What's the opposite of a SJW?

[Exley97_v1legacy]

So wait, you're saying the threats against Sarkeesian are fabricating and just Internet trolling

No, the FBI says that. They investigated the supposed threats and found no credible threats.

The FBI said no such thing. In fact, the FBI doesn't usually comment directly on active investigations. Confirmation of investigations usually comes from third parties, which in these specific cases includes the SFPD and Utah St. University.

Which reminds me, where is your source of an FBI spokesperson on video?

but the stuff the Tranny Gladiator developer got is "massive harassment"? Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious when I say that a an innocent guy who never asked for anything, who gets pile of harassment, a pile of negative posts and death threats, is massive harassment.

And Sarkeesian isn't innocent. And the harassment she received/receives isn't "real." Got it. So where's the FBI investigation into the Tranny Gladiator developer threats, if they're so serious?

Are you saying that the threats themselves were fake/non-existent or that the authorities investigated the threats and determined that the threats were designed to harass Sarkeesian and were unlikely to be carried out? Big difference.

It was invesigated and found to be nothing.

Which confirms the astute observations of some people that Sarkeesian found the supposed threatening tweets from random accounts, mere seconds after they were posted. Something which is impossible under all circumstances except one: When she posted them herself.

Wrong on both counts:
1. No, not nothing. A criminal threat of violence, and criminal harassment. Which is why the FBI was involved (again).
2. Who are the "some people"? Do tell. And no, it's not impossible when you and your associates, fans, and followers are actively monitoring Twitter mentions (which they were).

"Fabricated"? "Trolling"? Seriously? THEY'RE REAL. Someone threatened to shoot up a fucking school if she spoke there. That's a waste of time to you?

No, someone alledgedly made a trollpost saying that without any intention of doing that seriously. That someone may or may not be a supporter of Sarkeesian looking to enhance her victim-imago to generate more revenue. Or looking to slander Gamergate, we know the SJW mob has a vested interest in fabricating threats like that to discredit their critics.

These were examined and found to be trolling, either by a random troll or by a Sarkeesian herself or a supporter looking to generate more victim-dollars.

Which is why the following statement followed at the time:
?After a careful assessment of the threat it has been determined it is similar to other threats that Sarkeesian has received in the past, and all university business will be conducted as scheduled tomorrow.?

And even more compelling [http://www.usu.edu/today/index.cfm?id=54179]:
"POLICE: NO RISK TO STUDENTS"
[..] "At no time was there any imminent threat. The investigation is continuing."

The university examined the supposed threats, concluded they were nothing, and conducted business as usual. Only Sarkeesian herself took it seriously. Only her. Gosh, only a person with a commercial interest in doing so thinks it was a threat, and nobody else seems to. I wonder how that is...

(Also it was impossible to view your source the Salt Lake City Tribune. It didn't respond, then got plastered under one big advertisement.)

So, so wrong on so many levels...

First, threatening to shoot up a school and murder someone is not a trollpost. It's a criminal act.
Second, for the millionth time...YOU CANNOT SLANDER, LIBEL OR DEFAME A GROUP LIKE GAMERGATE.
Third, no, they weren not found to be trolling -- they were found to be harassing and threatening. And you have ZERO EVIDENCE that any of Sarkeesian's supporters were behind this threat. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Fourth, not "supposed threats" -- real threats. The fact that they were determined, after an investigation, to be designed to harass and disrupt rather than be carried out doesn't make them any less real. And again, these are criminal threats punishable by criminal law. Which is why the FBI was involved. Again.
Fifth, that is completeley and utterly untrue that Sarkeesian was the only person to take the threat seriously. The federal authorities took it seriously enough to investigate it. And furthermore, the school and local police took PAST threats to Sarkeesian seriously enough PRIOR to this school shooting threat that they planned for "enhanced security measures" for the event. This is from the link you posted:
"Prior to the threat, Utah State University police were already making preparations for security as the speaker had received similar threats in the past. Enhanced security measures were scheduled to be in place, including prohibiting backpacks and any large bags."

This is deep, entrenched denial of the facts.

 

[IceForce]

Now here we are, 18 months on, and suddenly Gamergate has done a complete about-turn. Suddenly now claims of "harassment" and "death threats" can be automatically taken as gospel, with only one person's word on it.

Why the double-standards? Why the gosh darn double-standards?

Seriously, why the double-standards?

Oh wow, you nearly had me there. I was halfway a serious reply being angry about how you've been given links to those tweets, and there is not reason to doubt any of the rest without any roof to the contrary, when I realise the brilliant irony. Starkly denying what's right in front of you, just like the SJWs do when confronted with 'heretical' information that must be shut out. And throwing in Gamergate like they're guilty of anything and everything.
And especially the double standards comment was spot on. Actual SJWs would totally cry that, because to them, their faith can justify itself and harassing someone like that game dev would be automatically justified, while people insisting on normal behaviour would be prompted for evidence.

Poe's Law in action. There are so many closedminded and ignorant SJWs around that I didn't doubt you were serious untill the last moment. Well done. Brilliant immitation. You really had me fooled for a sec.

If you're quite done with the strawmanning, allow me to explain what I'm getting at here:

> Breitbart publishes an article about an indie dev receiving harassment without any proof beyond their word = Top-notch journalism.
> Escapist publishes an article about an indie dev receiving harassment without any proof beyond their word = Appalling journalism.

So yep, you guessed it; why the double-standards?

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Spoiler

First, threatening to shoot up a school and murder someone is not a trollpost. It's a criminal act.

That doesn't have any bearing on the discussion. It's still a trollpost. It becomes a threat when people have an inclination to actually carry it out.

Second, for the millionth time...YOU CANNOT SLANDER, LIBEL OR DEFAME A GROUP LIKE GAMERGATE.

Sure you could. Accuse them of sexism or harassment for example, or say they and 4Chan are an identical group, while that's blatantly untrue.

Third, no, they weren not found to be trolling -- they were found to be harassing and threatening.

By who exactly? Not any relevant authorities, those concluded there were no credible threats.

If you type here "Sheppie, disagree with me again and I'll go to your house and switch your cat's food with dogfood!", that's not a credible threat either. It would become that if you showed that you know my adress, or posed in pictures with a gun and my cat, in my kitchen. That's a threat. Without such stuff it's just words on the internet.

And I'd be a moron if I reposted that and went "Ahmygwad Exley threatens me and even more importantly, my cat! Quick! Donate victim-dollars!"

And you have ZERO EVIDENCE that any of Sarkeesian's supporters were behind this threat.

In my previous post I pointed out that it's impossible for her to have known within seconds, if it wasn't either herself, or a supporter posting that while it was previously agreed.

Even if someone spent their day constantly scanning the internet for threats, it would take them hours to find it.

You either know next to nothing about the nature and illegality of cyberthreats/harassment, or you're pretending to know next to nothing to further your arguments. Either way, it's still denial.

Fourth, not "supposed threats" -- real threats. The fact that they were determined, after an investigation, to be designed to harass and disrupt rather than be carried out doesn't make them any less real. And again, these are criminal threats punishable by criminal law. Which is why the FBI was involved. Again.

In which the FBI was involved, and which was closed because they couldn't find any credible threats. It's resulted in zero prosecutions to date.

If the FBI says there were no credible threats, who are we to gainsay them?

Where's your source that the FBI said the investigation was closed, or that the FBI itself said there was no credible threat? Again, where's the video of the FBI spokesperson you cited earlier?

Fifth, that is completeley and utterly untrue that Sarkeesian was the only person to take the threat seriously. The federal authorities took it seriously enough to investigate it.

...and then they found no credible threats, continued as planned, and Sarkeesian herself cancelled. Likely motive: Patreon victim-dollars.

She made over a million playing victim and has failed to deliver on her promises in return. Obviously something to explain the shortfall is needed, something like having to hide from supposed threats for example. Keep in mind that a commercial professional making money from controversy as a business model, will act differently from other people.

Actually, you're wrong on mulitple accounts. Again. Sarkeesian didn't cancel the talk because of the threat -- she cancelled it because the school and local PD wouldn't use metal detectors or prohibit guns in the lecture hall (citing Utah's open carry law, which is completely understandable). Also, Feminist Frequency is not a commercial business -- it's a 501 3(c) non-profit under the law, and as such, FF's financial/tax records are publicly available. Maybe you should read up on them before citing conspiracy theories. Just a thought.

 

[Something Amyss]

Now here we are, 18 months on, and suddenly Gamergate has done a complete about-turn. Suddenly now claims of "harassment" and "death threats" can be automatically taken as gospel, with only one person's word on it.

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy, GamerGate has long taken the Listen and Believe approach to clams that friendly sources are being harassed or threatened.

It's not a new double standard or a sudden change. It's pretty much business as usual.

 

[IceForce]

Now here we are, 18 months on, and suddenly Gamergate has done a complete about-turn. Suddenly now claims of "harassment" and "death threats" can be automatically taken as gospel, with only one person's word on it.

Sorry, dude, you're wrong. GamerGate has been taking claims of harassment as gospel since pretty much the beginning. From the TFYC/Quinn thing which even they debunked to Milo to the stuff that happened to Lizzy, GamerGate has long taken the Listen and Believe approach to clams that friendly sources are being harassed or threatened.

It's not a new double standard or a sudden change. It's pretty much business as usual.

Ugh, I really wish Gamergate would decide on what sort of standards they want to uphold, and stick to them. Rather than this annoying flip-flopping and inconsistencies we keep seeing.
One set of rules apply to 'friends' of Gamergate, but another completely different set of rules apply to anyone deemed an 'enemy'. It's tiring.

 

[the December King]

Checking the last couple of pages, I guess this should stay in the Games Industry Discussion forum after all.

Social Justice Warrior. Hmmm... the warrior part implies aggressive determination typically through discussions/arguments, advocating/lobbying for a perceived righting of toxic gender roles/classist conceptions/wrongs in a culture, or even just a push back against a percieved aggressive cultural agenda/idea/change/status quo.

So...Reptilians.

They would be the opposite.

Avoid aggressive debates, and keep everyone nice and quiet/pliable with mindless TV, fatty drinks and ignorance cakes.

 

[IceForce]

Where's your source that the FBI said the investigation was closed, or that the FBI itself said there was no credible threat? Again, where's the video of the FBI spokesperson you cited earlier?

Lol, moving the goalposts. Nothing came of it after years of waiting, proof of no credible threats.

You know as much as I do that the FBI doesn't give out 'certificate of nonsense' if they close a case. Don't ask for things you know don't exist, when it's also a reversed burden of evidence.

It's not moving the goalposts. The goalposts are exactly where you left them, right here:

In which the FBI was involved, and which was closed because they couldn't find any credible threats.

Right ^there^, see it? You say right there that the case was "closed".
Why did you make this claim if you're now admitting to not being able to provide evidence of it?

...

Earlier in this thread you rather rudely asked the following question:

Answer me a simple question before we go on:

Are you interested in the facts? yes/no

I think it's time to turn this around, and present this back to you again.

So, sheppie, are you interested in facts? Yes/No?

 

[Something Amyss]

Ugh, I really wish Gamergate would decide on what sort of standards they want to uphold, and stick to them. Rather than this annoying flip-flopping and inconsistencies we keep seeing.
One set of rules apply to 'friends' of Gamergate, but another completely different set of rules apply to anyone deemed an 'enemy'. It's tiring.

It would be nice. I don't see it happening, though. One of the foundational elements of GG always seemed to be the "us vs them" mentality.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

You either know next to nothing about the nature and illegality of cyberthreats/harassment, or you're pretending to know next to nothing to further your arguments. Either way, it's still denial.

That's pretty cheap. You're not backing up that implicit statement that everything you say on the internet is always serious and always a crime. If you want to make that point, how about you try that? Pick a dozen relevant legal systems and show they use no common sense and don't judge if something is a joke, a genuine threat, an empty threat, or a misconstrued insult.

Also, good that we can agree that there's reason to believe Sarkeesian or her supporters fabricated the supposed threats themselves, because she knew of them within seconds after them being posted.

I repeat. You know next to nothing about cyberthreats and harassment if you're arguing this point. And I humbly suggest you are the one that needs to review specific incidents and case law on the matter in order to read up on this topic. And I'm not sure why you think I'm agreeing with you. I don't subscribe to paranoid false flag conspiracies floated by unnamed sources who have nothing better to do than obsess over feminists and make silly looked imgur files.

Where's your source that the FBI said the investigation was closed, or that the FBI itself said there was no credible threat? Again, where's the video of the FBI spokesperson you cited earlier?

Lol, moving the goalposts. Nothing came of it after years of waiting, proof of no credible threats.

You know as much as I do that the FBI doesn't give out 'certificate of nonsense' if they close a case. Don't ask for things you know don't exist, when it's also a reversed burden of evidence. The pro-Sarkeesianists haven't ever backed up their claims about genuinely threats, they require no active disproving.

Just ridicule that the FBI wasted dozens of hours looking into it, then found it was just Sarkeesian's own supporters and some kids trolling.

I'm not asking for things that "don't exist" to move the goal posts. You claimed you had a source of info with an FBI spokesperson on video. And as I suspected, you have no such source. NONE.

And surely you'd know that the FBI doesn't just simply drop everything to go investigate every cyberthreat. Surely you know that Sarkeesian can't just snap her fingers and demand an FBI investigation. The FBI decides which incidents are worth investigating, which aren't. So if this incident was a complete waste of the FBI's time, why'd they even investigate it in the first place if it was, as you claim, just simple trolling? Also, why would the bureau investigate the August 2014 Twitter threat against her? Why would the bureau work with the IGDA to help folks deal with online harassment? Why would it investigate the 2014 bomb threat against Sarkeesian at GDC if there wasn't a pattern that the bureau felt warranted attention?

Oh, and again -- you have NO EVIDENCE that these attacks or any harassment against her were perpetrated by FF supporters. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip.

Also, Feminist Frequency is not a commercial business

Yes it is a commercial enterprise. They ask for money to make their content.

Or better said, they ask for money for content, which they then fail to deliver, and the money finds its way into Sarkeesian's private bank account.
Money that she then uses to fly all over the world and for example show up at parties by game developers without being invited [https://twitter.com/notch/status/656180834509000704], to desperately pretend she's involved with gaming.

You know what I call a commercial enterprise that takes money and then doesn't deliver their product? I call it a fraud.

If it's fraud, then you should be able to find evidence of that since FF's records are public. Because it's not a commercial business. It's a non-profit. And non-profits under U.S. law are required to make their financials and tax statements publicly available. Just like I already stated. Go and have a look. Tell me what you find -- I'm dying to hear what the facts do for your theories about her padding her personal bank accounts with ill-gotten proceeds from fraudulent charity donations (which, by the way, would be criminal embezzlement).

 

[IceForce]

But since that Breitbart article contained links to the actual tweets themselves, that you still ignore that, ignore the steam comments list I linked to earlier,

On the contrary, I followed those links carefully. But when I did, I didn't see any examples of death threats. I saw a lot of disagreement and negative feedback, but no death threats.

That's kinda the point I've been trying to get through to you the entire time.

All this could have been solved if some specific instances of these alleged death threats were re-posted into this thread. But you nor anyone else has been able to do that so far. In the absence of any hard or conclusive evidence, I'm afraid I cannot take your claim of death threats at face value.
It really is as simple as that.

you'll never convince me that people who aren't SJWs should be harassed and intimidated,

Hold the phone for a moment, are you suggesting that people who are 'SJWs' should be harassed and intimidated? Because this is a very peculiar way of wording this.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

As far as I understand the term, SJW refers to a particular kind of activist (closer to slacktivist, but not necessarily one) that is particulary leftist, to the point of being marxist, that subscribe to ideologies that rely heavily on colectivism and ideological hegemony. These activists are usually related to movements like Intersectional Feminism, Atheism+, etc.

The aristocrats. *badabang*

*Slaps*

NO

BAD INU-KUN

WE DONT USE HORRIBLE BORING JOKES AROUND HERE

 

[IceForce]

It seemed pretty clear, yeah. "Who aren't SJWs".

I was pretty gobsmacked at sheppie's comment, yes.

Rather than simply saying 'no [human-fucking-being] should be harassed or intimidated', sheppie instead decided to specifically stipulate "people who aren't SJWs", which implies that harassment and intimidation is acceptable if directed at anyone deemed to be an 'SJW'.

I guess there really are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I guess the problem with social justice is it outprioritizes all other forms of injustice and places social injustice as the biggest issue. So yeah while one could do a switcharoo and go social injustice warrior, I think my pick will be a general hero or ally of justice instead.

Kamen Rideeeer!..*ahem* but yeah, I don't think focusing one one type of injustice is good as that permits you to do injustice of other genres and feel it to be justified.


Remember, in this whole gamergate kerfuffle, only one side claims to be actually fighting for justice, and in a serious way not a childish joke like I just did above. If you wish to claim this we should expect you to meet a higher standard than the folks who just wanna play games unmolested. I think this is why I always leaned against the sjw side, it treats justice like a punchline and uses it with selfrhighteous indignation . The hero of love and justice Shishigami Bang will not accept this...dang I did it again.

 

[Jarek Mace]

Rational, normal, and collected human beings with jobs?

That does seem to be the tendency.