5 ms·
The start of it, sure. This is all public record at this point. Judging what exists now by what existed over a year ago is hardly fair. People who actually har
by Karunamon 11y ago
The start of it, sure. This is all public record at this point.
Judging what exists now by what existed over a year ago is hardly fair. People who actually harass people are now loudly shouted down wherever they're seen doing it.
- mintplant 11y agoGamerGate was sharing photos of Zoe Quinn from her old modeling profile as recently as a month ago. This is a continuous problem.
- Karunamon 11y agoCitation needed, and even if true, posting pictures of someone that they made public years ago is not "harassment".
- icebraining 11y agoFrankly, and this is not specific to GG, but I don't get why would one join a movement if one disapproves of how it got started. If one doesn’t want to be associated with assholes, maybe one shouldn't associate themselves with asshole-created groups.
- exstudent2 11y agoA lot of people joined GG because there is/was no alternative for people who held views opposed to those in the mainstream. It's one of the only groups fighting for unmitigated free speech on the internet. It's made for some strange bedfellows but in the end it's an anti-censorship campaign (that happens to have identified the group pushing for censorship).
- mintplant 11y agoFrom what I've seen, they only seem to be fighting for free speech that agrees with their perspective. See, for example, the campaigns to convince advertisers to pull their ads from sites that publish articles they don't like.
- exstudent2 11y agoThe campaigns themselves are the free speech. Free speech != profitable speech. The journalists can say whatever they want. If they want to make a profit doing it selling to an audience they're simultaneously beating up, they'll have to deal with the antagonistic relationship they created.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> People who actually harass people are now loudly shouted down wherever they're seen doing it. This is frequently claimed but there's little evidence of it. If you even dare to talk about gamergate publicly, you will be dogpiled. If you criticise them, you will receive rape and death threats.
- Karunamon 11y agoIf by "dogpiled", you mean "having your public communication using a hashtag responded to in public by lots of people". Volume of replies does not harassment make. >If you criticise them, you will receive rape and death threats. This is frequently claimed but there's little evidence of it.
- comrh 11y agoThis whole thread is just a great example of this comic: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
- 13thLetter 11y agoThat comic, in turn, is just another efficient mechanism for evading criticism instead of answering it: as if the number of people making a criticism, whether large or small, has any connection to how valid the critique is. If someone was making racist remarks in a public venue and got a lot of angry pushback, would you dismiss that as "sealioning" too?
- Karunamon 11y agoA fun exercise: Compare the definition of "sea lioning" with basic conflict resolution tactics. Then, try to explain how they're substantively different.
- EdiX 11y ago:%s/sealion/black people/
- deleted 11y ago