Phil Fish Twitter Meltdown

A real feminist doesn't become a cock socket to get ahead in their career. In fact, feminism was established to make sure such things didn't need to happen. Anyone taking her side in this is an absolute lunatic and need to check their moral compass.

The only difference between Zoe and a prostitute is the amount of people she ha(s?)d to service to pay her bills. Entertaining the notion that giving these self-righteous shit stormers the time of day and the real estate they do on the internet is preposterous.

While they freely go around telling us that gaming is just a boys club, they completely overlook the honest work of people like Corinne Yu, Jade Raymond, Amy Hennig, Lucy Bradshaw, Linda Currie, Laralyn McWilliams and SO MANY other legitimate women in gaming.

@KHAndAnime said:

@uninspiredcup said:

From looking at this graph is seems 4chan care and understand games better than the gaming media or tortured hipsters. In the long run, having them bully and intimidate assholes is probably the best course.

Not so sure about that, more than half of those games aren't CRPGs....some of those aren't even RPGs lol!

From that chart, it's safe to assume 4chan doesn't know the first thing about videogames.

Agreed. Barring KOTOR, Oblivion, Mass Effect, The Witcher 2, Gothic, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Divinity 2, Fable, Dragon Age, The Witcher and Mass Effect 2 very much factually based.

I have nothing to add about this topic, aside from it being simultaneously hilarious and pathetic. Everybody seems to be losing their shit over this.

1. Because I understood that you implied that everyone trying to discuss this situation automatically fits that video. If that wasn't what you meant, then I admitt that wasn't a straw man. I still affirm I didn't make a straw man myself with this affirmation, since in this case it was based on a misunderstanding, and that's all it is.

2. How can it not go both ways? Well, at least in my country, legal entities and individuals are both legally liable, and for civil matters, there's no questioning this. In relation to criminal matters, then you have to analyse criminal entity liability, but it sure is possible. I'm pretty sure that in the US it's like that as well. If you say you are a victim of said attack and it's proven to be false, you're also liable for defamation, false accusation, libel, etc. (E.g. If one says Microsoft invaded and traded his personal info without his consent and against the law, going public on it, managing to damage their image, and they later prove that it's a false claim, they can sue the person for compensation; the same goes for MS going public claiming somone's a big IP pirate, and it turns out to be false).

Also, look at what I bolded in your post. That's a serious bias that must be avoided when talking violation of law: taking previous acts as evidence. This is only an aggravating circunstance (recidivism) on a new proven violation made by the same person, when you are calculating the criminal penalty. It's not in any conceivable way evidence against said person. It's something that makes the new conduct more reprehensible after proven, not a proof in itself. It's stretching for assumption, or an excuse for assumption. To make it worse, you don't even know if (assuming as premise that it was indeed a 4channer behind it) it's the same person as in the other attacks. Then it's assuming from stereotype. To end that argument: what if the one behind it is a third party that hates 4chan? Legally, this argument of yours is complete nonsense.

I'm not saying it wasn't a 4channer. I'm saying it's too early to know. Like it's too early for anyone to say that Zoe & Phil hacked their own accounts, websites, etc. These things can't be assumed.

Also, I've searched for proof of those rape and death threats they say they've been target of... but where are those threats? Are people openly threatening them on 4chan, Youtube, etc.? Are they sending letters, notes, emails? Are they calling them? Did they record one of said calls and put it online for everyone to hear? They must someway make it reach them, and it always leaves some trail (at least when not in first person). Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen: I'm saying we can't assume it did happen because it's happened before in similar circunstances. Not one side can make assumptions like that. These are serious claims, that (IMO) must be investigated to know. I mean, if not available publicly for us to see and know (which means, if those don't constitute notorious facts).

That's why I'm not taking any side in this part of the episode (the criminal part) until it's investigated (and imo, it should be, because allegations from both sides are grave). Those jumping to conclusions without said proofs are the ones I say are letting their bias make the conclusions for them.

3, 4 & 5. This is the part I'm concerned about. I don't get how you don't see us agreeing in this part:

Me: "Though you are right this may be a non-issue when regarding the liaison with her boss, it does affect more than a company when you consider that it's also a relation between journalists and a subject of journalism."

You: "If you're talking about a more general discussion about the influence of personal relationships between indie developers and journalists, then there's nothing wrong with such a discussion."

You then: "But that is not what's happening. What is happening is that people are singling-out a single individual, which goes far beyond a general discussion and into realm of a glorified personal witch hunt."

How can you tell, define like that what this is (you're basically saying "this is a witch hunt"). This is not a witch hunt. Or it's not just a witch hunt. There's no defining what this is based on what some are doing. Some are making a witch hunt. Those are in the wrong, but they can't resume all that's being said and done. Others are trying to discuss pertinent matters related to the issues that emerged amongst the caos. Journalism integrity, conflict of interests, financing of projects by those that may review it later (or know those that'll do it), friendships and/or sexual relationships between journalists and developers, etc.

But we are not being allowed such a discussion, and we're being treated just like those that are making the witch hunt. 25k comments being deleted (basically the entirety of the thread) in a reddit thread about it means not being able to discuss the issue at all. It's not just censoring those abbusing freedom of speech with hate-speech. You could say, those trying to discuss the matter which you and I agreed are a good subject of discussion are being targeted of a reverse witch hunt, by censorship and thought police.

These are the radicals I'm talking about. The ones that can't let others speak. For those, you can only be either a "********" or a "man-child". For those, you can only be for it or against it. Those you mentioned (those making threats and whatnot) are not just radicals for me, they are criminals. It's a matter beyond ideology, it's a matter of psychology and law enforcement. How many among those discussing this episode online could be said people? 0.01%? Do you see the youtube video full of threats on the comments section? What about discussion threads elsewhere? Yes, there are a lot of misogynists, misandrists, a**holes, etc. But I'm not jumping the gun on the assumption bandwagon on either side.

Kotaku needs to straight up shut it's mouth about integrity.

It's pretty crazy how more investigative "journalism," is being done about this subject than Kotaku has ever done.

Loltaku always on blast. XD

Well said, also i found this comment (from here) hilarious if true (probably is):

You do realize you're defending an admitted rapist, right?

This woman wrote an article which basically stated that having sex with your partner after cheating on them and not informing them was equivalent to sex without consent. Her arguments included that it increases risk of transmitting an STD and is, generally, a huge violation of trust. This is a pretty reasonable argument, I'd say.

Yet she admits to doing this to her now ex-boyfriend.

It's one thing to commit a vile act while erroneously believing yourself to be in the right, or, at very least, believing your actions are harmless, but knowing that you, by your own definition, are committing the act of rape is downright evil.

Zoe Quinn is a liar, a manipulator and (by her own definition) a rapist. And here you are, someone who claims to fight for feminism, for equality, trying to blame the victim just because he happens to be male and the perpetrator happens to be female.

You are scum, Ms. Marcotte. You're a sexist. You're a misandrist. You're a hypocrite.

ThePseudomancer

@ReadingRainbow4: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/817014-quinnspiracy Full gif here for those who can't see it.

Allow me to linkify that for you.

Well he does make a point. Most gamers are a pitiful bunch. One reason I rarely communicate with people of this hobby.

This is something really disturbing, a 13 year old kid was doxed and received death threats after getting in an argument with SJW over how far a comedian should go.

Jag should take a look at this. This behavior is not all inclusive to one side, and this kids got some serious balls to stand his ground.

@ReadingRainbow4: Honestly I don't really think it is, and I honestly don't think anyone really cares. While I have gotten my life threatened a lot online for acts as trivial as sucking at first person shooters, it happens a lot more in real life. It is the way our, meaning possibly humanity's or at the very least men's, humor runs. "I am going to cut you" is a laugh line in many TV shows. Same goes for various insulting remarks. Heck male bonding moments in our media are often portrayed as two or more men saying horrible things to each other. It isn't just comedy either, look at rap battles. Heck there are even comedy rap battles (Epic Rap Battles of History rules!) where threats of violence are considered hilarious. Anita Sarkeesian herself put up a fan fic of her murdering the guy from Epic while he sobbed in terror on her webpage, and it was considered a comedy piece.

This isn't even a new development. One of the most cliched lines from my childhood was an adult threatening to rip off a child's arm and beat them with the bloody stump. So long as threats of violence are part of our humor, and insults are considered witty humor in our media, both are going to be a major part of how people talk to each other in casual settings. That is likely why this kid doesn't care. He likely hears far worse from his parents then mere implied threats.

Besides, a male is targeted, so it is a non issue. No one ever really cares when a guy is targeted. Everything that happened to an adult Anita Sarkeesian happened to Justin Beiber while he was still a kid, and as he was more popular as a figure there was a whole lot more of it directed his way. There are still websites dedicated to his childhood visage getting punched in the face, and still games about stalking him and murdering him that were created before he reached the age of majority. No one however cares because no one thinks male children should feel threatened by random internet posts. Mostly I figure after a couple of wars go by with women on the front lines in dedicated combat roles America and other western nations will stop pretending adult women need more shelter and protection then adolescent boys, and all this jabbering about the horrible troll threat will be considered a very patronizing and extremely misogynistic period in western history. I think it is very unlikely that things will swing the other way, and people will suddenly start thinking Beiber was incredibly brave for overcoming far more then was ever leveled at Anita.

Trolls are freaking worthless skumbags, but the only way they win is if you let them ruin your day. There is a reason why internet society coined the phrase "Don't feed the trolls" before mobile made online interactions a part of everyone's, and thus women's, daily lives. Trolls only have as much power as the community they target gives them. Kotaku is like the best thing that ever happened to internet trolls.

This is a great post. But I'd like to add that the offensive humor among males is not as universal as you might think. At least not to the same extent. In my country, insults between males are laughable, but threats like you mentioned aren't humorous at all. A male threatening another for laughs in here is actually searching for trouble, and he'll probably find it even if unwillingly. This is probably relative to the culture you live in.