So about that Total Biscuit article....

[starbear]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized."

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

I would fit the qualification of a "devout follower." I follow her on twitter, I contributed to her last crowd-funding campaign, I've watched all her videos, I find myself in general agreement with most (but not all) of her views. I do not fit this cartoonish caricature of her supporters that you have in your head: in fact I doubt very much that these people actually exist. As a supporter I'm telling you that I don't read what was written in the "worst of possible of ways" that you have chosen to interpret it.

But what do I know? I'm just a white, pansexual, mentally challenged man. Two(three under certain people who don't think pan should be counted under LGBTQ+) of those things are grounds to try and hurt me and ruin my life.

I don't think that: and I'm pretty sure that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't think that either.

Also you didn't answer my question.

I'm not obligated to answer your question.

But for the record the answer is no.

 

[starbear]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

This tweet subtly but very cleanly demonstrates the problem so many people have with the ctrl-left or regressives or SJWs or whatever the term is these days. Doxxing a marginalized person is never OK. Doxxing other people is OK though. No bad tactics, only bad targets.

Its amazing that people are still seizing on a tweet by a (relatively) obscure movie reviewer made a few years ago as "indictive of a movement." I fight for social justice. Doxxing other people is never okay. This "no bad tactics, only bad targets" was something that was said by a single person and is representative of that persons views, not mine, and in context that comment didn't mean what you think it meant.

Sometimes I feel like a starving man being offered poisoned food. These people frequently champion very real issues but it seems like more often than not their proposed cure is worse than the disease. I think I'm mixing my metaphors and getting my point all confused. Long story short I am very frustrated and am quickly learning we are fixated on the wrong axis of the political compass.

You've sure extrapolated a heck of a lot from a very short tweet.

Also harassment is bad, criticism is good, try to present your views in a manner that doesn't blur the line between the two.

The Feminist Frequency twitter account most definitely said harassment is bad (but not to your satisfaction) and it offered a fair criticism of the article. So no lines were blurred.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized." not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

This is another #notallmen or #alllivesmatter thing, isn't it?

I swear, if your argument hinges on the word "marginalized" being there and spinning that off as if she meant "but everybody else is A-okay!", you may be being a tad uncharitable.

 

[RaikuFA]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized."

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

I would fit the qualification of a "devout follower." I follow her on twitter, I contributed to her last crowd-funding campaign, I've watched all her videos, I find myself in general agreement with most (but not all) of her views. I do not fit this cartoonish caricature of her supporters that you have in your head: in fact I doubt very much that these people actually exist. As a supporter I'm telling you that I don't read what was written in the "worst of possible of ways" that you have chosen to interpret it.

But what do I know? I'm just a white, pansexual, mentally challenged man. Two(three under certain people who don't think pan should be counted under LGBTQ+) of those things are grounds to try and hurt me and ruin my life.

I don't think that: and I'm pretty sure that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't think that either.

Also you didn't answer my question.

I'm not obligated to answer your question.

But for the record the answer is no.

Except, not everyone is you. There are some very unhinged people that I guarantee DO listen to every word she says and takes it as gospel. You may laugh at the responsibility thing but it's true. By adding the marginalized part she admits that it's ok to dox certain people. It would've been EASIER to not add in the word marginalized.

 

[RaikuFA]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized." not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

This is another #notallmen or #alllivesmatter thing, isn't it?

I swear, if your argument hinges on the word "marginalized" being there and spinning that off as if she meant "but everybody else is A-okay!", you may be being a tad uncharitable.

As I said, it's a matter of responsibility. The first response to the 2nd tweet as I'm writing this says it best and would have been easier to do.

https://twitter.com/Bantu_Rhino/status/897950514708697089

"How about just not doxxing anyone at all because its a dangerous and morally reprehensible thing to do?"

And the only reason I'm going on this is because she's also part of Twitter's safety council.

 

[starbear]

And the only reason I'm going on this is because she's also part of Twitter's safety council.

Yeah, sure you are.

Without looking it up: can you tell me the names of the other people who are on the Twitter Safety Council? Can you explain the purpose of the council, how often they "meet up" if at all, and how many hours a year each member of the council would work with twitter? Do you monitor the twitter accounts of the other members to make sure that they don't post anything that isn't up to your standard? Or is it only the Feminist Frequency account that you monitor?

 

[Silent Protagonist]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

This tweet subtly but very cleanly demonstrates the problem so many people have with the ctrl-left or regressives or SJWs or whatever the term is these days. Doxxing a marginalized person is never OK. Doxxing other people is OK though. No bad tactics, only bad targets.

Its amazing that people are still seizing on a tweet by a (relatively) obscure movie reviewer made a few years ago as "indictive of a movement." I fight for social justice. Doxxing other people is never okay. This "no bad tactics, only bad targets" was something that was said by a single person and is representative of that persons views, not mine, and in context that comment didn't mean what you think it meant.

Sometimes I feel like a starving man being offered poisoned food. These people frequently champion very real issues but it seems like more often than not their proposed cure is worse than the disease. I think I'm mixing my metaphors and getting my point all confused. Long story short I am very frustrated and am quickly learning we are fixated on the wrong axis of the political compass.

You've sure extrapolated a heck of a lot from a very short tweet.

Also harassment is bad, criticism is good, try to present your views in a manner that doesn't blur the line between the two.

The Feminist Frequency twitter account most definitely said harassment is bad (but not to your satisfaction) and it offered a fair criticism of the article. So no lines were blurred.

I apologize that I am not going to make the effort to break up quotes and format it cleanly. I'm lazy sometimes. I'm going to try to address your response in the order it appears above, hopefully with a paragraph break in between sections but who knows.

People don't use that phrase because of the individual that wrote it, they use it because it succinctly demonstrates an attitude that is very common in the "self-righteous" members of just about any cause. Just because you personally don't express that attitude doesn't mean it's inappropriate to bring it up when one encounters someone who does express that attitude, as I thought the tweet mentioned did. It's similar to the phrase "Killing people to show that killing people is wrong" in the death penalty debate, in that it's a shorthand way of expressing dissatisfaction at the perceived hypocrisy of a political position.

I thought it was obvious I wasn't extrapolating those opinions from a single tweet but from years of observing and occasionally participating in the discussion of these issues, and that the tweet simply reminded me of and demonstrated a frequent bugbear of mine from that. I was rambling a bit and did not make that explicitly clear so I guess that's on me. Though I also suspect you are being intentionally snarky so maybe you already know all this.

That last bit wasn't intended to be directed at the tweet you linked, but to comment on the OP as I had been pretty off topic before that. I probably should have prefaced it with an OT. I also didn't particularly care whether or not the tweet condemned harassment enough, I was more concerned with the subtle double standard it portrayed that I have seen many times before. My post was a bit sloppy and rambling.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This is another #notallmen or #alllivesmatter thing, isn't it?

I swear, if your argument hinges on the word "marginalized" being there and spinning that off as if she meant "but everybody else is A-okay!", you may be being a tad uncharitable.

As I said, it's a matter of responsibility. The first response to the 2nd tweet as I'm writing this says it best and would have been easier to do.

https://twitter.com/Bantu_Rhino/status/897950514708697089

"How about just not doxxing anyone at all because its a dangerous and morally reprehensible thing to do?"

And the only reason I'm going on this is because she's also part of Twitter's safety council.

Could've just said "yes, it's another #notallmen/#alllivesmatter thing".

It's like if I said "you shouldn't kick dumb puppies" and people try to manufacture a controversy around "so you think it's okay to kick smart puppies then?!?"

 

[starbear]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized."

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

I would fit the qualification of a "devout follower." I follow her on twitter, I contributed to her last crowd-funding campaign, I've watched all her videos, I find myself in general agreement with most (but not all) of her views. I do not fit this cartoonish caricature of her supporters that you have in your head: in fact I doubt very much that these people actually exist. As a supporter I'm telling you that I don't read what was written in the "worst of possible of ways" that you have chosen to interpret it.

But what do I know? I'm just a white, pansexual, mentally challenged man. Two(three under certain people who don't think pan should be counted under LGBTQ+) of those things are grounds to try and hurt me and ruin my life.

I don't think that: and I'm pretty sure that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't think that either.

Also you didn't answer my question.

I'm not obligated to answer your question.

But for the record the answer is no.

Except, not everyone is you. There are some very unhinged people that I guarantee DO listen to every word she says and takes it as gospel.

Where are these people that take every word that she says as gospel? Show them to me. Show me these unhinged people.

You may laugh at the responsibility thing but it's true.

But it isn't true. People have agency. If they doxx someone that is their own responsibility: not somebody elses. Especially someone that is not on record as advocating doxxing.

By adding the marginalized part she admits that it's ok to dox certain people. It would've been EASIER to not add in the word marginalized.

Its pretty freaking obvious why the word "marginalised" was used in this context: it was because they were talking about Laura Kate. The only people who have adopted your interpretation of her words are those that aren't supporters of her, not those that are. Its entirely fair to criticise someone for the words that they say: it isn't fair to criticise them for words that they didn't.

 

[RaikuFA]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized."

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

I would fit the qualification of a "devout follower." I follow her on twitter, I contributed to her last crowd-funding campaign, I've watched all her videos, I find myself in general agreement with most (but not all) of her views. I do not fit this cartoonish caricature of her supporters that you have in your head: in fact I doubt very much that these people actually exist. As a supporter I'm telling you that I don't read what was written in the "worst of possible of ways" that you have chosen to interpret it.

But what do I know? I'm just a white, pansexual, mentally challenged man. Two(three under certain people who don't think pan should be counted under LGBTQ+) of those things are grounds to try and hurt me and ruin my life.

I don't think that: and I'm pretty sure that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't think that either.

Also you didn't answer my question.

I'm not obligated to answer your question.

But for the record the answer is no.

Except, not everyone is you. There are some very unhinged people that I guarantee DO listen to every word she says and takes it as gospel.

Where are these people that take every word that she says as gospel? Show them to me. Show me these unhinged people.

You may laugh at the responsibility thing but it's true.

But it isn't true. People have agency. If they doxx someone that is their own responsibility: not somebody elses. Especially someone that is not on record as advocating doxxing.

By adding the marginalized part she admits that it's ok to dox certain people. It would've been EASIER to not add in the word marginalized.

Its pretty freaking obvious why the word "marginalised" was used in this context: it was because they were talking about Laura Kate. The only people who have adopted your interpretation of her words are those that aren't supporters of her, not those that are. Its entirely fair to criticise someone for the words that they say: it isn't fair to criticise them for words that they didn't.

Listen, you've already shown your biased that Anita's the greatest thing to you. When it comes to her, you're worse than Saelune with nearly anything else. What's the point in talking in circles with you?

Either way. Silent protagionist is a better debator. Remember, I'm a worthless retard that can't debate.

 

[RaikuFA]

This is another #notallmen or #alllivesmatter thing, isn't it?

I swear, if your argument hinges on the word "marginalized" being there and spinning that off as if she meant "but everybody else is A-okay!", you may be being a tad uncharitable.

As I said, it's a matter of responsibility. The first response to the 2nd tweet as I'm writing this says it best and would have been easier to do.

https://twitter.com/Bantu_Rhino/status/897950514708697089

"How about just not doxxing anyone at all because its a dangerous and morally reprehensible thing to do?"

And the only reason I'm going on this is because she's also part of Twitter's safety council.

Could've just said "yes, it's another #notallmen/#alllivesmatter thing".

It's like if I said "you shouldn't kick dumb puppies" and people try to manufacture a controversy around "so you think it's okay to kick smart puppies then?!?"

How about just say "don't kick puppies " and avoid the wrath of PETA and the ASPCA, who can use those phrases to destroy your life?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This is another #notallmen or #alllivesmatter thing, isn't it?

I swear, if your argument hinges on the word "marginalized" being there and spinning that off as if she meant "but everybody else is A-okay!", you may be being a tad uncharitable.

As I said, it's a matter of responsibility. The first response to the 2nd tweet as I'm writing this says it best and would have been easier to do.

https://twitter.com/Bantu_Rhino/status/897950514708697089

"How about just not doxxing anyone at all because its a dangerous and morally reprehensible thing to do?"

And the only reason I'm going on this is because she's also part of Twitter's safety council.

Could've just said "yes, it's another #notallmen/#alllivesmatter thing".

It's like if I said "you shouldn't kick dumb puppies" and people try to manufacture a controversy around "so you think it's okay to kick smart puppies then?!?"

How about just say "don't kick puppies " and avoid the wrath of PETA and the ASPCA, who can use those phrases to destroy your life?

I am more than okay with using PETA as an analogy for the folks trying to roast Sarkeesian over this.

 

[RaikuFA]

This is another #notallmen or #alllivesmatter thing, isn't it?

I swear, if your argument hinges on the word "marginalized" being there and spinning that off as if she meant "but everybody else is A-okay!", you may be being a tad uncharitable.

As I said, it's a matter of responsibility. The first response to the 2nd tweet as I'm writing this says it best and would have been easier to do.

https://twitter.com/Bantu_Rhino/status/897950514708697089

"How about just not doxxing anyone at all because its a dangerous and morally reprehensible thing to do?"

And the only reason I'm going on this is because she's also part of Twitter's safety council.

Could've just said "yes, it's another #notallmen/#alllivesmatter thing".

It's like if I said "you shouldn't kick dumb puppies" and people try to manufacture a controversy around "so you think it's okay to kick smart puppies then?!?"

How about just say "don't kick puppies " and avoid the wrath of PETA and the ASPCA, who can use those phrases to destroy your life?

I am more than okay with using PETA as an analogy for the folks trying to roast Sarkeesian over this.

Just don't give them the fuel. That's all she needed to do.

 

[starbear]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized."

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

I would fit the qualification of a "devout follower." I follow her on twitter, I contributed to her last crowd-funding campaign, I've watched all her videos, I find myself in general agreement with most (but not all) of her views. I do not fit this cartoonish caricature of her supporters that you have in your head: in fact I doubt very much that these people actually exist. As a supporter I'm telling you that I don't read what was written in the "worst of possible of ways" that you have chosen to interpret it.

But what do I know? I'm just a white, pansexual, mentally challenged man. Two(three under certain people who don't think pan should be counted under LGBTQ+) of those things are grounds to try and hurt me and ruin my life.

I don't think that: and I'm pretty sure that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't think that either.

Also you didn't answer my question.

I'm not obligated to answer your question.

But for the record the answer is no.

Except, not everyone is you. There are some very unhinged people that I guarantee DO listen to every word she says and takes it as gospel.

Where are these people that take every word that she says as gospel? Show them to me. Show me these unhinged people.

You may laugh at the responsibility thing but it's true.

But it isn't true. People have agency. If they doxx someone that is their own responsibility: not somebody elses. Especially someone that is not on record as advocating doxxing.

By adding the marginalized part she admits that it's ok to dox certain people. It would've been EASIER to not add in the word marginalized.

Its pretty freaking obvious why the word "marginalised" was used in this context: it was because they were talking about Laura Kate. The only people who have adopted your interpretation of her words are those that aren't supporters of her, not those that are. Its entirely fair to criticise someone for the words that they say: it isn't fair to criticise them for words that they didn't.

Listen, you've already shown your biased that Anita's the greatest thing to you. When it comes to her, you're worse than Saelune with nearly anything else. What's the point in talking in circles with you?

You've claimed that there exists unhinged people that every word she says is gospel. If these people actually exist (and you concede that I'm not one of these people) then where are they? I can fully believe that "Anita is the greatest" and you could independently verify what you claim is the truth. My alleged "bias" does not affect your ability to be able to prove what you say to be true. You wouldn't be "talking in circles." You would be proving you had a point.

Either way. Silent protagionist is a better debator.

Silent Protagonist has just finished conceding that their reply to me was "sloppy" and "rambling" and not always directed at what I had posted. I'll take your post as a concession that your response to me was worse than that.

Remember, I'm a worthless retard that can't debate.

I would politely request that you refrain from using the word "retard" as an insult when communicating with me: even if you are applying the word to yourself.

 

[RaikuFA]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized."

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

I would fit the qualification of a "devout follower." I follow her on twitter, I contributed to her last crowd-funding campaign, I've watched all her videos, I find myself in general agreement with most (but not all) of her views. I do not fit this cartoonish caricature of her supporters that you have in your head: in fact I doubt very much that these people actually exist. As a supporter I'm telling you that I don't read what was written in the "worst of possible of ways" that you have chosen to interpret it.

But what do I know? I'm just a white, pansexual, mentally challenged man. Two(three under certain people who don't think pan should be counted under LGBTQ+) of those things are grounds to try and hurt me and ruin my life.

I don't think that: and I'm pretty sure that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't think that either.

Also you didn't answer my question.

I'm not obligated to answer your question.

But for the record the answer is no.

Except, not everyone is you. There are some very unhinged people that I guarantee DO listen to every word she says and takes it as gospel.

Where are these people that take every word that she says as gospel? Show them to me. Show me these unhinged people.

You may laugh at the responsibility thing but it's true.

But it isn't true. People have agency. If they doxx someone that is their own responsibility: not somebody elses. Especially someone that is not on record as advocating doxxing.

By adding the marginalized part she admits that it's ok to dox certain people. It would've been EASIER to not add in the word marginalized.

Its pretty freaking obvious why the word "marginalised" was used in this context: it was because they were talking about Laura Kate. The only people who have adopted your interpretation of her words are those that aren't supporters of her, not those that are. Its entirely fair to criticise someone for the words that they say: it isn't fair to criticise them for words that they didn't.

Listen, you've already shown your biased that Anita's the greatest thing to you. When it comes to her, you're worse than Saelune with nearly anything else. What's the point in talking in circles with you?

You've claimed that there exists unhinged people that every word she says is gospel. If these people actually exist (and you concede that I'm not one of these people) then where are they? I can fully believe that "Anita is the greatest" and you could independently verify what you claim is the truth. My alleged "bias" does not affect your ability to be able to prove what you say to be true. You wouldn't be "talking in circles." You would be proving you had a point.

Either way. Silent protagionist is a better debator.

Silent Protagonist has just finished conceding that their reply to me was "sloppy" and "rambling" and not always directed at what I had posted. I'll take your post as a concession that your response to me was worse than that.

Remember, I'm a worthless retard that can't debate.

I would politely request that you refrain from using the word "retard" as an insult when communicating with me: even if you are applying the word to yourself.

No. You've already proven to me you won't listen to me no matter what I say or do. You just want to stroke your ego and prove how I'm such a terrible person because I wasn't born the way you or your little friends want me to be.

And why am I not allowed to say it and yet people can say it against me?

 

[starbear]

"You can strongly disagree with & condemn something that someone says or does on the internet, but doxxing a marginalized person is never OK."

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/897948579980955648

No, doxxing is never ok. Doesn't matter if they're marginalized or not.

Its both hilarious and sad that Sarkeesian get pilloried for things she didn't do (like siccing her fans onto Laura Kate) and things that she did do (denouncing doxxing: but not to your satisfaction.)

So it's ok to doxx certain people?

Why are you asking me that, and not directing that to the Fem Frequency twitter account? Are you ignoring the probability that the person who posted that tweet may have simply misspoke? Has Anita Sarkeesian at any time ever publicly endorsed doxxing? Do you think the intention of that tweet was to say "doxxing is okay in certain circumstances" or was it telling people to "stop doxxing Laura Kate?" Why are you taking the worst possible interpretation of that particular tweet?

Because she's a public figure. People look up to her. If she says "don't dox marginalized people" people will take that as "It's ok to dox straight white men. They're not marginalized."

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

not just the people on r/redpill who will use it as ammo against her, but her devout followers, thinking it's ok to bring harm and fear to someone over something as horribly benign as what race,gender or sexuality they are. She was in the wrong on this whole thing.

I would fit the qualification of a "devout follower." I follow her on twitter, I contributed to her last crowd-funding campaign, I've watched all her videos, I find myself in general agreement with most (but not all) of her views. I do not fit this cartoonish caricature of her supporters that you have in your head: in fact I doubt very much that these people actually exist. As a supporter I'm telling you that I don't read what was written in the "worst of possible of ways" that you have chosen to interpret it.

But what do I know? I'm just a white, pansexual, mentally challenged man. Two(three under certain people who don't think pan should be counted under LGBTQ+) of those things are grounds to try and hurt me and ruin my life.

I don't think that: and I'm pretty sure that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't think that either.

Also you didn't answer my question.

I'm not obligated to answer your question.

But for the record the answer is no.

Except, not everyone is you. There are some very unhinged people that I guarantee DO listen to every word she says and takes it as gospel.

Where are these people that take every word that she says as gospel? Show them to me. Show me these unhinged people.

You may laugh at the responsibility thing but it's true.

But it isn't true. People have agency. If they doxx someone that is their own responsibility: not somebody elses. Especially someone that is not on record as advocating doxxing.

By adding the marginalized part she admits that it's ok to dox certain people. It would've been EASIER to not add in the word marginalized.

Its pretty freaking obvious why the word "marginalised" was used in this context: it was because they were talking about Laura Kate. The only people who have adopted your interpretation of her words are those that aren't supporters of her, not those that are. Its entirely fair to criticise someone for the words that they say: it isn't fair to criticise them for words that they didn't.

Listen, you've already shown your biased that Anita's the greatest thing to you. When it comes to her, you're worse than Saelune with nearly anything else. What's the point in talking in circles with you?

You've claimed that there exists unhinged people that every word she says is gospel. If these people actually exist (and you concede that I'm not one of these people) then where are they? I can fully believe that "Anita is the greatest" and you could independently verify what you claim is the truth. My alleged "bias" does not affect your ability to be able to prove what you say to be true. You wouldn't be "talking in circles." You would be proving you had a point.

Either way. Silent protagionist is a better debator.

Silent Protagonist has just finished conceding that their reply to me was "sloppy" and "rambling" and not always directed at what I had posted. I'll take your post as a concession that your response to me was worse than that.

Remember, I'm a worthless retard that can't debate.

I would politely request that you refrain from using the word "retard" as an insult when communicating with me: even if you are applying the word to yourself.

No. You've already proven to me you won't listen to me no matter what I say or do.

How have I proven that? I only post on these boards on average maybe a few times a month. I've barely interacted with you. What on earth are you going on about?

You just want to stroke your ego and prove how I'm such a terrible person because I wasn't born the way you or your little friends want me to be.

Stroke my ego? I think you are terrible person? You weren't born the way my "little friends" want you to be?

With all due respect: what the fuck are you going on about? And how the fuck did you get any of that from my humble request for a cite?

And why am I not allowed to say it and yet people can say it against me?

I can't control what other people call you. I would loudly and strongly object to anyone calling you that name if they were to do it in my presence. What I can do though is ask you not to use the word: and I have. If people are calling you that word then they are bad people. End of story.

 

[jademunky]

By that you mean some people believe that stuff on the internet is not happening in some parallel dimension? That things said that would get you shunned, fired or charged with a crime in real life should still carry those consequences over when there is a keyboard in front of you?

Sure, but, that's for the police or some authority to decide.

Not a roaming mob of idiots on twitter.

No, that's for individuals to decide on a case-by-case basis. I know If someone anonymously sent me a photo of one of my employees howling with hate at a white power rally with a goddamn torch in his hand, I'd fire him without a second's hesitation. If he were a friend or family member, I would make sure he were not welcome in mine or anyone else's home that I knew.

 

[Kerg3927]

Also here is a theory about why so many people seem to be more asshole-ish on the internet. It's because the internet allows people to express their views without fear of getting punched in the face. Seriously the worst thing that can happen to 99% of shitposters and dicks on the net is a ban from a current forum or website, which is usually easy to get around if you really wanted to.

That freedom allows people to talk without needing any kind of PC-filter. This goes for everyone no matter what your views are.

And it happens on both sides. Look how much I got called a "victim blamer" regardless of what your views on the situation are people are quick to ignore the question I have repeated here and in other thread of, "How is no one held somewhat responsible for their actions?" and instead of saying "here's why" or whatever, people just label it victim blaming and offer no other recourse.

People have an attitude these days that the moment you question someone's beliefs or feelings, you immediately are accused of being insulting and then labeled which ironically is insulting the very person you said is insulting you. Why are questions insulting? Are people's feelings and beliefs so shallow that they can't defend them without resorting to some sort of bashing?

Clearly people think I'm victim blaming. Why? In what reality should someone be able to do something, talk about something and expect no response? If you really thought that a thread about harassment was going to have everyone suddenly hold hands around the Christmas tree and sing "Joy to the World" like its the fucking Grinch Who Stole Christmas if shows how incredible naive you must really be. If that was the response there wouldn't even have needed to be a thread about harassment in the first place. Obviously that kind of topic was going to get a fairly aggressive response. And if you couldn't see that or expect it, then lesson learnt right? Now next time she writes an article like this, if there ever is a next time, then hopefully she'll have some knowledge of the kind of response she'll face.

That doesn't mean I say the response is okay, because it's not. There is simply a reality to how the internet works, and it isn't going to change anytime soon if ever.

Maybe Google needs to invent an AI that polices what people say online. "I'm sorry you are using the word fuck too much and you have been locked out of the internet for 72 hours."

Accusing someone of "victim blaming" when they are just questioning whether someone might have been better off doing something differently in order to avoid a bad result is a cop out argument. To me it's the flipside of when someone screws up and tries to explain why it happened, and then they get shouted down and told that nobody wants to hear their "excuses." Both tactics are cheap.

Looking at the whole picture and analyzing why something happened and what could be done differently in the future is a good thing, a constructive thing. It's how you get better results in the future. To summarily dismiss it all as "victim blaming" or "excuses" is lazy and not constructive at all.

As far as the internet, it's the wild west out there, and that's not going to change without the greater evils of censorship and freedom of speech infringement.

If you're going to be a public internet figure, you need to accept that your words could piss some people off and it could result in harassment. And there is nobody out there to protect you from that. And just saying you "should" be able to say whatever you want and not get harassed is another lazy argument that has no meaning. Because there's nobody out there to enforce the violation of what "should" have been possible, and there probably never will be.

As a modern example, there was that guy who recently went over to North Korea and came back a vegetable. Yeah, he "should" have been able to go over there without coming to harm. But maybe it was a bad idea? It "should" be okay to ask that question without being accused of "victim blaming."

 

[The Lunatic]

No, that's for individuals to decide on a case-by-case basis. I know If someone anonymously sent me a photo of one of my employees howling with hate at a white power rally with a goddamn torch in his hand, I'd fire him without a second's hesitation. If he were a friend or family member, I would make sure he were not welcome in mine or anyone else's home that I knew.

This is absurd.

Numerous times the exact thing you're talking about has affected innocent people who've committed the crime of vaguely resembling a blurry photo. It is absolutely not your job to enforce the law, or take it into your own hands. It is up to the authorities, vigilantism, especially moral vigilantism is extremely fallible and has far too much of a risk of affecting innocent people.

Added to that, you enter into a very slippery slope. Are you saying there's nothing on this forum you'd not want your employer to see? What if your employer disagreed with the opinion you just raised and it was reported to them?

I wouldn't want to employ somebody who endorsed moral vigilantism.

I guess there's an irony in that. As much as the left takes bits and pieces from communism and socialism. The whole "Not being a slave to your employers whims" appears to be a part they missed.

 

[jademunky]

This is absurd.

Numerous times the exact thing you're talking about has affected innocent people who've committed the crime of vaguely resembling a blurry photo. It is absolutely not your job to enforce the law, or take it into your own hands. It is up to the authorities, vigilantism, especially moral vigilantism is extremely fallible and has far too much of a risk of affecting innocent people.

Added to that, you enter into a very slippery slope. Are you saying there's nothing on this forum you'd not want your employer to see? What if your employer disagreed with the opinion you just raised and it was reported to them?

I wouldn't want to employ somebody who endorsed moral vigilantism.

I guess there's an irony in that. As much as the left takes bits and pieces from communism and socialism. The whole "Not being a slave to your employers whims" appears to be a part they missed.

You represent your employer.

Seriously, I work in retail banking, have a role that requires me to sit down in a cramped office with people for long stretches of time, discuss their background, hopes, aspirations, children, etc. There have been clients of mine who have refugee status. What would I possibly say to my boss if they sat me down and asked "is this you here on youtube calling for mass deporations of Latverian refugees under the name Jademunky777?"

And also, no obviously I do not think it is a good idea to go on witch-hunts for people who vaguely look like someone in a photo. I do, however, think people should be held accountable for the things they say and do. I am not a judge, do not have any power to imprison, levy fines or other restrictions on anyone. I can, however, refuse to encourage hiring or associating with people I don't think I can conduct myself safely around. If that's moral vigilantism, ok.