Gamer Girl Jayd3Fox Bullied off web by Feminist

[Something Amyss]

From Devin Faraci - "Gamers, you're like a dumb terrorist who blows himself up making his jihad video. Well done."

The general attitude is that because all gamers are part of gaming culture the gamers who are not sexist are responsible for the behavior of the gamers who are sexist. Because gamers "allow" this sort of thing in their culture gamers in general are responsible for the harassment.

I can't speak for the other article (which I would largely disagree with if true), but when it comes to Faraci, he's effectively been quote mined as his previous tweets had been specifically about things like "misogynist gamers" or the ones who were phoning in bomb threats. While I've seen him be specific enough to reasonably presume he didn't mean gamers as a whole are responsible, I'm yet to see anything to the contrary where he does specify the same.

So yes. #notallfeminists, #notallgamers, #notallmen. I don't freaking care, I'll give it to them. It's such a weak, pedantic point. It's the equivalent of a grade school teacher saying "I don't know, CAN you go to the bathroom?"

Faraci's tweet does indicate damage to image, but not responsibility.

More bothersome to me is that the poster you quoted instead used the "no true Scotsman" argument in order to distance themselves from the issue at hand. This is a great way to not deal with systemic problems by deliberate exclusion. It would be the equivalent, rather than say "notallgamers" of the people "defending" gaming saying that a real gamer would never do these things. I'm yet to actually see this claim from the "notallgamers" crowd, though it's common in other aspects of gaming and would be the more worrisome outcropping.

 

[Agayek]

Thats actually absolutely incorrect. I literally just logged out of Twitter, and used the URL "www.twitter.com/search" (something I have bookmarked btw), which allows you to search without being logged in. I searched "@femfreq", which led me to see tweets sent at her. Then I just right-clicked and pressed "open in new tab", voila! My search is empty, I'm not logged in, and I can see a bunch of tweets from somebody.

Two things:

1) I didn't say anything about the search, where the hell are you getting that from?

2)I also didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it stretches credulity that it could be found, realized to be what it was, arranged to be the only thing visible on the page, and then screencapped all within 12 seconds.

That part is entirely possible, but the timeline does render it suspect. If there were other legitimate, strong signs of it being fake, then it would be pretty damning. There aren't any other legitimate, strong signs of such though, and so there's no reason to believe it's fake, only reason to look at it skeptically and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Netrigan]

I can't find myself being offended by it. It's just the Right Wing Hitler card. Every time they use the term, they officially lose the argument... because if you can't make your case without using self-evident hyperbole, then I pretty much assume you're blowing everything else out of proportion, too.

I freaking HATE that stupid "rule" especially because the "lose the argument" part isn't even godwins law. godwins law is simply "as the post count in any online debate rises, the probability of something being compared to the nazis rises to 1"

NOTHING about "losing the argument"

I would think he has such a rule for himself (you're right, it's not an internet law or rule, just a person's opinion on when they stop taking someone seriously) because such comparison is faulty on multiple levels. It is often a show of desperation from one side to another and almost clearly implies that that person making the comparison can not/will not respect their opposition. He also said in the same post that he felt similarly about somebody calling someone else a misogynist and I usually do the same when someone calls someone else an asshole or racist, even if I think it is true. Name calling isn't an argument, it's quite honestly a fallacy and should be seen as such.

Pretty much that.

There's a lot of tricks people use to spin stories and after a while I got used to seeing them. It's why I stopped listening to Rush all those years ago, it became too easy to spot him reframing other people's words and shifting the argument.

Feminazi became an easy way of creating an enemy. It was rarely (if ever) directed at anyone in particular, but a quasi-defined Other whose influence is seen everywhere and which must be opposed... and anyone who identified themselves as Feminist were suspected members of this shadowy organization.

You might as well be talking about the Illuminati.

 

[Skatologist]

Pretty much that.

There's a lot of tricks people use to spin stories and after a while I got used to seeing them. It's why I stopped listening to Rush all those years ago, it became too easy to spot him reframing other people's words and shifting the argument.

Feminazi became an easy way of creating an enemy. It was rarely (if ever) directed at anyone in particular, but a quasi-defined Other whose influence is seen everywhere and which must be opposed... and anyone who identified themselves as Feminist were suspected members of this shadowy organization.

You might as well be talking about the Illuminati.

Oh yeah, I also forgot about those few that talked about the "elite" until you brought up the illuminati and how i generally don't take them seriously either. Sure, I'm as pissed off at poor business practices and profit of pain types like many other liberally minded people, but "elite" just doesn't sit well for me, even if i'm sort of okay with someone "bullying" a billionaire.

 

[Something Amyss]

2)I also didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it stretches credulity that it could be found, realized to be what it was, arranged to be the only thing visible on the page, and then screencapped all within 12 seconds.

This assumes that it was the final tweet which triggered the action, rather than simply being the final tweet as of capture.

Unless you can demonstrate that the final tweet was the trigger, this argument is a non-starter. It stretches credulity only if it were true that this is the actual sequence of events.

 

[Netrigan]

People do come forth with more serious accusations that lack proof, but no one raised the question when Zoe Quinn said she was getting harassing phone calls from 4chan or Wizardchan, yet outlets reported on it just the same without further digging. I just think it'd be nice if some outlets stopped reporting on trolls/unprovable accusations full stop. They only cause shitstorms in the end.

And welcome to lazy reporting... although lazy in the sense of the reporting, not necessarily the reporter. They have a lot of content to produce and not a whole lot of time.

This is why I said if people want to get out this current story, then they need to do the leg work and document where they found everything. That way, a reporter can check out those facts, maybe do a bit of digging if something catches his eye. This is why press releases exist and public relations departments. Its their job to present the media with ready-to-go stories and the content hungry media often reports them with minimal changes. Next time you're poking around in a story, notice how many articles are written like, "such and such said..." followed by a whole bunch of stuff which is clearly from such and such.

 

[Agayek]

This assumes that it was the final tweet which triggered the action, rather than simply being the final tweet as of capture.

Unless you can demonstrate that the final tweet was the trigger, this argument is a non-starter. It stretches credulity only if it were true that this is the actual sequence of events.

As I said, I don't think it was faked.

All I'm saying is that it's suspicious and should be questioned. Upon examination, I'm reasonably confident that it wasn't orchestrated or faked, but I can see how people can reach that conclusion with the right perspective/mental gymnastics.

 

[Something Amyss]

As I said, I don't think it was faked.

It doesn't matter. The point you raise adds a needless complication. You can believe it, not believe it, or think it's a hat, but the point is that this statement has a needless assumption. That's why I said things like "This assumes that it was the final tweet which triggered the action, rather than simply being the final tweet as of capture" rather than "you clearly are an Anita Sarkeesian hater who will believe the worst of her no matter what you evil evil evil man!"

The assumption, for whatever reason, is unnecessary unless it can be proved accurate. It's only "suspicious" if you frame it a certain way.

 

[Captain Anon]

Question. Do you care at all about the suffering this woman had to go through, or is she just a cut out you can use to prove a point?

I care, The Internet has not taken my empathy yet but anyway I weep [Mentally] for this poor woman, I feel her pain she doesn't deserves this........no one does, I feel sad and angry that such scum as the caller exist in this world, even though yes there are worser pieces of shit still ranks pretty high

 

[Nowhere Man]

I started to feel bad for her, then she said "Feminazis." I stopped listening at that point. Anyone who uses that term in a non-joking way loses all sympathy from me.

Wait.

She gets doxxed and harassed, but because she unironically used the word "feminazi," none of that matters.

Really.

Gee, I really love this brand of feminism. The one that will throw women to the wolves for using a word they don't like. On the other hand, I always suspected that most feminists don't really care about the advancement of women, just the advancement of other feminists, so I guess it isn't too surprising.

I'm probably going to draw a lot of ire with what I feel needs to be said and this may go on a bit of a tangent but IDGAF anymore so here goes.

3rd wave feminists will throw their own gender under the bus just for feeling that their narrative is being threatened. Rational women who want no part of their crusade probably anger them the most. They are a party that places subjective feeling over objective truth and they will not stop until society is remade in this image and the pendulum is swung so far in their direction that it snaps off. Deep down they hate and resent gamers (this disdain is out in the open if you read many of the tweets and postings of the past weeks) and now they are hard at work trying to make us feel ashamed to be gamers (look at all the propagan- I mean articles cropping up this week on many "gaming" sites). That's some crazy underhanded psy-ops level bullshit. In short, they think gamers are spineless so they play us like fiddles and pit us against each other and antagonize us hoping the weaker (and dumber) of our ranks lash out against them thus continuing the cycle. Oh and please donate. This is why gaming is currently such a huge target for them. They think we're suckers. They don't have Psych and Sociology degrees for nothing you know.

It's unfortunate any kind of harassing from either side exists. And even more unfortunate that it's all probably going to get worse before it gets any better.

 

[Erttheking]

Question. Do you care at all about the suffering this woman had to go through, or is she just a cut out you can use to prove a point?

I care, The Internet has not taken my empathy yet but anyway I weep [Mentally] for this poor woman, I feel her pain she doesn't deserves this........no one does, I feel sad and angry that such scum as the caller exist in this world, even though yes there are worser pieces of shit still ranks pretty high

Fair enough. I'm just a bit frustrated about the massive contrast between this thread and the Anita one.

 

[Darkmantle]

Why is it significant that she's a feminist? Or allegedly one?

Because that kind of bullying has been happening since always. Boys calling girls names, Girls calling other girls names. This isnt some new form of feminist based issue. People have bullied others for always, especially in roles which can be linked with a sexual nature, however loosely.


For comparison, this would be like a news article based on a school shooting, where the headline was 'Gamer shoots up school'. What relevance does the title given to the wrong doer have other than to confirm or encourage bias?


Then again, if you drain away the bias of the title, this boils down to 'Streamer bullied into giving up streaming', which I guess doesnt make quite the splash you're looking for?

The issue I think is the hypocrisy of someone who fits the SJW narrative doing something like that.

So your issue is that someone who partakes in an group or ideal, can still be an asshole? Because thats what this was. Someone being an asshole to another person. Their belief system is only relevant for stirring the pot.

you and many others are totally misunderstanding the point being pushed here. It's not actually about whether what this girl said is true or not. The point is, that when the perp is some random internet male, "you" are all over it, defending the woman, attacking the villain, you know, white knight shit.

But suddenly when the perp might be a person whose ideology you share, suddenly "the group they belong to is irrelevant" when it's a "gamer" the THE WHOLE GAMING COMMUNITY IS EVIL AND MISOGYNISTIC. This is the root of the issue, not the credibly of this particular case, the gaming journalism community certainly didn't care about credibility when they reported these instances before. Didn't Greg Tito of the escapist say that he chooses to err on the side of believing the victim? Where is the articles that attack the perp and whatever groups he or she may belong to in this case, everyone was all over wizardchan as a whole over the Zoe incident, but now that it seems some splinter of feminism might be involved in a negative way, all of a sudden condemning a whole group based on the actions of a few is wrong? Why was it not wrong for other groups?

This is a hypocrisy present in many people. You would do well to acknowledge it.


PS: news flash, the ideology of the perp in this case may actually have a lot to do with it, there is still sex negative feminists out there, and they can get very nasty.

 

[Piorn]

You know what I realized? We always specify the victim, and always generalize the aggressor.
X was harassed by "Gamers".
Y was harassed by "Feminists".
It lumps a few vocal assholes into a gigantic group of perfectly normal people, and let's everyone look bad.

Shouldn't we instead call out the aggressors for their behaviour?
A harasses "Women".
B discriminates against "group".
Then we could confront these people and ask them why they're stirring up trouble and make things harder for everyone. Because it IS just a few vocal people who're actively sexist/racist.

 

[Darkmantle]

You know what I realized? We always specify the victim, and always generalize the aggressor.
X was harassed by "Gamers".
Y was harassed by "Feminists".
It lumps a few vocal assholes into a gigantic group of perfectly normal people, and let's everyone look bad.

Shouldn't we instead call out the aggressors for their behaviour?
A harasses "Women".
B discriminates against "group".
Then we could confront these people and ask them why they're stirring up trouble and make things harder for everyone. Because it IS just a few vocal people who're actively sexist/racist.

Ideally that's what we should be doing, but we should do it for every case. What I want is for people to be consistent. You can't use one case to claim all "gamers" are bad, and then go on to say that we should look at people as individuals when it's "feminists"


CAPTCHA cold shoulder: now I feel like I'm about to be shunned :/

 

[SecretSmoke]

-snip-

A bit late, but I felt like replying and saying 'Thanks!' Something about these sorts of topics has always mildly pissed me off, and I think you hit it on the head there... (Despite the fact that playing someone like a magic card could be pretty sick in a gaming context lol...)

 

[Captain Anon]

I care, The Internet has not taken my empathy yet but anyway I weep [Mentally] for this poor woman, I feel her pain she doesn't deserves this........no one does, I feel sad and angry that such scum as the caller exist in this world, even though yes there are worser pieces of shit still ranks pretty high

Fair enough. I'm just a bit frustrated about the massive contrast between this thread and the Anita one.

do tell my good man do you think one case is a kind of silly taken out of and the other is very serious? or do you think they're similar cases being silly, serious or whatever have you?

 

[DrOswald]

You know what I realized? We always specify the victim, and always generalize the aggressor.
X was harassed by "Gamers".
Y was harassed by "Feminists".
It lumps a few vocal assholes into a gigantic group of perfectly normal people, and let's everyone look bad.

Shouldn't we instead call out the aggressors for their behaviour?
A harasses "Women".
B discriminates against "group".
Then we could confront these people and ask them why they're stirring up trouble and make things harder for everyone. Because it IS just a few vocal people who're actively sexist/racist.

The problem is that we cannot confront these few individuals. It is impossible because they are hiding behind the near perfect anonymity of the internet. There is no one to specifically target. That is where we get all these absurd generalizations from. There is no way to put a face to the enemy so we over generalize and put it all at the feet of the most convenient social group. It is wrong and stupid and completely unhelpful.

I mean, does anyone really think all this "death of gamers" and "gamers are over" stuff is going to do anything to stop harassment? Do we really think that giving everyone a reason to hate everyone else is going to cut down on irrational hatred?

 

[Fox12]

Oh, so this girl isn't over reacting, but anita and zoe are because... why? This is still horrible, but it isn't any less horrible when feminists on the other side get threats and slut shaming too. It's still not cool no matter who does it. I don't like radical feminists either, and anita and zoe are NOT. I don't see them calling for mass castration or some shit like that. And again, this is horrible. But not because she got harassed by a feminist, but because she got harassed by a shit head. Doesn't matter the gender, they're still shitheads.

Which is the problem with this whole debate. Everyone's a shit head. Anti-feminists are being shit heads. Zoe is a shit head. The hipster journalist cliques are shit heads. The basement dwelling man children are shit heads. This isn't lord of the rings, like moviebob would love to believe (he gets to be the good guy!). This is game of thrones, where a bunch shit heads burn everything to the ground to see who gets to be king of the ashes. I think it's been pretty tame here, but for the most part it's just mud slinging.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Why is it significant that she's a feminist? Or allegedly one?

Because that kind of bullying has been happening since always. Boys calling girls names, Girls calling other girls names. This isnt some new form of feminist based issue. People have bullied others for always, especially in roles which can be linked with a sexual nature, however loosely.


For comparison, this would be like a news article based on a school shooting, where the headline was 'Gamer shoots up school'. What relevance does the title given to the wrong doer have other than to confirm or encourage bias?


Then again, if you drain away the bias of the title, this boils down to 'Streamer bullied into giving up streaming', which I guess doesnt make quite the splash you're looking for?

The issue I think is the hypocrisy of someone who fits the SJW narrative doing something like that.

So your issue is that someone who partakes in an group or ideal, can still be an asshole? Because thats what this was. Someone being an asshole to another person. Their belief system is only relevant for stirring the pot.

Well, when the entire aim of the group is "don't be assholes", I'd say it's relevant, yes.

 

[Loonyyy]

As for what goes for internet evidence, circumstantial evidence does not count. Going "Look, they were logged in while they made that screencap! Totally fake" isn't viable because it presumes that a person behaves in a very specific pattern, and that all deviations from such are not viable. It reminds me of all those assholes who, during the Sandy Hook shooting, went "Look, that parent who just had their children isn't behaving in the singular way that I approve of!", which is especially notorious because when people do, they'll just say it was bullshit. If somebody who was logged in when they grabbed a screencap of those threats toward Anita, they'd have to black out their name to avoid massive harassment, which would mean people would go "well obviously it was made while they were logged into that account!". If they did post their name, then a bunch of people would just go "Well they're obviously in cahoots with Anita! Anita was logged out while they screencapped!" and if Anita herself screencapped it, people would just plain be saying "well obviously somebody else was paid to do it by Anita! How else could she be so prepared?" Its an extremely notorious line of thinking that allows somebody to shape the narrative, in any way possible.

Not exactly, look carefully:

1- Default egg avatar and theme
2- Frequency of tweets -10 tweets in 3 minutes-
3- Amount of tweets -10 is a very low number-
4- Not much personal info
5- Logged out screenshot

Conclusion: it might be a sockpuppet account.

EDIT: this guy pulled out a better breakdown: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/820/419/b8d.jpg

People don't generally use their personal accounts to send illegal death threats. They use anonymous burner accounts, nothing strange about that. It is very possible that the person had all of their posts planed out in advance, which would explain the number of tweets in the amount of time. There is nothing suspicious about this at all, typical internet abuse.

Also, not at all suprising that one of 4chan's long standing techniques, and of trolls in general, is anonymous sockpuppets. Hell, there's even shit on there about making them, and I just saw one such a post instructing people to make them about this latest blow up.

And apparently people use tabs way differently than I do. I open everything in new tabs (And then run out of memory. Derp), and that's how most people I know do things (With differences in doing things like closing them, because they remember that before the lag sets in). And if I was looking at a tweet, and wanted to see what else someone was saying *Gasp*. Clearly I've been trained by these terrible corrupt journalists too well.