Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antsan]

There are places where trolls organize.

And it's kinda jarring that an article that is written like this and it is called "reasonable":

Yesterday Kathy Sierra (a.k.a. seriouspony), a mentally ill woman,

"is what Kathy Sierra experienced, judged by the standards applied to everyone else, any kind of harassment?" Doxing is common on the Internet.

We have created a culture where a "vulnerable" minority can accuse a white man of anything and he will be publicly crucified regardless of their innocence. Now white men are the vulnerable minority.

and squeals of glee and shouts of "muh soginy" from the "women in tech" crowd.

because hey, it's the Internet and I am not a histrionic nutjob.

The "women in tech" crowd have personas that can't survive the same intense public criticism that men receive.

Kathy Sierra has for years acted like a toddler, throwing tantrums and making demands whenever things didn't go her way.

She had something coming to her and by the standards set by her own peers in the social justice community, there was nothing wrong with what she got.

I can't believe I am the first to say this, but you can't fucking have it both ways.

Yeah, real mature, "I am such a special person".

You are more emotionally suited to a job with less emotional rigors, perhaps working with very autistic children.

Because working with autistic children is, you know, easy and doesn't require exceptional emotional stability. You know, like any other social job the people working there are never put under extreme emotional pressure, as opposed to people working in tech, because in tech...
With a brother and a mother in social jobs I cannot even begin to express my disdain for someone who thinks that lowly of how fucking hard doing stuff like that is.

The message from the media and the "women in tech" is clear. Dropping dox is not just acceptable, but encouraged, as long as the person targeted is a white man with opinions they dislike.

I have actually never seen anyone encourage doxxing but trolls.

I mean, there were quite a few comments about how that article by Kathy Sierra might have been a bit off and there were quite a few negative comments on some other thread about how toxic a sarcastic parody of discussion killing behavior might be and the unwillingness of some people to consider a positive message is enough to dismiss the actual message but an obviously toxic article with obviously toxic intend like this is called "reasonable".
Now tell me where that's not straight playing favorites. I have a strong feeling of double standards being applied, and, what a surprise, the double standard is misogynist - the standard assumption is that everything is fine and a claim to the contrary needs exceptional support as compared to any claim supporting the standard notion. Being enraged is fine for people complaining about how evil third wave feminists make everyone miserable while claims by feminists (or equalists or whatchawannacallthem) that everything is indeed not fine are scrutinized for any failure that one may find - you know, that one is enraged and thus clearly incapable of being objective, that one doesn't provide good examples, the next one is suspicious...
Well, it's alright to point out failures. It's just very unsettling that it doesn't happen with the.. uhm, let me quote weev... "nutjobs" like, well, weev.

[Neonivek]

And it's kinda jarring that an article that is written like this and it is called "reasonable":

I think what they mean is that the article doesn't SEEM like it is written by a raving lunatic at first glance

Mind you I havn't read it... mostly because it would just depress me to read anything by Weev.

[Antsan]

I get that.
What I mean is that the article written by Kathy doesn't look like it's written by a raving lunatic at first glance either (assuming that weev's doesn't look like one at first glance, which I want to severely object to - as reason I give the passages quoted above - you might not see any of those as being worthy of calling "lunatic" but I guess almst anyone should be able to find a quote that's just way beyond reasonable even at first glance).

In a way weev's article is evidence for what the people dismissed here for superficialities are talking about, and it seems to be largely ignored.

[Neonivek]

I think it has to do with expectation.

For Kathy people expect a sort of well written academic article. (I assume she is the one who made the koolaid article)

For Weev people expect some sort of babbling brook of insanity with poorly disguised troll logic made to annoy others.

Another aspect is when people feel like they COULD be a target by an article... their standards become unfathomably high!

For Anita, for example, I assign VERY high standards because she is talking about something I am passionate about (Videogames and feminism >_> not joking). It is probably unfair but I don't know how to reconcile it.

For Koolaid article I just wanted a better article because it has a certain tinge of paranoia, and when I hear paranoia I get afraid of the implications and my standards go up.

At the same time the amount of professionalism I expect also increases my standards.

---

The best Metaphor I guess I can give is this...

One time I watched a sonic fan video... It was stunningly impressive for something fan made.

Yet... it was too good... Why? Because it was good enough that I no longer could apply the filter of "fan video" it bumped itself up to "high standards" and thus instead of being a great fan video to me... it was a REALLY bad video with floaty animation and odd cameos.

In otherwords I am irrational.

[Antsan]

That might be an explanation.
Being susceptible to confirmation bias might be one way around that (for people who actually want to confirm that sexism is real and damaging), but I guess that's not really a good solution.
Maybe try to, uhm, imagine people being in a debate and then judge compared to the opponent instead to your expectations? Don't know. I fear I'm intuitively going with confirmation bias.

[Neonivek]

Mind you I am sure people hate and don't take Weev's words seriously.

People are just surprised by Kathy's lack of amazing writing and Weev's lack of batcrazy writing.

[Antsan]

Only the problem remaining that this is completely invisible to anybody who doesn't know both authors, so the debate becomes a debate among insiders and outsiders can just go on confirming their bias - people like me can assume people are being misogynist (while they are just having higher expectations of one side due to past experience) while others can assume stupid feminists are spewing hysteria again.
Dammit.

[Stuebi]

I never said that the other guys article was reasonable, or even decently written. From my point of view, he's just the other side of the spectrum. As Antsan pointed out, his stuff is piqued with insults, and if you want to make a valid point, that generally doesnt help.

The problem I have with Kathy's thing is mainly that the part about critiques is just too broadly written, as in "Everyone that voices discontent with what I write.". Especially the line about there never being any evidence written. To me, something like that should not be your general attitude when you publicly post stuff.

I'm well aware, as Antsan also mentioned, that there are people out there definetly fitting the picture. People making multiple accounts to quite literally start a hatemob on people, doxing, insutls, threats, all the good stuff this morons like to fire at people who have a different opinion. But there are a equal number, if not more people, who actually reasonably point out issues and errors in peoples articles, and from what I read above, they get the same treatment as someone sceaming bloody murder.

And if nothing else, the statement that the second article made is true. You can't have it both ways. On one hand Dev's and writers, journalists and these people like to dance around and proclaim what poor sods they are for receiving bad treatment, and how hard the have it in "field x". But on the other hand they cant actually fucking come out and admit when they actually fucked up or failed. Not everyone disliking your stuff is out to gut you in a dark alleway, or is trying to ruin your entire freaking live. That's just hyperbole. But the general tone tends to be "Gamers are a collective bunch of organized trolls and haters."

I give her credit for mentioning some better examples at the bottom, and she is definetley not one of the bad examples. But "Decent people" tends to mean "People who have the same opinion as me."

It boils down to "Either you agree, or you're a Troll."

@Antsan, I want to admit that my view might be coloured by current events. But is it so freaking hard to point out that you're talking about a minority, and cut back on the whole "I'm dying for your sins!"-drama all the time?

[Mattk50]

a 273 page thread about anita but nothing on gamergate? Did a thread get deleted or something?

Several were locked, yes.
Or maybe I'm thinking of another topic? I dunno.

Seems odd to me to allow this topic, which is closely related to the main (though invalid) criticism of the gamergate movement but not the journalism stuff. Was there some reasoning im not getting?

[Neonivek]

Right now we are ONLY escaping it because we are sort of skirting around GG... and frankly lets keep it that way.

[Orange Wizard]

GG is one of those things where I really don't understand what everyone is so upset about.

[Neonivek]

GG is one of those things where I really don't understand what everyone is so upset about.

And lets not find out why in this topic.

[Morrigi]

a 273 page thread about anita but nothing on gamergate? Did a thread get deleted or something?

4 or 5 got locked/deleted, according to Toady. They inevitably got invaded by certain individuals baselessly accusing people of misogyny and so forth, and otherwise flaming.

[alexandertnt]

Right now we are ONLY escaping it because we are sort of skirting around GG... and frankly lets keep it that way.

Yeah this. This thread is the only "something to do with gender" thread that hasn't been locked (well, as far as I know), and thats probably because the controversial stuff ends up on a seperate thread.

[Phmcw]

I'll just let this here, then.

As for weev text, I'm not entirely ready to take a position, but he attack the weak point of Sierra's : trolling and harassement is not the lot of "woman in tech", and as use this term with weev's definition. They are a damocles sword above the head of anyone that have a contreversial opinion on the internet. Several articles in the press already condemned the rise of the "harrasive left". And I don't think I have to prove to anyone that the "harassive right and far right" are present and active.

The problem is harassement is easy to do in the internet age and we should oppose using it as a political tool. Of course, a million of keyboard warrior will oppose the idea everywhere, as shown by the disgracefull campain against Eich.

The root cause of American left's failure is that it tend to be non inclusive.While European left used to be a collection of popular movement that focussed on the need of the masses, the American left is ideological and mostly come from the upper classes. Not only do they tend to be self-serving, theey forget or ignore the problem that hit most of their potential electorate, and survive for a pretty big part thanks to republicans pandering to the racist part of their electorate and to the gun/anti gun clivage.

I read a bit of Violet blue's (an author that I like) twitter and her friends, and it's funny how they cannot understand why they have a problem justifying meternaty leave to men. Indeed, American men in the tech industry are working themselves to an early grave, and don't see why some of their collegues should have leaves to make children. They don't get any leaves, no matter how much they need them.

Well, you see, the problem is that workers right have devolved so much in America that it's hard to justify any law by "decency" or even "human right". In most European countries, and at least in mine, we have one month of paid hollyday, maternity leave, paternity leave, and one million other perks such as the absolute interdiction to fire someone on religious, racial, sexual, or political views or actions. Basically you cannot fire anyone for anything not work related.
In this context, it's easy to justify maternity leaves.It just make senses : peoples have the right to a decent life after work. You cannot work them to death or insanity as it happen so often in the US. And no one say that speaning in favor of partenity leave in a debate about maternity leaves is "whataboutism", maternity leave only justify themselves in the larger context of worker's rights.