Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Tanoomba_sl said:

Interesting. Now I ask you this, keeping in mind how men and women are treated differently by the legal system and juries in particular:

If she had been a man and pulled that kind of shit, would he have gotten the same backlash from 4chan? Would he have had personal details about his personal and sex life made public? Would he have had nude pictures circulated, been called a "slut" and a "whore"?

Now tell me it's not about gender or character assassination.

Click to expand...

It's a complex question; literally everything changes from the root of the issue, to the stem. For example, a man would have had plenty of articles inmainstreamsites exposing him for conflicts of interest (Especially if he was fucking his boss), but probably not from 4chan or mob sites (I'll explain why below). There would also be innuendos about him being emotionally "abusive" , I have no doubt about it (There was recently a case of this in the skeptic circles, where there was an affair, the woman went ballistic and revealed personal info and everyone talked about his abuse--all turned out to be completely untrue). It's kind of telling that a lot of what's whirling around about her from her boyfriend and his friends is that she was emotionally abusive and manipulating--but that is getting almost no play, even on 4chan. When that would be thenumber 1story if the shoe were on the other foot. So yes, in that light, there would certainly be a character assassination--it just wouldn't take the sameform. (It's more sexualized for women, sure.)

However, back to mainstream sites--I honestly don't believe large media sites would have a problem taking men down where there is evidence of conflicts of interest or impropriety. Ironically, 4chan and the likes rarely go afterthoseguys (But make no mistake, plenty of asshole men playing this game), probably because, as said, the mainstream media takes care of them (When they are found out). Meanwhile, for women, many of these sites go out of their way to not only avoid stories taking down women--but ALSO to censor various forums where it happens; all in the name of appeasing that pretty ravenous casual-female market (Or so my theory goes.)....Usually 4chan and the other idiots get whipped into a frenzy due to that perceived imbalance. (All bets are off for the mainstream media--they go after both sexes; not sure if one side gets "more" than the other))

Where the line is legitimatelydifferent is the "slut" and "whore" references. But that's probably partially a social differenceandprobably because "take downs" of men typically happen in moremain streamsettings, where there aren't anonymous trolls everywhere (Things tend to be cleaner without the mob in the picture). So yes, women absolutely do have to deal with a more sexualized character assassination--but I feel a part of that is due to the above (None of this excuses the behavior, mind you--I'm just trying to explain it as I see it.) On that note though, Tan. Both genders experience character assassination; even the President experiences it. The unique part about this is HOW it happens in the "5th estate (Internet Media)" Women do get "slut shamed" more, no doubt, but that's because the actual "judge" is different (It's a mob, not an actual "journalist")...I'm not sure what conclusions I would draw of society at large based on those observations; you can make of it what you will, it's just my opinion on it.

But the long and short is--it's complicated. It's not really a simple yes or no answer.

Tanoomba_sl said:

At least you're not defending her harassment (unlike Mkopec), so fundamentally we seem to agree that what happened to her was wrong, regardless of what offenses she may have committed.

Honestly, it seems like a lot of these guys are just like looters. They don't give a shit what's actually happening, they're just opportunists who get off on using the internet to bring misery to other people. If that person is someone they can easily put a label on that everyone loves to villainize, great! They can pretend they are warriors for justice!

I love the internet, it has dramatically changed society forever. But damn, it sure has highlighted how shitty people can be.

Click to expand...

Looters is a good analogy. Idon'tbelieve the methods by which they are "scrutinizing" her actions are good, or condonableat all--I find them deplorable. However, I do believe her actionsneededto be scrutinized. Honestly, the reason why looters is a good comparison is because shit like this reminds me a lot of riots. Rioters usually have a legitimate issue to be angry over--and they feel like they don't have a proper forum to communicate that issue, or at least the power to make their grievance heard and fixed. So they go nuts; and this quickly spirals out of control until the reaction is completely disproportionate to the grievance.

Long and short, from everything I've read, this woman is a pretty terrible person who deserved to be taken to task. However, she did not deserve to have it happen this way. It's really that simple. This is "mob justice" and it's wrong. I blame both the mob, and the people who are supposed to be our "courts" of public opinion (The media sites)

On topic to the Zoe Quinn debacle.

Think men are the unfaithful sex? A study shows WOMEN are the biggest cheats - they're just better at lying about it

Daily Mail Online

Are men or women more likely to cheat? While men have always had a worse reputation for being unfaithful, recent studies show that women are catching up fast - but we are a lot more likely to lie about it, and a lot less likely to get caught.

Simply put, it seems that women are better at having affairs than men.

'The biggest difference is that women are much better at keeping their affairs secret,' he says. 'If you look at the studies into paternity, even conservative figures show that between eight and 15 per cent of children haven't been fathered by the man who thinks he's the biological parent.'

Click to expand...

Barraco Bisi_sl said:

Click to expand...

No that's a good PSA to keep your girl happy, and you want to keep her happy because you want to get into her pants.

I mentioned that shit a little while back. Women are not confronted about their mistakes frequently enough. Too many dudes want to protect them or fuck them. Tell it straight.

It's only worth arguing with a woman at the extremes. Either you have to care the least you possibly could about her action and her reaction, or you have to care the most.

If you care anything more or less it's just gonna be ugly and pointless.

The angry lesbian is in jail. Boring thread.

So, Tan. After reading more on the "Quinspiracy"--here is my conclusion thus far.

1. (Pre-conspiracy) ) This entire debacle started because of 3 posts (Yes, 3) on an obscure, anon, message board--with men who are self proclaimed Sean clones (People with extreme social anxiety who can't talk to women;literally.)...She "claims" there were harassing phone calls as well. But there is no evidence of that, there is nothing in the archive of those boards exposing a "raid" or any kind of concerted effort, or her number or anyway that these guys planned this. Now, I'm not saying therewasn'ta phone call (It's really hard to prove one way or another); but from everything I've read, she apparently just attributed it (If it happened) to these guys because there was physical evidence of them not liking her game. Otherwise, there was no real proof or even innuendo on their boards that they called her.

So this "physical evidence" equalsTHREEposts on an ANON site. Which means ANYONE could have posted them. And this evidence does not illustrate a desire to contact her, or interact with her in any way aside from lampooning her game it was ALSO a short thread--so it was the equivalent of a quickly ricks hawed thread here. This, online portion of the evidence, is not what I would deem as "harassment".It was a single thread denigrating her, on a forum she never frequented--if that is the defintion of harassment than everyone from Hartsman, Smedly to Mcquaid could run to the presses claiming harassment from THIS site; we've said MUCH worse stuff about those guys than anything posted about Zoe before this escalated. Thefactis male developers and producers get taken to task for their games on these sitesALL the time--and it's NEVER considered harassment, passionate criticism is merely part of the business. The ONLY thing that could be considered "harassment" is the phone call--but again, there was no plan on that site to do that, no evidence of it. I find the whole claim of harassment hereVERYdubious.

The reason I find it dubious is due to the pics below.





She needed to get her game's "name" out there in order to be green-lit. She also knew that many of these major gaming sites had policies like this one (Which was later redacted due to the back lash). A case of "harassment" can be used to generate quite a lot of sympathetic publicity. I know you've defended Sarkesian, and I'm not making the case that she is bad/good or whatever, but even if you have to admit, that everything from her Ted talk, to her KS campaign highlighted harassment. It's a very effective tool for garnering sympathy (Stars do it all the time, there is a reason for that.) If you don't believe me, I ask you to remember a few cases such as theBus Attendantwho was bullied by children, who subsequently got a large fund raiser by people who were sympathetic.

For anyone with even a modicum of ability in media/PR (And everything I've read about Zoe, illustrates she is pretty savvy), getting your name out there in such a way is very beneficial.Now, this is ALL circumstantial; and rationally, I wouldn't claim someone was in the wrong due to thisconjecture. But it does make medeeplysuspicious of the claims. As it should you, if you're really unbiased. Knowing all this, it would certainly, if I were a journalist, make me investigate her story BEFORE posting it on a major publication. But that's not what happened (And that's part of the reason people were pissed.)


2. (The "conspiracies")Now, here is where things get kind of seedy. From everything I can gather, when her boyfriend released details about her involvement with other men--two "branches" of this "mob anger" began to arise. The first was kind of ideological/sexist in it's inception. A bunch of guys angry that this person promoted feminist ideals like "it's not consent if you're cheating"--while she was cheating. It was from this branch that you saw a lot of the really overt sexism. This is essentially what is being written about, and what you came to the board with--this is what the mainstream boards are choosing to focus the narrative on.

(Important)The second branch though, started because a charity project came forward and claimed Quin lampooned them by claiming "Sexism" (I linked that story earlier in this thread) Now, here is the seedy part. They claimed that they tried to go to various Internet-gaming outlets and illustrate how they were being harassed by Zoe but they were shut down because of her "connections". (But I don't think it was an active conspiracy on her part, I'll explain below.) This became even more of an issue because she is running a contest that competes with theirs; and is collecting the money into a personal account. This is pretty conspiratorial--I'm sure her own project is on the up and up BUT getting another project shut down is terrible and makes this smell fishy, once more,this is conspiratorialand I would treat these claims with the same suspicions as the original harassment claim Zoe made but this is how the mob got rolling. This using sex to protect herself while she harassed people is what incensed a lot of people. The collective mob mentality was only made worse when there were large scale shut downs of conversations on various forums. As far as I can see, except a few Youtube channels--and the Escapist thread, nearly every other conversation is experiencing mass bannings and heavy moderation.

Now, given thiswholething was started because peoplebelievedshe was using sex to control the "media"--you can see why this incited the mob. (I'mNOTclaiming this was right, or even rational--I'm just illustrating how the publishers took the worst possible road to "quiet" this--the fact is, Zoe didn't fuck nearly enough people to have this kind of "control"..the rash of censorship is due to the agenda of the guys in charge of this magazine). So, you have a mob of people now, who believe this woman has a major conflict of interest and therefor undue protections from the media--and when they try to air their grievances, there are mass bannings and censorship and an immediate spin that focuses the subject of the debate on the first, "sexist" branch illustrated above (The branch you posted here--which is real, but it's notreallythe issue that's gotten the mob going--the vast majority of the posters in most threads are more concered with the online media "black out".)


3.(The ACTUAL harassment): After the above, harassment really did begin in earnest. She was harassed on Twitter and other social media sites; she had nude images released and a host of other pretty bad things. It was during this time that her number was posted ect (Some claims have been that it wasn't her real number) There were some inconsistencies with this hacking. Can't really go into them, as I don't have enough evidence to form an opinion one way or another...But I do believe, at least, online, the harassment was really turned up a notch.But, it wasn't due, really AT ALL, to her "game". That is a completefabricationby the media outlets as they try to spin this into a SJW friendly piece of click bait. The ONLY thing that her game spawned was some people saying it was bad on an obscure message board somewhere.

The fact is, what actually spawned most of the harassment was the hardline the media companies made against even attempting to investigate these claims, and then attempting to censor them.

4.(Who is at fault): The blame, in my book, lies squarely on the "Journalists" who eschew certain standards, and a rational approach, in order to uphold some kind of bias or agenda--and then use their positions to censor discussions in order to protect their agenda. Don't get me wrong, I think wanting to help women in the game's industry is a noble, and honorable goal--but I donotbelieve someone who calls themselves a professional journalist SHOULD ascribe to that ideal BEFORE "the truth". The media sites have a job to present the truth; and if they don't, given the age we live in, they are going to have to face severe back lashes. After all, the online media mainly rose to prominence because of the perceived corruption of the regular media--the fact that the regular media was constantly in a quagmire of political and social bias that affected their reporting--from one end of the spectrum (Fox) to the other (MSNBC).

If I had to draw a conclusion(And I wouldn't pass judgment without more evidence)...But I would guess there was some derogatory shit said about Zoe, not harassment, but certainly derision. She went and found those comments and decided, for whatever reason, to get some attention over them (Which as the editor of that magazine admits to). This annoyed people, probably quite a few considering her online shenanigans, but the issue would have ended there. Then the boyfriend stuff comes out--and all the sudden people "connect the dots"; assuming it was her fucking around that lead to the protections she got from these sites. However, I don't believe there were "dots"--I don't think it was her having sex that allowed her these protections (Again, if you look at how far the censorship has spread--there is no way she used "sex" to do this kind of mastermind stuff). I believe rather, that who is at fault, are the journalists who believe it's their job to promote a cause, rather than promote the truth; and then who used their position to try and spin a narrative that supplements their bias. (Or censor in order to hide how their bias caused this shit show. Props to the editor of the Escapist for admitting he was wrong though.)

But what else is new? That's the problem with every new agency in the world currently. There were other aspects of this, like the fact that she fucked her boss and what not. But again, that's a lot of ex bf stuff; and while it does display some conflicts of interest; I think the main problem in this was not that, but rather, how the media sites approached this. And if there is anything sexist in this, it's the fact that Zoe Quin is still the center of the debate--and not the people who run those sites.

Anyway--I spent too long reading through the escapist thread but it's a good read...heh and I needed a break from writing. But that's what I've come up with thus far. This is why though you have to be really careful to take anything at face value. Everyone has an agenda, and everyone is pushing something.

iAnus_sl said:

It's only worth arguing with a woman at the extremes. Either you have to care the least you possibly could about her action and her reaction, or you have to care the most.

If you care anything more or less it's just gonna be ugly and pointless.

Click to expand...

This is solid advice.

I think I broke her.

So the wife and I were out to dinner last night with some interstate friends of hers from school. Both girls were spinsters, one by choice after swearing off marriage early, the other the typical cc - riding empowered girl.

After a few reds, the conversation swung around to how men are clearly intimidated by sexually experienced women. No points for guessing which of the three women at the table held that view. My snort of amusement attracted her ire like a laser.

She railed at me for a while, making no particular point beyond the fact that no guy she dates wants to marry her and that was proof that I was wrong.

I just flat out stated that a woman who had sex with a thousand guys a year was not marriage material, but a woman who had sex with one guy a thousand times a year would have men lining up to marry her.

Cue goldfish face.

The guys at the next table offered to buy me a beer.

The remainder of dinner was not really enjoyable, because of the rampant misogyny at the table, I was informed. I don't know, I enjoyed it. The tuna tartare was to die for.

Click to expand...

Tanoomba_sl said:

Look, I get it. They felt an injustice was being done and that they were being stifled when they wanted to talk about it. But the rational response to that is not to take actions into their own hands and decide it's up to them to punish the bad guy ("bad girl" in this case). They're frustrated about something they read on the internet? STOP THE PRESSES! A message board is censoring discussion of the topic? BOO FUCKING HOO. Go talk about it on one of the fifty thousand other message boards that don't give a shit.They're angry about the sneaky girls who use their girly parts to cheat the system and unfairly shield themselves from attack?GROW THE FUCK UP. The world is full of shitty people who do shitty things for shitty reasons. No one appointed them the role of "punisher" and the fact that they think it's OK to publish highly personal information of an actual person who has to live with the consequences of those actions makes them at least as bad as she is.

Click to expand...

The backlash is about hypocrisy. On the way up she made money being a SJW victim. In her private life she did all the things she railed against professionaly.

Shaming hypocrites is righteous.

If you have an active presence on the internet in any form, you subject yourself to scrutiny which could lead to criticism or ridicule. That's simply the chance you take when you say anything on the internet ever.But if you're a woman, you've got groups of people scrutinizing you extra hardbecause they WANT you to fuck up. They WANT an excuse to make an example of you.

Click to expand...

Here's an alternate point of view on this claim. I don't like AA, and you might not either. It's worth watching.

Tanoomba_sl said:

I get the impression you think this is just an example of someone using less-than squeaky clean practices to get attention and manipulate people, and people who want to call her out on that getting angry because they're not allowed to discuss it without the media painting them as sexist assholes. But see, when they decide the best response is to focus not on the root of the issue but on who she fucked while spreading naked photos and publishing her personal information, that makes them sexist assholes.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you about going over the line. I said it before, I consider the mob actions deplorable and I find it sad because a decent issue for discussion is getting buried by them. That issue being--we can't hold women to different standards. A Journalist shouldn't look at a claim by a female, differently than he does a male--and that's exactly what happened here. As I said, Smedley, Brad, Shilling--have all had much, much worse posted here about them than she got on that forum but no decent news organization would ever report that as "harassment".

Anyway, much like rioting in real life--theactualissue is now being buried by caustic, and ultimately stupid outbursts. And sure, I agree it'snotright. In fact, I think the continued focus on her is silly--when it seems pretty obvious to me that the real culprits are the (Male) journalists and developers who are rounding the wagons. If those guys had just not been dipshits, what would have happened is her actions would have been publicized and her hypocrisy put on display--and in a few days people would have moved on. Is it pleasant? No; but it's certainly a lot more ethical than leaving it to the mob to exact "revenge". At least when the media exposes a story, they keep it in the bounds of the story. (Which means no hacking for naked pictures ect.)

All in all though; it's just very sad most of this focus is on her own transgressions and NOT what the journalists have done...much like when a "Family Values" politician gets caught fucking some intern; they become a public spectacle and that's what usually gets them tossed from office. No one bats an eyelash at the daily corruption which actually hurts people. Same story--different setting.

Araysar_sl said:

White privilege: An insidious virus thats eating America from within - Salon.com

Click to expand...

That's interesting.

Funny story time:Boy, girl swap explicit photos. Boy charged, girl not. Prosecutor requests boy be sexually assaulted for evidence.

ORIGINAL POST: A Manassas City teenager accused of "sexting" a video to his girlfriend is now facing a search warrant in which Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors want to take a photo of his erect penis, possibly forcing the teen to become erect by taking him to a hospital and giving him an injection, the teen's lawyers said. A Prince William County judge allowed the 17-year-old to leave the area without the warrant being served or the pictures being taken - yet.

Click to expand...

See that actually is patriarchy, but where are the women defending the boy and saying that the girl bears responsibility for her part in the exchange? Patriarchy is all well and good when it favors women.