Comment by orionblastar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by orionblastar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions these threats are anonymous and nobody knows if they are tied to any group.

There have been a series of feminists who make fake Twitter accounts to threaten themselves and later on were proven to be hoaxes for attention.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-rights-activist...

http://www.goingyourownway.com/mgtow-lounge-main-forum/rok-a...

http://www.returnofkings.com/42602/did-anita-sarkeesian-fake...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErGcBxMpgwA

Apparently they can create all of the fake Twitter accounts they want, sign out, and take a picture of it 12 minutes later. Then log back into the account and delete all of the history.

The news media just has to believe them, because they believe that these anonymous people are behind death and rape threats to everyone. Even if the Twitter accounts doing the threats have the same IP as the feminist's accounts. Sometimes the police catch the feminists and arrest them for filing a false report.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/false-claims-of-rape-an...

This fake rape and fake death threats and fake sexual assaults are nothing new:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Feminists will keep doing this stuff to get popular, and attention, and speaking gigs, and sell books and promote blogs and websites.

They think by faking this stuff they raise awareness for it.

With this past history of hoaxes, it is hard to tell with each new case of harassment if it is real or just another hoax for attention.

If real she and her family have my deepest sympathies, if fake she will be found out eventually I guess?

You don't do yourself much favor in this discussion when you post links to returnofkings.com or avoiceformen.com :-)

The source of a fact does not matter. Your post is the very definition of ad-hominem.

I don't think you know how things...like...work. Being an ad hominem argument and being accurate are not disjoint sets. You don't just get to blow the whistle and say "AD HOMINEM, ARGUMENT GOES TO THE RECEIVING TEAM!".

It's not even an ad hominem, though, because the credibility of your sources is at the core of your argument. returnofkings and avoiceformen have a storied and well-covered history of being astonishing shitheads towards women and doing everything in their (meager, thankfully) power to turn the clock back to 1950 or thereabouts. They have an inherent bias, and a real real disgusting one, that makes them immediately incredible. It's like citing Andrew Wakefield on autism--you aren't entitled to the respect of having an argument when you don't have an argument based on reality.

There isn't enough there to the spittle-flecked, cheeto-dusting link parade to argue about. It's prima facie nonsense being peddled by people with much, much more of an axe to grind than anyone on the "other side" that you (strangely) fear; there's no serious coverage of this sordid stain on a hobby of mine that's pro-#GG except from people whose entire worldview is predicated on being anti-women. And you know it, which is why you would rather blow the whistle and hope the ref stops the fight because--gasp!--somebody used a fallacy.

>there isn't enough there to the spittle-flecked, cheeto-dusting link...

Why, exactly, did you use this particular choice of words?

Because I felt like reaching deep and verbalizing the contempt I have for this brutally disingenuous crowd. (And before you step up about oh, no, it's not disingenuous at all, answer yourself this: why's everyone making a big stink about Nathan Grayson at Kotaku and not, oh, the lack of a wall between marketing/ad-sales and content generation at IGN?)

The whole thing is the gaming industry is corrupt. People can pay for good reviews or have sexual relations with the reviewer in exchange for a good review.

It doesn't matter if one is male or female that does those sorts of things. But when one gets caught he or she can fake threats with Twitter accounts to cover it up.

For some reason most of the people doing this are feminists, I don't know why, nor do I know why the mainstream media and news media won't cover it. Why is it a non-story if a feminist does bad things for a good review and when caught does a Twitter hoax, and then rewarded for it?

Sure those sites might be crappy towards women, but they uncovered some facts about the hoaxes. Something the news media refuses to do, which is why those websites report on it. I wish the news media would investigate it and find out if it is a hoax or not.

But taking a picture of a Tweet 12 minutes after it happened is very suspicious, esp when that Tweet is deleted in less than half an hour and the account gets deleted as well. So nobody else can see it or what IP it got posted from.

You are upset for no reason, and are being abusive as a result of your anger. Please calm down and try to be a little more constructive. I did not post those links, I simply pointed out that the source of a fact does not matter. You did not say "those facts are wrong because evidence", you said "those facts are wrong because I don't like who is saying them". That is the very definition of ad-hominem. I did not claim to win any argument, I pointed out that you did not make an argument. Your response had negative value. If you want to demonstrate that some claims are incorrect, then do so.

When you post facts, and not innuendos posing as facts, this self-righteous spiel might have some value. But my experience with goobergate has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Colbert's truthiness is in full effect up in hurr.

>shitposting is fine if I don't like you

Yeah, that really isn't how it works. I know it is hard to admit when you are emotionally invested in a mistake, but I believe you are better than that.

Your code switching needs work. But we knew you were a sock already.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please make an effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com