Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelvin0 | Hacker News Reader

I probably watch too many shows, but wouldn't that kind of threat (real or manufactured) actually push the speaker further into the limelight? So if this an actual threat (most likely) the 'bully' is really playing into her hands, so to speak. If this threat is manufactured, well this would indeed be quite a Machiavellian PR stunt ...

View on HN

> If this threat is manufactured, well this would indeed be quite a Machiavellian PR stunt ...

That's a common accusation by the GamerGate folks, but given the number of other women in the gaming arena receiving similar harassment it's pretty believable that these are real.

It's very easy to believe it's real given the fairly recent school shooting fuelled by a very similar brand of misogyny. I don't think less of her at all for backing out of the talk.

Gamergate folks? Is that not a generalization? How does one become part of this niche group?

Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts. Why the down votes? All I am saying is that whoever made the threats clearly doesn't want the issue to go away ... Come on guys!

You're getting downvoted because of the obvious and obnoxious insinuation.

Being obnoxious is purely subjective to your perception. Does that make it any less valuable?

Your non-obnoxiousness is purely subjective to your perception.

Comedy gold right here folks! :)

"Just stating facts" is a pretty weasely way to back away from what you were implying in that comment.

Because you're not stating facts which are relevant. You're saying "If she did [x] it would be [y]". That might be objectively true, but you're not presenting any evidence that she's doing [x] and so it doesn't matter.

It's an incredibly obnoxious thing to do, and honestly in this context it's pretty disgusting.

I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts. Please do not be disgusted by so little.

>I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have gotten confused when you said "Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts."; I took that to mean that you were simply stating two facts, and in fact you were trying to say literally the exact opposite of what you said. You should maybe work on saying things which are not one hundred percent false.

OK, so buy me a beer I will explain in person. Much simpler. I stand by my original comment, but this was never meant to be 'backed up' by any facts. Somewhere along this thread people are talking about conceal carry weapons, this is off topic. At least my comment had the merit of considering the topic at hand with a hypothetical scenario that got waaaay to much attention. I am always surprised by some reactions on HN, it makes for interesting discussions.

What? Why would I buy you a beer? You've done nothing but lie to me and skate around your words in what can only be either an attempt to spread doubt on the validity of a horrifying situation, or a manifestation of an appalling lack of self awareness.

How are you standing by your original comment?

edit: What I'm really looking for is any evidence at all that you're trying to debate in good faith. All of you've done is present a bullshit hypothetical that's entirely unrelated, try to claim that you're "just presenting some facts", write off everybody who disagrees with you as "emotional", and then handwave it away when somebody actually calls you on your crap.

Breathe in, breathe out. The universe still hums, regardless.

You are creating a tornado in a cup of tea. Please refrain from such emotions, they only shorten your lifespan.

Don't simply say "why the downvotes". Back up your argument with facts and reasoning, and if you're right, it should stand on its own. If you're getting downvotes...you aren't right.

I know this subject is emotionally charged for most people. If you read my statements objectively I hope to help you perceive a different perspective, no need to embrace it. I wish you well.

I read your statement objectively. You said that if she had manufactured this crisis, it would be a machiavellian stunt.

Can you present even a single shred of evidence that she's manufacturing the crisis? Because until you present that evidence, you're not actually presenting facts that are relevant to the discussion. You might as well say "If she were an alien, this might be part of her plan to take over the world". It's impossible to respond to that, because while it might be true (if she were an alien, maybe you've discovered her plan!) but to the best of our knowledge, she's not an alien and hypothesizing about her motives if she were is a waste of everybody's time.

What's even worse is that you're presenting hypotheticals as facts and then pretending not to understand what you're doing and claiming that people are disagreeing with you on emotional reasons, when the only emotion they're feeling is rage that you're wasting their time. This could be an opportunity for an actual discussion and you're just chucking garbage at the wall and then asking "jeeze you guys why don't you like my garbage?"

I do not know of any evidence, nor do I wish to investigate if there is any with regards to the 'manufactured' hypothesis. Reading the article, I had a flash of an interesting twist of events (as improbable as it is). This whole debate is not even about her, but how some people could use this scenario to manipulate the public's attention and polarize the discussion. I like considering things from different angles, which I thought was what Hacker News was about in some measure.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/15/6983833/stop-gamergate-ga...

The last paragraph explicitly calls out your theory. You can consider things from different angles all you want, but when the angles you're considering are provably fiction, it's hard to see how they have a place in a discussion of facts.

Considering things from different angles is a useful thing to do, and may well be what Hacker News is about. Considering things from useless angles that have no bearing on the discussion doesn't contribute to anything and only serves to confuse the issue at hand. What is the benefit of discussing an arbitrary hypothetical that's so radical and unsupportable that even the individual who proposes it immediately backs off of the position instead of putting an ounce of effort into providing evidence?

Maybe the whole thing is manufactured by Putin. Maybe the entire chain of events is related to the Kennedy assassination. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian is actually the Lindburgh Baby. Maybe Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend is the son of the gunsmith who made the Magic Bullet. There are millions of hypotheticals out there, and no benefit to discussing all of them.

You're a literal conspiracy theorist; do you understand that you're equivalent to somebody posting that picture of the UFO and saying, "I believe!"?

Yes, I have that poster with Che Guevara as a Reptlian Illuminati from another dimension. :-)

I was not trying to make a case for/against the speaker. I worked in the game industry for 7 years and the best Game Directors that headed our team were women (by a longshot too.) I do not know the speaker, and only wish her to find her way out of this mess. I did not really think such objective comments about a hypothetical situation would make me loose karma for the next 3 generations. Go forth and gameth in peace.

I think that's a bit cynical. The guardian story has some more detail[0]. Basically after the threat she asked "will there be guns allowed at this talk?" and the school answered "Well of course, this is Utah".

(mildly paraphrasing of course)

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sark...

I really don't think anyone creates a marketing plan that involves fake death threats. That just doesn't make any sense, especially as she doesn't need to manufacture an outrage against her.

Though this would validate her "professional victim hood" as some would describe her and a lot of so-called "feminists" online.

I'm not saying that she /did/ call it in herself, but it wouldn't be out of character with her (and her peers) stereotype.

I dunno, opless. It would be a great coup for you to call in some death threats against Anita; nobody would believe you, because it wouldn't be out of character for her to make them up. So you get to harass her for free with no consequences.

I'm not saying you /did/ send death threats, but it wouldn't be out of character for the people who are harassing her online.

The whole of 'GamerGate' feels almost like a PR stunt to turn the world's media against gamers. The irony is almost palpable.

GG laid down that framework itself. If it feels like a PR stunt against gamers, that's because it really is turning a lot of people against gamers. The difference is, the GGers did it to themselves.

Oh I'm well aware. I'm not sure any PR stunt could have done a better job, though.

This is why it's best to ignore the whole thing, except to refer criminal threats to the police for investigation.

It's easy for people who aren't being targeted for harassment to ignore it, but I think we owe it to those who are to not ignore it.

> I think we owe it to those who are (being targeted for harassment) to not ignore it. - ben0x539

No. No we don't. The best thing you can do, as an individual, is not give either side of the debate any further attention or credibility.

Witch hunts are common in any activist crowd. This issue is no different than hundreds of other agenda driven issues.

If you truly want this type of thing to go away, stop talking about it.

The "side" of this "debate" that is receiving death threats is very deserving of attention (to the extent they want it) and sympathy, and has no lack of credibility.

In the UK: at least half of all calls passed to frontline officers are related to online harassment / trolling / death threats. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27949674

Reply on news.ycombinator.com