was a woman was inconsequential, it was ammo for insults, had it been a bald guy it would have been bald jokes, had it been a fat guy, you guessed it. It also doesn't address the fact that she went to known troll places. What the hell for if not to kick a hornets nest?

Wait, so it's her fault for posting a game to a site that's mean for posting games on? I'm not sure why you're defending people being jerks, just because it might not be for gendered reasons. They're still being jerks. That's not cool.

Had she put the game up on greenlight without going to the chan, what do you suppose would have happened?

Did she go the chan?