[The E]

You really are unaware of the actual sequence of events, aren't you.

[Scotty]

And now we're back to what I told people to get over a couple pages ago.  This thread sure has short memory.  It has six posts to correct that, or it's getting locked for good.

[Nemesis6]

You really are unaware of the actual sequence of events, aren't you.

If you have something to say, say it instead of being passive aggressive. I mean what do you really gain from doing that?

[Grizzly]

And just like here, we are left to defend ourselves from this both indirect and direct accusation that we're all horrible people who support the threats against them.

Harassment is not just about directly attacking that person. It's about isolating that person from others. Making them feel alone as they keep getting hammered. By telling people that "these "victims" don't deserve your help" you are allowing the harassment to happen, you are allowing it to continue, and you are creating an enviroment in which it can happen.

So when you talk about these people as "professional victims", you actually *ARE* a horrible person supporting the threats made against them.

[Mr. Vega]

The argument was never about Anita or Zoe, but about the lies they spewed and their shady behavior.

So it's not about Zoe, but it's about Zoe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnbNY1oFZ3o

[666maslo666]

This is how you rationally respond to internet hate mail, not by running away from your house:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2sWm9rx0w

If you are a controversial person with strong political opinions on the internet, receiving hate mail is a normal and unavoidable phenomenon - and there is simply no way how to change this without curtailing essential internet freedoms. So yes, constantly crying about it on Twitter and in media is an overreaction, and reveals your inexperience with the internet at best, and ulterior motives (pushing for internet censorship) at worst.

So, for those who dont see any problem with it, tell me, what exactly is she aiming to achieve with such behavior? Is she just genuinely unaware that anonymity + freedom = inevitable trolling and harassment, or is she aware of this, and trying to push against internet anonymity and internet freedom?

news.yahoo.com/britain-threatens-internet-trolls-two-years-jail-110001348.html

^^ This is what behavior like that ultimately leads to.. She has some influence, she should know better than to supply wannabe internet censors with arguments by playing damsel in distress. Internet trolling and harassment is not a problem to be solved (except by pushing the ignore button), because any solution involved curtailing of necessary internet freedoms, or is ineffective. And this is why everything expect laughing about it like AA is doing is bad.

[666maslo666]

This is how you rationally respond to internet hate mail, not by running away from your house:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2sWm9rx0w

If you are a controversial person with strong political opinions on the internet, receiving hate mail is a normal and unavoidable phenomenon - and there is simply no way how to change this without curtailing essential internet freedoms. So yes, constantly crying about it on Twitter and in media is an overreaction, and reveals your inexperience with the internet at best, and ulterior motives (pushing for internet censorship) at worst.

So, for those who dont see any problem with it, tell me, what exactly is she aiming to achieve with such behavior? Is she just genuinely unaware that anonymity + freedom = inevitable trolling and harassment, or is she aware of this, and trying to push against internet anonymity and internet freedom?

news.yahoo.com/britain-threatens-internet-trolls-two-years-jail-110001348.html

^^ This is what behavior like that ultimately leads to.. She has some influence, she should know better than to supply wannabe internet censors with arguments by playing damsel in distress. Internet trolling and harassment is not a problem to be solved (except by pushing the ignore button), because any solution involves curtailing of necessary internet freedoms, or is ineffective. And this is why everything expect maybe laughing about it like AA is doing is bad.

[Grizzly]

This is how you rationally respond to internet hate mail, not by running away from your house:

There is a significant difference between hate mail and getting death threats *WITH YOUR ADRESS IN IT*

So, for those who dont see any problem with it, tell me, what exactly is she aiming to achieve with such behavior? Is she just genuinely unaware that anonymity + freedom = inevitable trolling and harassment, or is she aware of this, and trying to push against internet anonymity and internet freedom?

No, she is pushing against the "inevitable trolling and harassment". Demanding that people on the internet are subjected to the same consequences as they are anywhere else is NOT "limiting internet freedom". If antyhing, it enables it (because people should be able to make statements without being subjected to doxxing)

Internet trolling and harassment is not a problem to be solved (except by pushing the ignore button), because any solution involves curtailing of necessary internet freedoms,

First of all, I don't see how being held accountable for your trolling will curtail internet freedom. And if it wil, I don't see why this supposed internet freedom shouldn't be curtailed! You simply should not be free to harass people via the internet, just like you are not free to harass someone anywhere else. Harassing itself is a method to limit's someone's freedom, and if we are going to limit freedoms, I'd rather see those of trolls limited rather then those of whoever the harassers don't like this month.

[Scotty]

Now this thread has shot memory and ignores moderator suggestions.  Locked.

[Scotty]

A clarification, now that I'm home from work and don't have to type via phone.

This thread is a marvelous indictment of everything that is wrong with General Discussion.  Even after a detailed breakdown of what was wrong with discussion going on in here, a lock to let everybody cool down, and no less than two "hints" to keep things civil, it still went to ****.  The kind of arguing that has gone on for the last few pages is an exemplary display of how GD is such a nasty place.  Passive aggressive sniping, an immediate return to "<x> person commented on <y> which means <z>".  As interesting as it may be for someone watching on the outside to see everyone in this thread become a microcosm of the issues surrounding Gamergate, this is not good discussion.  Even if no single person has acted unreasonably, the conversation as a whole is obviously divisive, unhelpful, and inflammatory.

The worst part, however, is that there was actually good discussion going on for a page or so.  You know what happened after that?  People started arguing about the people making the points and not the points themselves, and here we are again acting like a no character-limit version of twitter.  Stop it.  I do not care if Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are in the right, wrong, obtuse, or inverted sides of what is correct on this one, you people are obviously not capable of discussing this kind of issue appropriately, and until you demonstrate that you're capable of holding a reasonable discussion that may influence bits of your daily lives or come close to however you identify, that sort of thing will continue to be shut down.

I don't care if I have to drag General Discussion into something resembling civility kicking and screaming, but I'm going to do it.

[karajorma]

I don't care if I have to drag General Discussion into something resembling civility kicking and screaming, but I'm going to do it.

You won't be doing it alone.

I'm not fond of waking up this morning to find this nonsense is back again.