Gamer Girl Jayd3Fox Bullied off web by Feminist

[Areloch]

snip

That makes sense.

I'm a bit more cynical, so I tend to assume that when something bad happens to you and you instantaneously launch to twitter or youtube, you're there purely for the attention and support, and not because it was actually bad for you, but that's just me personally(not to say nothing bad happened, but that it isn't anywhere near as serious to the offended party as they pretend it is)

It's just kinda sad to see all this discussion(outside of a few overly vitriolic people on both sides, most talk about Zoe or Anita or this here have been very civil and an actual debate. People seem to forget that sometimes) tend to run into a wall when people post up sizable amounts of stuff that supports what they're saying get thrown to the side because of minor, unprovable niggles.

Such is internet debate, I suppose.

 

[Bat Vader]

It's pretty sad this person is getting flak for something that she didn't deserve. Hopefully the person that called her is on the receiving end of some bad karma soon.

 

[Wereduck]

I bet she totally faked it to get sympathy.

Oh wait, no, I'm actually capable of empathy for people I don't agree with.

This +1
I watched her video linked above and I'm not impressed. Didn't strike me as particularly funny or insightful. Guess what: that's got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

As a passionate SJW I find the presumption of bad faith on my own side of this argument absolutely contemptible.
This is a simple, straightforward issue. Unless there's a smoking gun of some kind (which nobody's claiming) the only thing to be said is that yes, it's despicable, it shouldn't happen to anyone and it deserves every bit as much outrage as we can muster for A or Z.

I'm beyond sick to death of entitled majority privilege assholes harping on their "tolerate my intolerance" progressive hypocrisy fallacy but if you feel we're being unfairly misrepresented here then this is an excellent opportunity to take the high road and prove them wrong. The fact that so many of the comments here completely disregard the actual subject in order to attack the OP is fucking disgraceful. They say we only oppose harassment against people who agree with us so you leap in to prove them right? What the fuck is wrong with you guys?

If you truly think this is about "sides" then you seriously need to take a long look in the damn mirror.

 

[Cronenberg1]

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.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

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.

that does not explain how they stumbled with this account while logged out, without searching. the only logical explaination would be Anita or somebody related to her finding out/searching about the tweet while logged in, then logging out and/or erasing the search for whatever reason. Why do that, when you just can screen that shit right away? it does not add up at all.

 

[Cronenberg1]

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.

that does not explain how they stumbled with this account while logged out, without searching. the only logical explaination would be Anita or somebody related to her finding out/searching about the tweet while logged in, then logging out and/or erasing the search for whatever reason. Why do that, when you just can screen that shit right away? it does not add up at all.

There could be plenty of reasons why. Maybe someone else sent the picture to her, maybe she logged out so nobody would see any of her twitter info. I have no idea but it's not anywhere close to evidence that she faked the tweets.

 

[Agayek]

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.

Eh, yes and no. I very much agree that it's not terribly suspect for it to be a random burner account that whatever asshole put together and threw up there.

What I do find suspect is that whoever took that screencap took it literally 12 seconds after the last tweet went up. I'm not one for social media, Twitter especially, so it's entirely possible I'm missing something in the nature of how it works, but if you're not logged in, you can't see the tweet, so whoever took the screenshot had to be logged in, read one or more of the tweets, navigated to the page where it only showed that person's tweets, logged out, and then took the screenshot. It stretches credulity that all that can be done within 12 seconds of the tweet going up without forewarning.

It's possible, certainly, and I'm definitely not willing to call it a fake on that alone, but it raises questions about its legitimacy.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

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.

that does not explain how they stumbled with this account while logged out, without searching. the only logical explaination would be Anita or somebody related to her finding out/searching about the tweet while logged in, then logging out and/or erasing the search for whatever reason. Why do that, when you just can screen that shit right away? it does not add up at all.

There could be plenty of reasons why. Maybe someone else sent the picture to her, maybe she logged out so nobody would see any of her twitter info. I have no idea but it's not anywhere close to evidence that she faked the tweets.

Still, why log out when you can screen and black out in MS Paint? and her Twitter info is available anyway, that's a moot point.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

*gasp*

You mean somebody who is committing a crime, ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on jurisdiction, tried to hide their identity? Why how unlikely!

In response to that other bullshit image, I'll just copy and paste some refutations that I've done five times already.

Spoiler: The same thing I've posted multiple times already.

I use twitter like once a month and even I can spot a ton of errors in that.

1. Who screencapped it? Dunno, ask Anita. I'm not logged in most of the time that I'm watching Twitter feeds because I don't tweet or retweet.

2. Just because nothing is in the search bar, doesn't mean a search did not take place.

3. You could easily get to that page my right-clicking on the username and pressing "open in new tab". In fact, I just did it right now. Right-clicked over the name, pressed "open in new tab", and presto, there was nothing in the search bar.

4. Doesn't matter how short of a span it was, between the last post and the screencap, its called refreshing the page. When they're spitting out tweets rapid fire, you're bound to get close when you keep refreshing.

5. Scripted tweets? Yeah, people do that! Haven't you ever seen people put a "1/3" or something like that at the end of their tweet to indicate that its a continous, flowing thought from a previous tweet? There's only two times I ever use twitter, and thats either when I'm looking at a "_TXT" account or when there's some sort of twitter controversy, and even I know this. Its either ignorance on the part of the person who made the image of intentional deceit.

6. Its pretty easy to tweet that fast. Just CTRL-C, CTRL-V something you've got in open in some sort of writing program, like Wordpad or Notepad, which comes in every Microsoft OS.

Again, I barely ever use Twitter. I've got 18 tweets on my account that I opened 18 months ago. One tweet a month. Even with that, I can tell that all these accusations are baseless.

Its funny how the image says "scrutiny is not a sin" at the bottom, yet you used none. I was able to spot all of these errors in less than a minute, and I don't even use Twitter. I can't imagine what other people here on the forum might be able to point out about the accusations. So please, stop with the fucking "Anita is a scam artist/psycho/sociopath/flyingelephant" rhetoric, because its bullshit.

That image is exactly the kind of conspiracy theorist confirmation bias I was talking about where you quoted me - they'll always find something wrong with it. Take a common example - "Hmm, cops responded quickly? Its like they were prepared for this sort of thing! Conspiracy!" vs "Hmm, cops took a while to respond, like they were somehow delayed... Conspiracy!"

I'm assuming there's a way to verify a report was made to the police. If you were serious about investigative journalism, then that's step on in verifying the story.

If so, they'd be investigating which means they'll be kicking the tires of this harder than anyone here and have access to all sorts of information none of us have. If they track it back to one of her peeps, they've got her for filing a false police report. The house of cards would come tumbling down, because most folks aren't nearly good enough to hide their trail.

If she's lying about filing a police report; her high profile works against her because someone would likely come out saying no such report was filed.

Basically, you have to be a bit of an idiot to run this kind of gambit. There's a million ways it could back fire on you, because few people are as smart as they think they are. I still remember the rather pathetic case of Morton Downey Jr. who attempted to get publicity by faking an attack by Nazi skinheads... only he applied the Swastika in the mirror and got it backwards. And that was only one of his many mistakes that cemented his reputation as a complete and total joke.

As it applies to Sarkeesian, the gains are relatively small (she already got a shit-ton of money from Kickstarter), no shortage of attention for his videos thanks to threads like these, and the risks are enormous. She could completely and irreparably damage her credibility in the eyes of the media by doing something like this.

 

[roski]

How much you want to bet Journalist will ignore this completely and try to sweep it under the rung because you know this act of harassment wasn't committed by a man?

If this harassment actually happened then you've just now exposed this girl so she can get some more. You might be putting her in danger just to prove your point, which is despicable, no different than journalists spreading the detailed life of suicidal maniacs while spawning more of these in the process because, you know, trolls crave attention.
If this is all made up then you're doing no different than the people you're criticizing.
What good can come from this?

 

[AJ_Lethal]

Still, why log out when you can screen and black out in MS Paint? and her Twitter info is available anyway, that's a moot point.

Why log out? So they can hide their account info. Perhaps the person did not think of blacking out their own profile information? Perhaps they weren't logged in in the first place, as people do lurk Twitter without being logged in.

And even if they did what you're saying, we'd just see a bunch of assholes saying "They blacked out the name, its obvious that they're still logged into that Twitter account!" And if they didn't log out, and didn't hide their identity, they'd just be harassed for being a "shill", for screencapping that while Anita did that with her own account. Like I said, Conspiracy Theorist Confirmation Bias - they'll always find a way to be right, even if it means disregarding entirely plausible explanations.

Look, just because I pointed out irregularities on that tweet does not mean I have 100% chances of being right; I could be wrong at the end of the day after all. Sure, your points are rather plausible (but I still doubt they all apply), but unless the police comes out with the results of the investigation we could leave the speculation spinning around for a while.

 

[AkaDad]

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.

 

[Jezzy54]

Whoever harassed her over the phone is no feminist, even if they claim to be. That is exactly the kind of behaviour feminism is meant to fight against.

 

[Godhead]

"Because abuse and harassment are A-OK if I'm fighting for social justice!"

Was anyone apart from morons saying anything even remotely resembling that?

>implying I'm a moron for having a disdain of hypocrisy

>implying that people here are definitely hypocrites and there is no way to not have cognitive dissonance on this issue from a feminist/social justice perspective but it's okay for for the other side because the victim is smaller and agrees with you.

>implying that one wouldn't gasp for breath after saying that sentence
>implying people can't green text
>implying

 

[carnex]

It's totally irrelevan is this doctored or not. It's ultimately unprovable without some real world investigation and even then it would likely fall flat since it's damn easy to prevent one way traffic from be tracked later.

I think that everyone can agree that Anita did receive threats to her life, and that Jayd3Fox received threats to her life. And given jayd3Fox-es self disclosed psychological history (and the fact that she sounds like there is some more than what she said) I can understand her reaction or overreaction. Also I don't know what threats Anita really did received so I can't really comment on her reaction.

But it all shows that hate flows both ways. Both groups involved here have self proclaimed membership and both have next to no real world power (although people who do want to change/censor games do have internet gaming media on their side) so this is worst they can do. But it's also a fact that they can't stop people from doing it in their name.

 

[Skatologist]

"Because abuse and harassment are A-OK if I'm fighting for social justice!"

Was anyone apart from morons saying anything even remotely resembling that?

>implying I'm a moron for having a disdain of hypocrisy

>implying that people here are definitely hypocrites and there is no way to not have cognitive dissonance on this issue from a feminist/social justice perspective but it's okay for for the other side because the victim is smaller and agrees with you.

>implying that one wouldn't gasp for breath after saying that sentence
>implying people can't green text
>implying

>Implying that was all serious
>Implying people can't even purple text
>Implying...implications!

Spoiler

this is fun!

 

[Skatologist]

Whoever harassed her over the phone is no feminist, even if they claim to be. That is exactly the kind of behaviour feminism is meant to fight against.

Disagree, it's never a good thing to claim a No True Scotsman, people do the same to Quinn and Sarkeesian if they disagree enough with them and the flip side is also true. Best just to say that you disagree with such actions and people tainting that label with such actions are definitely something to condemn.