[MP-Ryan]

I will also add that I wish people would quit talking about the "Gaming Community" as if it is some cohesive, self-identifying group.  More women than every play games of various types, and mobile gaming is rapidly moving towards dominance over traditional console and PC titles.  There is a core of young-to-middle-aged-men who play "hardcore" (as they see it) games and view themselves as the rightful custodians and judges of gaming, but they are but a tiny proportion of those who play electronic games of one kind or another.  Part of the problem with the entire narrative is that there is a gaming community to begin with, and that it is counter-feminist (or, arguably, counter-female).  There are undoubtedly a self-identifying core of males who play games that can be charitably described as anti-female (and are more accurately described as simply scumbags), but they are by no means representative of anything but their core, sadly dysfunctional group.

[Mr. Vega]

Anyone who follows my Twitter feed will know that I'm fond of counter-mobbing assholes who post anonymous death/rape/torture/whatever threats against women online for expressing an opinion.  It's a strange phenomenon that men get the death threats and a variety of bull****, but with women it becomes uniquely personal.

That said...

I'm not convinced that reacting to these things by moving out of your house and creating a further social media ****storm is necessarily the right course of action.  The fact that someone manages to dig up an address on social media does not make the threats any more credible, and a better course, IMHO, is simply to contact law enforcement, advise other people of the event to act on your behalf, and liberally exercise the block function.  The majority of these accounts are anonymously created for the sole purpose of being abusive on social media; refusal to play the game makes it less likely they'll continue.

Law enforcement has begun to take online threats much more seriously, and in the absence of a credible threat, I think it's much wiser to treat these people as the powerless scum they are.  Generally speaking, people who are going to pose a true threat to your health/safety don't advertise.  These tweets/posts/etc are horrific fantasy played out in text designed to make their authors feel good; the best way to thwart them is to ignore them utterly.  There's a fine line between reasonable precaution and actions that empower the scum far beyond their actual means.

Part of the solution to this is Twitter/Facebook in particular implementing much stricter banning approaches for harassing activity.

Is that what you would really do if you were in her shoes? You can say a lot of things about someone's actions from a distance.

As for stricter banning on twitter, yes, I totally agree, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY STUFF LIKE THIS NEEDS TO BE REVEALED PUBLICLY. Being silent is to noone's long term benefit even though it may be better for the speaker in the short run.

[Phantom Hoover]

I dunno if Twitter/Facebook banning would help that much; making a sockpuppet isn't exactly hard, and you can't ban messages before the target actually reads them.

[Mr. Vega]

In that case then, surely, the actions of this lone nutter attacking Ms. Sarkeesian are also the responsibility of the attacker alone and therefore should not be used as an example of misogynism in the Gaming community? In fact, every single person who contacted her did so entirely of their own volition.

You see, it has to work in both directions, or it isn't fair, that's kind of the point of equality, if we aren't applying it equally, then what is it?

Can I say that the scale of harrassment and misinformation that's being sent at Anita and Zoe is really extraordinary in its size, and the amount of support it is getting on othet internet forums is betraying the prevalence of this attitude, and that this threat may be just the most extreme example? I can say that, right?

[Mr. Vega]

I dunno if Twitter/Facebook banning would help that much; making a sockpuppet isn't exactly hard, and you can't ban messages before the target actually reads them.

I know. We need to design systems that can isolate people from harrassment much better.

[deathfun]

The right to publicly shame your attacker is as important a right as any.

That's not a right, it's a privilege

As for stricter banning policies, that's just a stop gap since it only dams certain rivers from flowing. That, and much like a dam, it'll only make people who do this sort of thing build up for something more

It's easier to keep an eye on your enemy when you know where they'll be. If they are forced into the shadows, who knows what they'll be doing. It only creates the illusion you've won, but odds are they're cooking something up and are none too happy they've been temporarily silenced

[Flipside]

In that case then, surely, the actions of this lone nutter attacking Ms. Sarkeesian are also the responsibility of the attacker alone and therefore should not be used as an example of misogynism in the Gaming community? In fact, every single person who contacted her did so entirely of their own volition.

You see, it has to work in both directions, or it isn't fair, that's kind of the point of equality, if we aren't applying it equally, then what is it?

Can I say that the scale of harrassment and misinformation that's being sent at Anita and Zoe is really extraordinary in its size, and the amount of support it is getting on othet internet forums is betraying the prevalence of this attitude, and that this threat may be just the most extreme example? I can say that, right?

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, like I said, Human nature. Raise a flag, any flag, and troops will gather on both sides of the battlefield. And the crux of the problem is that both sides do still see it as a battlefield, even if it's a digital one.

[Phantom Hoover]

Technical measures are not going to stop harassment by themselves, at least unless you do something insane like requiring all online communications be traceable to a real-world identity.

[Mr. Vega]

It'll at least deter the ****s and giggles types.

A simple idea. How about a straigt up customizable word filter  you can toggle. How funny would it be to make them couch their slurs behind proper language?

[Mr. Vega]

In that case then, surely, the actions of this lone nutter attacking Ms. Sarkeesian are also the responsibility of the attacker alone and therefore should not be used as an example of misogynism in the Gaming community? In fact, every single person who contacted her did so entirely of their own volition.

You see, it has to work in both directions, or it isn't fair, that's kind of the point of equality, if we aren't applying it equally, then what is it?

Can I say that the scale of harrassment and misinformation that's being sent at Anita and Zoe is really extraordinary in its size, and the amount of support it is getting on othet internet forums is betraying the prevalence of this attitude, and that this threat may be just the most extreme example? I can say that, right?

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, like I said, Human nature. Raise a flag, any flag, and troops will gather on both sides of the battlefield. And the crux of the problem is that both sides do still see it as a battlefield, even if it's a digital one.

The problem cannot be buried, it cannot be soothed, it cannot be dismissed. None of those things work or help anyone. It has to be either challenged or accepted.

[MP-Ryan]

Is that what you would really do if you were in her shoes? You can say a lot of things about someone's actions from a distance.

In a word, yes.  I'd contact law enforcement, I'd let my family and immediate neighbours know, and I'd pay it no further attention unless I or law enforcement found a credible threat.

As for stricter banning on twitter, yes, I totally agree, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY STUFF LIKE THIS NEEDS TO BE REVEALED PUBLICLY. Being silent is to noone's long term benefit even though it may be better for the speaker in the short run.

I don't have an issue with public revealing.  I think they way in which she did it made her seem powerless, and her attackers seem more powerful, which is an odd approach for a feminist theorist to take, particularly one who critiques power imbalances.  Calling it scary stuff and blasting [Trigger Warning] across it gave it credibility, as opposed to the simple derision and contempt it deserved.  It goads these trolls who feed on the reaction they get.  No reaction, no fun for them.

[Lorric]

One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work.  A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment.  The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.

100% this.

I fear she is going to ride the crest of another wave of sympathy with this. I can see it now already, I just have to Google news her and everyone's digging in behind her.

Anita Sarkeesian is not the poster girl feminists should want representing them.

[Goober5000]

I'm keeping an eye on this thread.  When I saw it had reached four pages, I thought it might have turned into the last thread, but people seem to be keeping level heads.  Let's keep it that way.

(I want to commend Flipside and Mr. Vega for resolving a heated exchange amicably.  I was thinking I'd have to issue a warning, but that's no longer necessary.)

[Flipside]

The problem is that we need to Evolve beyond this, but Evolution quite literally means 'Change over Time'. We can create laws, we can police the internet, we can throw these people in jail where some of them quite obviously deserve to be, but the eradication of the attitude itself is a cross-generational event. Our desire to change society far, far outpaces our ability to do so, all change, no time.

The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.

It's that old 'Assertive' vs 'Aggressive' argument.

I think the thing is, it's not a War, it's a problem, a deep seated global social problem. You aren't going to stop gang-rape in Africa by getting angry about it, you are never going to shout those people into stopping, you do so by understanding the social and sexual pressures that lead to its prevalence and dealing with those, and then giving it a few generations, it's the only way.

So yes, stand against inequality in all its forms and with all your resolve, but if one side sees it as a no-holds barred battle, you can bet the other side will too, and that only leads to lots of people banging their heads together and going nowhere.

@Goober : No problem, I wouldn't have been setting a very good example if I hadn't been willing to try to see things from the other viewpoint

[Lorric]

That's an excellent post. I'd like to highlight this part in particular:

The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.

This also has the effect of when you're hammering someone who has come in with an open mind to discuss the subject reasonably, that person will simply believe all the more strongly they are right since all the other side has to offer is attacks and closed-mindedness instead of reasoned debate.

[Mr. Vega]

The problem is that we need to Evolve beyond this, but Evolution quite literally means 'Change over Time'. We can create laws, we can police the internet, we can throw these people in jail where some of them quite obviously deserve to be, but the eradication of the attitude itself is a cross-generational event. Our desire to change society far, far outpaces our ability to do so, all change, no time.

The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.

It's that old 'Assertive' vs 'Aggressive' argument.

I think the thing is, it's not a War, it's a problem, a deep seated global social problem. You aren't going to stop gang-rape in Africa by getting angry about it, you are never going to shout those people into stopping, you do so by understanding the social and sexual pressures that lead to its prevalence and dealing with those, and then giving it a few generations, it's the only way.

So yes, stand against inequality in all its forms and with all your resolve, but if one side sees it as a no-holds barred battle, you can bet the other side will too, and that only leads to lots of people banging their heads together and going nowhere.

@Goober : No problem, I wouldn't have been setting a very good example if I hadn't been willing to try to see things from the other viewpoint

There are two objectives here: One, create safe spaces online where women can communicate publicly without fear of harrassment. This will take some technical and institutional experimentation to pull off. Two, call out witch hunts, invasions of developers' private lives, and harassment campaigns like this and encourage others to do so that it becomes publicly unacceptable to support it. This will take longer, but i think you all forget how short a time scale the internet can operate on compared to the rest of society. The goal is not to engage the trolls - it's to throw them into everyone's field of view, to get everyone who isn't a troll to act.

[Mr. Vega]

That's an excellent post. I'd like to highlight this part in particular:

The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.

This also has the effect of when you're hammering someone who has come in with an open mind to discuss the subject reasonably, that person will simply believe all the more strongly they are right since all the other side has to offer is attacks and closed-mindedness instead of reasoned debate.

Her videos have the occasional inaccuracies. I can live with that. But her points are good ones. Sexual violence is often used as a lazy and cheap way of darkening a setting or a character up. And why, in the most escapist of media, we can't seem to get away from THAT of all things.

[deathfun]

One, create safe spaces online where women can communicate publicly without fear of harrassment. This will take some technical and institutional experimentation to pull off

While these "safe places" would be theoretically free of harassment, that doesn't mean it'll prevent anywhere else from linking to these safe havens and commenting about it elsewhere. Second issue with that being it defeats the point of talking about unpopular ideals which is to provoke reactions good or bad in the first place. If you set parameters to these discussion areas, you're creating a community that will only bring in like minded individuals as people who disagree with them will avoid (possibly due to the chance that any sort of opposing remarks would be met with aggression or getting ganged up on to the point where proper discussion is no longer viable. And what is talking about important societal things without viable discussion?) or heckle them elsewhere.

I'm also just saying these things as a way to fleshout the idea, not to shoot it in the head

Two, call out witch hunts, invasions of developers' private lives, and harassment campaigns like this and encourage others to do so that it becomes publicly unacceptable to support it. This will take longer, but i think you all forget how short a time scale the internet can operate on compared to the rest of society. The goal is not to engage the trolls - it's to throw them into everyone's field of view, to get everyone who isn't a troll to act.

I'm going to say that the suggestion is similar to trying to tame the internet. It'll take more than just time to get people to act against trolls/legitimate folk who believe what they're saying. You'll essentially have to censor out people in order to ensure that there isn't that one person who will take it personally. People in real life have troubles enough not taking things too personally, the internet is no different

[Akalabeth Angel]

One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work.  A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment.  The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.

What reasonable discussion?
You yourself can't even make a comment without attacking her character. You characterize her work as "dishonest", which in turn means you're calling her a liar.  The fair and objective criticism would be to call her work "inaccurate", but you didn't, you attacked her character indirectly instead by questioning her integrity and intent. You are part of the problem.

**** like this is what is wrong with the internet. People can't separate the argument from the person making the argument, and this is particularly true where women are involved and attacking the character becomes the go-to course of action.

[Mr. Vega]

While these "safe places" would be theoretically free of harassment, that doesn't mean it'll prevent anywhere else from linking to these safe havens and commenting about it elsewhere. Second issue with that being it defeats the point of talking about unpopular ideals which is to provoke reactions good or bad in the first place. If you set parameters to these discussion areas, you're creating a community that will only bring in like minded individuals as people who disagree with them will avoid (possibly due to the chance that any sort of opposing remarks would be met with aggression or getting ganged up on to the point where proper discussion is no longer viable. And what is talking about important societal things without viable discussion?) or heckle them elsewhere.

I am proposing a mix of safe and unsafe zones. There needs to be a censored zone (ONLY with respect to harrassment) that you can always retreat to if you need to. If that leads to some segregation, then fine. It's infinitely better than what we currently have.