A petition to black out Steam for an hour

[Six Ways]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

For the record, I think the petition is a dumb idea. And I'm a feminist (SJW if you like, I don't really care). But apparently most people agree, since there are hardly any signatures.

So in fact, this WHOLE TOPIC is an example of Lewis' Law. Naive person makes naive petition, no-one cares or signs, youtuber makes ten minute video about OMG SEE FEMINAZIS ARE RUINING MY GAMEZ DOWN WITH THE MATRIARCHY

 

[Chappy0]

No.

No one is responsible for your actions other than YOU.

You can not control what other people do. You can only control what you do.

So if someone threatened her life or safety, it is NOT her fault, no matter how much you disagree with what she said.

Oh ok then, so let's say I go and find the biggest guy in town, and I call him a **** right to his face. If he were to then punch me in the face, would it have been my fault?

It would be both your faults. They could have been the better person and not reacted or not used physical force but that doesn't mean you aren't at fault for starting the whole thing. There is a point where you stop being a victim and start being an asshole.


P.S. This does not reflect my opinion on this whole debacle, I was merely stating my opinion on this specific hypothetical scenario.


OT: I'm not going to say much, I have very little interest in getting in a argument on this topic, but I am going to agree with the sentiment of, this isn't going to do anything for the image of feminists. You don't target a larger group for the actions of a minority and taking away Steam, even for something that would seem as inconsequential as an hour because of something some random shmuck on the internet did isn't exactly going to make everyone suddenly see the light.

EDIT: hang on, I edited this and my quote is messed up.

EDIT2: There we go, no idea what happened there.

 

[verdant monkai]

This is some Illuminati shit right hear guys.

Its not like Valve is going to black out their service and lose profit, just because someone got butt hurt.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

Seriously if you're going to say that not believing her is anti-feminist you're turning feminism into a freaking joke. I've seen people's reasoning for why they think the threats are fake, they have nothing to do with her being a woman or even Anita's trustowrthiness. It's things like how the screenshot was taken 3 seconds after the tweets were posted, how quickly the tweets were from each other and how the guy switch from stalker in love to guy who wants to kill her. You gotta admit that this thing would be easy to fake, so saying all the people who think it's fake as misogynists without addressing any of their arguments is just anti-intellectual at best, you're not trying to engage with people honesty you're just trying to get the critics to go away or you want to dismiss them without having to listening to them.

You want to know why feminism has a bad reputation. Dishonest stuff like this is why. I think it's white knighting too since you immediately come to her defense without even considering the rationale behind her attackers.

Edited to be a little nicer.

 

[Six Ways]

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

Spoiler

To assume that people would fake death threats is to assume that they are entirely despicable. You either back that shit up, or you're a terrible, terrible person. And are you claiming that Anita Sarkeesian, one of the most reviled women on the internet, has not received death threats? Why would she feel the need to make up more?!

To which lies do you refer?

I've seen people's reasoning for why they think the threats are fake, they have nothing to do with her being a woman or even Anita's trustowrthiness.

They're from drinking tinfoil hat kool-aid. They're constructed by people who have decided they already hate her, and are going to construct a narrative where she deserves the incredible volume of bile she receives.

It's things like how the screenshot was taken 3 seconds after the tweets were posted [...]

12 seconds actually, and the previous tweets were minutes before. So the person had been on that page hitting refresh, regularly taking screenshots. Surprise, they took a screenshot after a new tweet popped up. I'd bet they had a few, and posted the last one tweeted before a longer lull.

how quickly the tweets were from each other [...]

Uh... people do that. 140 chars isn't much bro.

and how the guy switch from stalker in love to guy who wants to kill her.

You mean, just like real stalkers? Gosh.

You gotta admit that this thing would be easy to fake, so saying all the people who think it's fake as misogynists without addressing any of their arguments is just anti-intellectual at best

Technically easy to fake does not mean you assume it is fake. And I just addressed your arguments. These are, as I say, tinfoil hat arguments constructed by those who are already convinced of their conclusions.

(and this is white knighting, you immediately come to her defense without even considering the rationale behind her attackers).

Why on earth do you assume I've not considered the rationale? And immediately? This is the sixth page. How do you know how long I've been following this issue before posting? I disagree with you - that doesn't mean I've not thought about it. If you're going to label that as 'white knighting', then you're just using ad hominem.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

Spoiler

To assume that people would fake death threats is to assume that they are entirely despicable. You either back that shit up, or you're a terrible, terrible person. And are you claiming that Anita Sarkeesian, one of the most reviled women on the internet, has not received death threats? Why would she feel the need to make up more?!

Spoiler

And there are despicable people out there. And she would have to fake death threats that have her address posted on them or fake them if they weren't as psycho as the ones she posted.
And I'm referring to her saying that Hitman Absolution encourages you to kill strippers and drag their bodies around when the opposite is true.

-SNIP-

And now you're addressing the arguments that people put out when they say she faked it, rather then just dismissing them as misogynists which is what I wanted. I didn't think you would do that which is why I was so angry before. For the record I did not want to argue about whether they were faked or not, I just wanted to say that I really dislike dismissive people who say 'people who take this position are jerks' without addressing what they say.

These are, as I say, tinfoil hat arguments constructed by those who are already convinced of their conclusions.

I wouldn't go that far.

(and this is white knighting, you immediately come to her defense without even considering the rationale behind her attackers).

Why on earth do you assume I've not considered the rationale? And immediately? This is the sixth page. How do you know how long I've been following this issue before posting? I disagree with you - that doesn't mean I've not thought about it. If you're going to label that as 'white knighting', then you're just using ad hominem.

Ad hominem would be something like "you dropped out of high school, therefore we can ignore whatever you have to say". It's dismissing an argument based on the person who said it not just an insult.

E: Why do I assume you just dismissed them? Well because you say they're all misogynists. Someone can be swayed by bad/weak arguments without being hateful or whatever. And I've seen too many people on both sides just dismissing people without having a real conversation (that last sentence is not an excuse, just an explanation if that makes sense).

 

[hermes]

Yeah... that is pointless and stuff.
I know, maybe instead of shutting of Valve to call attention to those disagreeing with her, maybe we could shut down PSN to call attention to those agreeing with her...

What is that? They beat me to it? Damn Internet and its professional trolls.

For the record, I don't agree with her proposal. But I can't help by point out the similarity with what was done by those disagreeing with her, from their high horses. Except for the terrorist threats, of course...

 

[WhiteNachos]

You know what Six Wars I think the biggest problem is that you see those arguments as grasping at straws and I don't. I think the timing is suspicious. I'm not saying it's proof positive that she faked it, all I'm saying is that it's a bit suspicious.

Like when a cop who is accused of abuse says their camera malfunctioned during the act. Sure it might've, but it does raise some suspicion about the possibility that the cop disabled it. It could be a coincidence and it's definitely not enough evidence that the cop's covering it up but it's suspicious.

And to see you dismiss these suspicions as being misogynist just seems like you don't even want a discussion but are just taking sides and sticking with it.

I should've been nicer though. Sorry.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Err why target Steam only? Seriously I thought the petition was to do with more on the Steam Sales (they are so cheap!) than it was about the recent attack on Anita. Shouldn't the petition should also apply to Xbox lived and Playstation network since I'm pretty sure women get harrass over there too!

 

[hermes]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

 

[hermes]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

 

[MerlinCross]

Steam? Really?

I've heard way worse on Xboxlive than anywhere on steam. I mean if you really want to boycott something, start there. 13 year olds should not message a woman in that way across Xboxlive.

 

[Six Ways]

And there are despicable people out there.

Spoiler

There are despicable people out there. To claim that any one person is one, you need to back it up or as I say, you are yourself despicable.

And she would have to fake death threats that have her address posted on them or fake them if they weren't as psycho as the ones she posted.

Again, she's basically the most reviled woman on the internet. I have no trouble believing people have managed to find her personal details.

And I'm referring to her saying that Hitman Absolution encourages you to kill strippers and drag their bodies around when the opposite is true.

'Lying' (read: misinterpreting, since this is not a factual matter, but a matter of criticism and opinion) on that scale has absolutely nothing to do with lying on the scale of faking death threats. Sorry, but I don't know how I even have to say that. Told your friend you liked their painting when you thought it was mediocre? You're probably crying wolf about being mugged that time.

I just wanted to say that I really dislike dismissive people who say 'people who take this position are jerks' without addressing what they say.

You didn't really give me a chance. You were, in fact, the one jumping in without considering my position.

Ad hominem would be something like "you dropped out of high school, therefore we can ignore whatever you have to say". It's dismissing an argument based on the person who said it not just an insult.

You dismissed my feminism as white knighting.

E: Why do I assume you just dismissed them? Well because you say they're all misogynists.

Didn't say that.

EDIT: I'm not trying to flame you - I respect that you listened to my counter-arguments on the death threat stuff, and apologies if I'm coming across as blunt. But I do still feel like most of your post is based on a couple of false assumptions.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

 

[Six Ways]

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

It's more about burden of proof. As I've said earlier, you need to have rock solid evidence of fakery before you accuse someone of faking something so terrible (and statisically unlikely).

 

[barbzilla]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is often the correct one. In this situation, the simplest solution is that Anita did receive the death threats, and decided to use them to fuel the controversy engine. So in this situation it does work that way.

It is far more common to receive death threats online than it is to fake them. Anita has received plentiful threats from which to choose, and as such it is likely she has received threats such as this on her twitter since I know she received plenty of them on her kickstarter. In this situation, it would make more sense to watch and wait for a new one to crop up to use as fuel than it would to risk the flip controversy of faking one. This also explains the short time gap between the posting of the threat, and the screen capping of said threat (since she was waiting for one, it seems logical that she would jump on it when it appeared). As for the account being created for this purpose, that is also common practice. I mean, if I was going to threaten someone online, I certainly wouldn't use my personal account (not saying that I would mind you, just that if I did, I wouldn't want it linked to me).

All of that said, Occam's Razor doesn't account for all potential situations, it only states the most probable outcome. So she probably received the threats, but she may have forged them.

 

[GenuflectHonesty]

I think we should propose to black out Twiter for a year... THAT would actually help the conversation about games, cause you could do it in a place where A CONVERSATION can actually happen...

I think we should go a step further and just burn Twitter to the ground, because what I've seen on it lately has shown me that it has no right to exist.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

I think we should propose to black out Twiter for a year... THAT would actually help the conversation about games, cause you could do it in a place where A CONVERSATION can actually happen...

Where can I sign that petition?

So remember when feminists like Anita said that they're not trying to take video games away?

I'm not having this. At all.

A reminder: there's no indication Anita Sarkeesian had anything to do with this petition. It's likely just one of her loony fans trying to "help", or maybe one of her loony detractors pretending to be one of her loony fans in order to stir the pot.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Holy shit, this is Lewis' Law all over the place. I am astounded at the proportion of people on here happily saying they think these death threats might have been faked.

Yeah how dare people question the validity of these threats that could've been faked. It's not like Anita has ever lied about anything before /s.

snip.

Well, law of large numbers here: What is more common? People faking physical, psychological or verbal attacks and threats based on gender wanting attention? or people hiding behind anonymity to make claims and threats online that would put their asses into jail if done in person?

Yeah... not looking good for the conspiracy theorists.

That is an appeal to probability fallacy (I think).

Actually, its an appeal to Occam's Razor.

Which is still better than a reductio ad Hitlerum seen here.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You can't just say "oh well more people get real death threats then ones they faked themself". U have to consider the arguments on this particular situation. Besides that logic would lead to "anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to a crime must be telling the truth since that's more common than eyewitnesses lying to protect themself" but that's actually happened though.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is often the correct one. In this situation, the simplest solution is that Anita did receive the death threats, and decided to use them to fuel the controversy engine. So in this situation it does work that way.

How is someone else sending her death threats more simple than her making the death threats? They'd both involve someone taking the same steps (make twitter account, post threats). And you're simplifying what Occam's Razor is.

And in this case it would be that she found the death threats almost immediately after they were posted, logged out for no apparent reason then took the screenshot. Occam's Razor is about assumptions, so we'd have to assume she found them immediately, assume that she logged out because ... I don't know. If we go by 'she faked it' that explains both of those. It wouldn't rely on the luck of finding the posts within a time window.

It is far more common to receive death threats online than it is to fake them. Anita has received plentiful threats from which to choose, and as such it is likely she has received threats such as this on her twitter

I really doubt that. This sounds like a movie stalker rather than a real person. And Anita's been fading from obscurity before her this. I doubt she gets threats daily now.

since I know she received plenty of them on her kickstarter. In this situation, it would make more sense to watch and wait for a new one to crop up to use as fuel than it would to risk the flip controversy of faking one. This also explains the short time gap between the posting of the threat, and the screen capping of said threat (since she was waiting for one, it seems logical that she would jump on it when it appeared).

She would also have to wait for someone who knows her address. And if she was waiting for one that raises serious doubts about her "I was so scared I slept at my relative's house" story. Just saying.