LMN8R
2801
If you read her post, you’ll see that she has actually brought people to court. And the courts basically ignored her.
It was even in Telefrog’s quote above:
But then there’s court, if you’re lucky enough to get taken seriously. Then you have to stand up in front of a bunch of people and recount your abuse. Then you have to face the people who have abused you trying to justify everything they’ve done and go over how much you had it coming while simultaneously saying it never happened, likely using the fact that it’s the internet to make your case seem flippant and your concerns for your safety seem histrionic. Then there’s the likelihood that you’ll find yourself having to explain the internet to a judge who may or may not even want to know. Sometimes they understand, sometimes they tell you the internet is not a big deal and maybe if you don’t want to get harassed you shouldn’t be online. Sometimes, when they tell you that, you tell them that your entire career is online and you’d have to give it up to effectively do that, and they tell you you’re a smart young kid and should maybe just consider a new career. Sometimes you sit in the magistrate’s office listening to the defense attorney get basic facts wrong, while talking to a judge who also gets basic facts wrong, and you feel a crushing sense of despair at watching people with no stake or perspective on your world decide your fate.
May I ask why you don’t think of Zoe Quinn in a positive light?
Busbecq
2802
There is a ton of shit to wade through there but it appears she got the restraining order on the terms she wanted.
I’m surprised this thread is so busy, shouldn’t anti-gg guys be off tweeting #JeNeSuisPasCharlie along side FemFreqs McIntosh, Ian Miles Cheong et al? Vile racist cartoons are a much better target than a box cover.
In gamergate news, the rogue troll faction of gamergate has actually coalesced into a tangible presence online, in the form of 8chans /baphomet/, who actually are every accusation that was ever thrown at all of gamergate, and then some. The Guardian, have of course, decided to blame gamergate for the actions of baphomet, an act which sits snugly alongside the horde of Not All Muslims Are Terrorist articles, but if anyone ever wanted to add a citation to "Rule 10. If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” then The Guardians coverage of gamergate will be a perfect fit.
Timex
2804
I’m surprised this thread is so busy, shouldn’t anti-gg guys be off tweeting #JeNeSuisPasCharlie along side FemFreqs McIntosh, Ian Miles Cheong et al? Vile racist cartoons are a much better target than a box cover.
The folks going in that direction don’t really grasp the issues at hand.
JeSuisCharlie is not support of Charlie Hebbo’s content.
Rather, it’s support of the fact that in free society, we’re allowed to think and say whatever we want, regardless of whether it’s offensive. Now, other people are free to be offended, and speak their own minds regarding such things. They’re free to call you bad names, and talk about how you’re a racist, islamophobe, etc.
But they are not allowed to attack you for having views that offend them. No one has the right to not be offended, in free society. We do not have the right to only encounter ideas which please our senses.
JeSuisCharlie is about the importance of preserving a society where we are free to think and say what we please. It’s not about whether or not we agree with anything Charlie Hebbo printed.
The point I’m making is;
Not all SJWs are white male hating, anti-free speech, ban happy tapirs.
Not all Muslims are terrorists.
And not all gamergates are misogynists sending threats, not all gamergaters care about Zoe Quinn, and not all gamergaters are responsible for the actions of a few.
All consist of multiple factions, with multiple goals and their own ideas about what they support and fight for, no matter how hard some push Rule 10.
Alstein
2806
She came off as abusive and bullying on Twitter even before this whole thing started. I can dislike her and still have sympathy for her plight.
Also some of my trans friends consider her a bigot (and that’s a big issue for me due to some very close friends- I’ll readily admit it’s a berserk button for me, especially due to some crap with the games I play)
magnet
2807
If you want to preserve freedom of expression, there are lots of hashtags to choose from. I can understand why someone would choose something other than #JeSuisCharlie.
You’re trying for censorship. Again, right there, as ever as you say my posts don’t have a right to exist because you don’t like what I’m saying - which is why I see your doing so as wilful.
Pod - No, because of the business environment changes #GG has caused. In both cases, publisher’s call. One’s trying to reform as a indy, I can talk about it if they do.
Moreover, where’s your campaign against Chick Flicks and Harlequin Romances?
magnet
2809
There’s nothing wrong with censorship, provided it’s not the government doing it.
In fact, censorship is a feature of most private forums, here implemented via “Report” and “Ignore” buttons. And it’s a very good thing, believe you me.
I’m curious to know if the QT3 mods got any complaints about posters in this thread, and which side the were complaints against.
Other than a cross-pollination of certain subjects in P&R i noticed that identity politics conversations were referred this way when they popped up in the games forum rather than contaminating threads over there so as a flame war its been pretty well contained.
Bully for you. For myself, I want to live in a tolerant country. One without the “No dogs or Irishmen” signs I still remember from when I was very young.
Oh, and let’s discuss net neutrality, shall we?
Timex
2812
I’m pretty sure they don’t, as evident by that link… because no one is suggesting that no one be allowed to criticize Charlie Hebbo.
Because Charlie Hebbo was a western media outlet who was the target of violent terrorism because they said something offensive. You could just as easily be in their exact situation. From that perspective, you are indeed Charlie Hebbo, because you don’t limit your thoughts to what some religious fundamentalist terrorist, and thus you are at risk for violent reprisal.
Again, it’s not about Charlie Hebbo’s content, but rather a rejection of the idea that it’s acceptable to punish a journalist for publishing ANY content.
There’s nothing wrong with censorship, provided it’s not the government doing it.
I would actually argue that there is a lot wrong with censorship, regardless of who is doing it.
Suppressing ideas does not make them go away. It does not deal with the underlying differences that cause people to believe different things. It doesn’t improve anything. It merely smears a thin veneer of pleasantness over the underlying complexity that is human belief and how we interact with each other.
Alstein
2813
Compared to other places on this topic- this is the one place that’s been the most even and sane.
Other places are outright killer bee hiveminds one way or the other. Dissent gets you banned.
Oh I made 2 sarcastic posts about SJWs on a certain forum and despite a problem free history and huge post/like ratio I was instabanned. Just before gamergate funnily enough, one of the mods must be the kwisatz haderach.
If it’s the forum I’m thinking of, the mod just has one level in Paladin and hence a stick stuck up his ass.
His other 10 levels are in Blackguard.
(If it’s not that forum (but rather the dark mirror), then never mind, but if it is then you’ll find that funny, so…)
Seemed like blatant account suicide to me.
magnet
2818
No, I’m not. I’m someone who might be in a position similar to Charlie Hebdo. There’s a difference.
For instance, someone might someday punch me in the face because my words offend them. Even so, I’m not going to proclaim #IAmFredPhelps. Would you?
Suppressing ideas does not make them go away. It does not deal with the underlying differences that cause people to believe different things. It doesn’t improve anything.
Sure it does. Attention is a limited resource. You can’t listen to everybody. Do you have a spam folder? Because that’s censorship.
Now, censorship based on point-of-view might lead to impoverished thought. But private censorship of incoherent rambling, e.g. “I have literally no fucking idea what you’re talking about. Either be direct or just stop”, is almost always a good thing.
Oh, this place has had its mass bannings, they just predated GG.
Timex
2820
No, I’m not. I’m someone who might be in the same position as Charlie Hebdo. There’s a difference.
I’m explaining to you what the #JeSuisCharlie represents. It doesn’t represent the fact that you are literally Charlie Hebbo.
So saying that you are not literally Charlie Hebbo is pointless.
Whatever though dude, you don’t have to support it. Arguing that support constitutes support of what Charlie Hebbo published, however, is wrong, and constitutes a misunderstanding of what those people mean by their little hashtag campaign.
Sure it does. Attention is a limited resource. You can’t listen to everybody. Do you have a spam folder? Because that’s censorship.
Not really, because it’s just voluntary selection of what I consume.
This is different from censoring what ideas are allowed to exist in the public domain, because some of them may be offensive to someone.
It’s ok for you to choose what you expose yourself to, to some degree. (As long as you recognize that your choice to participate in public life constitutes an implicit choice to expose yourself to a wide variety of ideas, some of which may be offensive to you)
But it’s not ok for you to prevent people from sharing their ideas publicly, for OTHER people to choose to expose themselves to. Censorship is not the act of choosing for youself, but rather the attempt to eliminate certain ideas and voices from the public eye, in order to prevent other people from being exposed to them.
