5 ms·

I'm sorry, but your examples are quite out of context. Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. I cannot be

by s73ver 9y ago

I'm sorry, but your examples are quite out of context. Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. I cannot be upset at her for calling him out, and I cannot be upset that he was banned. As for the other one, you're gonna have to provide proof.

syshum 9y ago
>> Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. Maybe you need to read unbiased news because they were not, nor did they do anything that could even remotely considered harassment. Attending a talk of your political opposite is not harassment Though I do think they went WAY over board on the reaction to being called "Garbage Human" but I understand why as they are correct if the roles where reversed the SJW reaction would have been FAR FAR more dramatic... >>and I cannot be upset that he was banned. He was banned? From where?
Cogito 9y ago
Not that it's worth wading too far into this, but there is no good reason to believe those people were there specifically for harassment. For one, if they were there to harass, you would expect them to have done some harassing. I have seen no examples of that. The only possible thing that could be construed as harassing behaviour was them being there in the first place - and I don't think that's a very high bar to set for harassment. I mean, you can watch the videos[0] of the event yourself. None of it looked particularly harassing to me, until Sarkeesian started attacking the audience. Not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say 'the story' but the articles I've seen don't seem to paint the same picture ([1] for example). [0] First video I found, shows the whole talk. The point in question comes about 2:30 into the video. https://youtu.be/XwcRc5LuElA?t=151 https://youtu.be/XwcRc5LuElA?t=151 [1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3946095/youtuber-sargon-of-akkad-alleges-he-was-barraged-with-abuse-after-that-vidcon-confrontation-with-anita-sarkeesian/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3946095/youtuber-sargon-of-akk...
- s73ver 9y ago
  "Not that it's worth wading too far into this, but there is no good reason to believe those people were there specifically for harassment." Yes, their is. Their behavior, both at the event and their prior behavior online towards her both suggest that is the entire reason for them being there.
IGI-111 9y ago
>Those people were there specifically for harassment. This is a lie. And you don't have a fact to back it up.
- s73ver 9y ago
  It is very much not a lie. They sat in the first three rows, and they were all pointing cameras at her. Hell, some of those people even went on youtube after to brag about what they did. https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sarkeesian-garbage-human-vidcon-interview https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sa...

by s73ver 9y ago

syshum 9y ago

>> Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. Maybe you need to read unbiased news because they were not, nor did they do anything that could even remotely considered harassment. Attending a talk of your political opposite is not harassment Though I do think they went WAY over board on the reaction to being called "Garbage Human" but I understand why as they are correct if the roles where reversed the SJW reaction would have been FAR FAR more dramatic... >>and I cannot be upset that he was banned. He was banned? From where?

Cogito 9y ago

Not that it's worth wading too far into this, but there is no good reason to believe those people were there specifically for harassment. For one, if they were there to harass, you would expect them to have done some harassing. I have seen no examples of that. The only possible thing that could be construed as harassing behaviour was them being there in the first place - and I don't think that's a very high bar to set for harassment. I mean, you can watch the videos[0] of the event yourself. None of it looked particularly harassing to me, until Sarkeesian started attacking the audience. Not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say 'the story' but the articles I've seen don't seem to paint the same picture ([1] for example). [0] First video I found, shows the whole talk. The point in question comes about 2:30 into the video. https://youtu.be/XwcRc5LuElA?t=151 https://youtu.be/XwcRc5LuElA?t=151 [1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3946095/youtuber-sargon-of-akkad-alleges-he-was-barraged-with-abuse-after-that-vidcon-confrontation-with-anita-sarkeesian/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3946095/youtuber-sargon-of-akk...

s73ver 9y ago
"Not that it's worth wading too far into this, but there is no good reason to believe those people were there specifically for harassment." Yes, their is. Their behavior, both at the event and their prior behavior online towards her both suggest that is the entire reason for them being there.

IGI-111 9y ago

>Those people were there specifically for harassment. This is a lie. And you don't have a fact to back it up.

s73ver 9y ago
It is very much not a lie. They sat in the first three rows, and they were all pointing cameras at her. Hell, some of those people even went on youtube after to brag about what they did. https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sarkeesian-garbage-human-vidcon-interview https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sa...