Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Tahar Joblis]

Your bias continues to show. Why just men? Lesbians apparently have a one in three chance of being sexually assaulted by another woman.

And why should all men be made to "taught" that rape is bad, when the fact is that (aside from a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of individuals) men already know that? This "rape culture" kool-aid orthodoxy you've been drinking is a lie.

From what people are saying in this thread I believe that the confusion stems from the larger lack of understanding the social context which gave birth to this phrase (Either that or you are all intentionally ignoring all context)

"Teach men not to rape" does not exist in a vacuum.

It was created to counter the victim blaming culture which put the responsibility on women to avoid getting raped rather on the rapist.

Let me put the idea of "rape culture" in its correct historical context.

From the 19th century forward, rape was viewed as one of the worst crimes possible, especially when performed by a black man against a white woman. This taboo was so strong that even an unfounded allegation of an attempt at rape of a white woman by a black man was enough to lead to lynchings.

Some people noticed that, in a certain narrow set of circumstances, primarily when referring to men in prison being raped by other men in prison, society condoned rape. After noting the key (and most universal) example of approval of male-on-male rape in prison, sexological researchers found that under particular circumstances, a number of men and women would say that a victim "deserved" to be raped, the common theme being that if you engaged in some sort of wrongdoing, you would deserve to be raped.

Feminists also noticed that the things they wanted to call "rape" were not called rape by everyone, particularly and especially (for ones like Mary Koss) in the case of drunk women having regrettable sex, but also including (say) rape within marriage. Mind you, at this point in time, rape was still viewed as the most serious crime short of murder... overall... it's just that people felt like if you were a criminal (or even just seriously violating social norms they wanted you to abide by), you deserved to have all kinds of bad shit happen to you, including rape, and that not everybody agreed with the feminist definitions of rape.

I know the social context that leads to "rape culture." I also know that the most appropriate applications of the word are to the cases where men are victims; women are perpetrators; and the large intersection between the two. Rape of men by men in prison is widely condoned, and rape of men by women is widely denied and ignored.

Rape of women by men? For the entire time that feminism has existed, rape of women by men has been viewed as a terrible crime by most people in most circumstances. Even in cultures that actually treat women like shit, rape is still viewed as a very serious crime. (A crime against the woman's family, mind you, but still a serious crime.)

If things had been different...

If it was really common to find people giving little boys advice on how to avoid being raped by women (With advice ranging to avoid participation in sports, don't wear tight fitting clothing, and don't go outside alone or after dark) EVERY single time a boy was raped...

Then it would be very reasonable to start a "Teach women not to rape" movement. But that is not what is happening in the real world

Remember we live in a world where newscasters, police officers, judges, school teachers, religions leaders, and anyone else who thinks they know what they are talking about feels free to give advice to women on how to avoid being raped. This simply is not the case for men. I have never heard of a politician giving boys advice on how not to get raped. I've never heard of a police officer giving a press conference on how boys should dress differently to avoid female predators. I have never read anyone tell men that they should expect that going to a bar will increase their chances of being raped...

The meaning of the quote is: All this "education" given to girls on how to avoid being raped is ineffective, insulting, and victim blaming... So instead of teaching girls to avoid being raped, let's teach men not to be rapists.

Now if you still have a problem with that then I'm not interested in a discussion with you because you are engaging in dishonest discussion.

That entire section is disconnected from reality. Your premise is that men aren't taught to avoid becoming victims.

• Growing up, I received countless warnings from adults, books aimed at children, etc, about the danger of going places with strangers.
• I was also taught to always lock doors on cars and houses when I left them.
• I was taught to look both ways before I crossed the street.
• I was given a list of steps to take to avoid being physically assaulted.
• I was told to avoid all kinds of risky behaviors to avoid getting tetanus, STDs, etc.
• I remember "this is your brain on drugs."
• I was taught to carry my wallet in a front pocket so it wouldn't get stolen.
• I was warned about razor blades in apples at Halloween.

As a boy, in other words, I was still steeped in warnings about how, if I didn't take steps to avoid it, I would end up dead, kidnapped, beaten, infected, robbed, or have vague uncertain bad things happen to me. (All the warnings about pedophiles given to children don't generally get particularly explicit about why some bad stranger might want to kidnap a kid.)

If adults had thought I was at risk of being raped by anybody other than a pedophile (and I was taught to try to prevent that by not taking candy from strangers), I would have received a long litany of advice about how to avoid being raped, too. But I was taught to take steps to avoid becoming the victim of criminal or even accidental violence, and I was far from alone.

It is only with the case of rape that crime prevention efforts (and that includes a frenzy of paranoia about the extremely rare case of child kidnappings) are viewed as blaming victims. The reason that boys aren't taught to avoid being raped by women is because many people are refusing to recognize that it's a problem. Which is an actual "rape culture" problem.

[Hirota]

And the MRA movement shows their hateful side once more.

I'm not an MRA, if that's what you were thinking.

Would you have me remind the men here who have said they were raped that it's important to avoid false rape claims? Go ahead and tell them yourself.

I absolutely would, irrespective of their gender. I'd also tell them that it's doubly important to avoid making false rape claims to the press. It harms conviction rates, and increases cynicism of genuine rape claims. The two examples I mentioned (and the two rape cases the most publicised) were found to be absolute fabrications. They harm the cause for rape victims.

[New Edom]

As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of feminists think like Chessmistress expressed. I have rarely seen evidence otherwise. This is why I think the percentages and figures they throw around are there.

I don't think percentages shouldn't matter as much as empathy does when it comes to compassion. Three whales, one little girl, one village can arouse the world's compassion. One bear mauling can terrify a district; one life saved can inspire people. Three cases of SARS, one case of Ebola can terrify. So you don't need per se to have 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 figures for something to be important.

i think that humanism needs to be what people put in the place of feminism for those who don't really accept the ideology per se but want to encourage equality and meritocracy among people, for those who have a healthy skepticism of just being told what to do and want to think about it, who want to make choices as free people.

Woah woah woah.
Woah.
Let's gently apply the brakes in a safe and sensible manner here.

Chess is NOT fucking representative. <.<
No way, no how.
Maybe of the fringe asshole radfems, but not 'the overwhelming majority of feminists'.
(Or not in my experience anyway.)


That aside, I don't necessarily mind what people call themselves (within reason) so long as they're not being assholes and are being fair and compassionate and reasonable in their treatment of others.
(Also yeah, ha, good luck with the 'meritocracy' concept. You'd have to get people to agree what things are worth of 'merit'.)

I think her response is very representative, or can you demonstrate otherwise? As for meritocracy, if people can agree that a ludicrous concept like Heforshe is worth supporting they will support anything.

[New Edom]

Humanism has to be the way to go to avoid endless arguments like this. People who are basically humanitarian need to start going their own way from feminism. Here is how I think we should do it.

First of all: we need to acknowledge that our values include things like equality on a basic level for everyone.

Second; we need to uphold values like honesty and fairness.

This makes it easy. If what an ideology says falls into the above categories it's worth considering. If it doesn't, then it's not. So for instance, when feminists say that they think women shoujld be paid as much as men for doing the same jobs, i can readily agree with that. But when they say that women are better people than men and are deserving of more compassion, I don't agree and don't have to. When an anti-racist organization says that they want to make sure that all people are treated justly and fairly, I agree. But when they turn a blind eye to criminal actions done on the part of people they support, I don't agree.

So when it comes to Gamergate, I absolutely agree that if people want to create games that have more interesting characters and better stories (at least from their point of view) I say "go for it". I think that the more ideas that are out there the better rang eof choices gameers have. When they say that they want people to be encouraged to treat others with basic decency and respect, I can say "sure, I agree." However when they want to start trying to read people's minds and insist that everyone think the same way, my response is "Go to Hell."

I don't really call myself a liberal or a conservative. I've been thinking about why I mind conservatism less though, and I think it comes down to the fact that conservatives may be just as capable of being hypocritical and unfair, but the differences is that they will generally admit to at least having an ideology and citing its sources. By contrast, liberals and their feminist allies will use this silly shell game of saying that feminism is just the facts. The standard quip is "if you believe in equality between men and women, you're a feminist." This would be like saying "If you believe in peace, charity and goodwill, you're a Christian" while ignoring actual Christian history or the idea that those words relate to values, not to the ideology itself. So in a way a bit of extra work is needed in stepping away from these ideas.

When people say "humanism is too vague" in one sense they're right, but I prefer that. I don't want to espouse an ideology; I want myself and to encourage others to hold values instead and choose their actions based on them. This does require more thinking and more effort, but I think it's worth it. Thanks to the information age, it's more possible than ever in history to make choices, be self critical and be challenged and challenge in turn.

[The Lone Alliance]

"Teach men not to rape" does not exist in a vacuum.

It exists in the minds of people who don't understand anything about people though.

It was created to counter the victim blaming culture which put the responsibility on women to avoid getting raped rather than on the rapist.

No it's also shifting the blame. If you're saying society should be "Teaching Men not to Rape" then you are claiming that rape is the fault of society and it's not in an person's choice.

Really if you think about it, why stop with rape Natapoc? Why don't we teach people not to kill, steal, commit fraud, or Jaywalk?

That way we don't need to worry about crime at all!

Don't you think that's unrealistic?

If things had been different...

If it was really common to find people giving little boys advice on how to avoid being raped by women (With advice ranging to avoid participation in sports, don't wear tight fitting clothing, and don't go outside alone or after dark) EVERY single time a boy was raped...

I remember how my entire class, both male and female, were taught about the good touch\bad touch, and not to get into strange cars by strangers offering candy.

It's almost like they were trying to warn us about rape without mentioning rape to terrify our virgin ears.

Then it would be very reasonable to start a "Teach women not to rape" movement. But that is not what is happening in the real world

Then maybe it should, you support equality right?

Remember we live in a world where newscasters, police officers, judges, school teachers, religions leaders, and anyone else who thinks they know what they are talking about feels free to give advice to women on how to avoid being raped. This simply is not the case for men. I have never heard of a politician giving boys advice on how not to get raped.

Same advice you give a guy when it comes to any crime, don't let it happen in the first place. Tell me what's the difference between advice to avoid getting raped and advice to avoid getting mugged?

Both involved getting forced into close contact with the attacker.

I've never heard of a police officer giving a press conference on how boys should dress differently to avoid female predators.

I heard that there was research saying clothing doesn't matter.

I have never read anyone tell men that they should expect that going to a bar will increase their chances of being raped...

That should change now that the ideas of being drunk = Raped.

But really, a place of impaired judgment and reaction time would be dangerous for any crime.

The meaning of the quote is: All this "education" given to girls on how to avoid being raped is ineffective, insulting, and victim blaming... So instead of teaching girls to avoid being raped, let's teach men not to be rapists.

Which is stupid because in the end men aren't taught to be rapists.

Besides it's pointless, about the only type of rape you could educate people about would be date rape and maybe drinking rape, violent rape doesn't happen because a person 'doesn't know any better'. Violent rape comes from people who would never listen in the first place.

There are evil people in this world, evil people who do not care about you, do not care about me, do not care about society, morals, laws, and any social construct you can think up, some of them like to hurt people.

And as long as those people exist, and yes they always will exist, women will need to know those safety rules, just like how men need to know rules about how not to get mugged, murdered, or beaten up.

There are people out there who are criminal predators and they see the rest of us as prey and like all prey we must keep ourselves aware of the danger to protect ourselves.

That's just how it is, that's how it's always been, and always will be.

Now if you still have a problem with that then I'm not interested in a discussion with you because you are engaging in dishonest discussion.

Seeing the above, you're right, there is no point in discussing it.

You can't socially engineer all of society.

You can try, but I'll go with a compromise.

You can can encourage to try and teach men not to rape, I'll try to encourage teaching women self defense so they can knock out or shoot anyone who tries to rape them.

We'll see which strategy works best, or who knows maybe combining the two is the best solution of them all?

We can call it the "Knowledge or Knock Outs" strategy.

[Haktiva]

Humanism has to be the way to go to avoid endless arguments like this. People who are basically humanitarian need to start going their own way from feminism. Here is how I think we should do it.

First of all: we need to acknowledge that our values include things like equality on a basic level for everyone.

Second; we need to uphold values like honesty and fairness.

This makes it easy. If what an ideology says falls into the above categories it's worth considering. If it doesn't, then it's not. So for instance, when feminists say that they think women shoujld be paid as much as men for doing the same jobs, i can readily agree with that. But when they say that women are better people than men and are deserving of more compassion, I don't agree and don't have to. When an anti-racist organization says that they want to make sure that all people are treated justly and fairly, I agree. But when they turn a blind eye to criminal actions done on the part of people they support, I don't agree.

So when it comes to Gamergate, I absolutely agree that if people want to create games that have more interesting characters and better stories (at least from their point of view) I say "go for it". I think that the more ideas that are out there the better rang eof choices gameers have. When they say that they want people to be encouraged to treat others with basic decency and respect, I can say "sure, I agree." However when they want to start trying to read people's minds and insist that everyone think the same way, my response is "Go to Hell."

I don't really call myself a liberal or a conservative. I've been thinking about why I mind conservatism less though, and I think it comes down to the fact that conservatives may be just as capable of being hypocritical and unfair, but the differences is that they will generally admit to at least having an ideology and citing its sources. By contrast, liberals and their feminist allies will use this silly shell game of saying that feminism is just the facts. The standard quip is "if you believe in equality between men and women, you're a feminist." This would be like saying "If you believe in peace, charity and goodwill, you're a Christian" while ignoring actual Christian history or the idea that those words relate to values, not to the ideology itself. So in a way a bit of extra work is needed in stepping away from these ideas.

When people say "humanism is too vague" in one sense they're right, but I prefer that. I don't want to espouse an ideology; I want myself and to encourage others to hold values instead and choose their actions based on them. This does require more thinking and more effort, but I think it's worth it. Thanks to the information age, it's more possible than ever in history to make choices, be self critical and be challenged and challenge in turn.

A few MGTOWs brought attention to things being vague or broad. The cited that it comes down to group preference. For example, feminism started off with all women, however since we humans want to be around similar people(in terms of skin color, religion, views, economic background, etc), it started splitting off into sub factions and things kinda took a turn for the worst there. You have Black feminists against white feminists(really who the bigger victim is and such), female feminists against male ones(or rather white knights I guess), etc.

MRAs will likely run into the same problem, I dunno since I don't look into them much anymore.

They also reflected on MGTOW as a group, which is more about the individual rather than the collective, the latter more of a forum to share ideas and converse freely. The most specific MGTOW is the individual man, there aren't really any groups of MGTOW aside from loose collectives of personalities on the internet.

Suppose there's good studies to be done when you look at all the sides of this insanity.

[The Lone Alliance]

For example, feminism started off with all women, however since we humans want to be around similar people(in terms of skin color, religion, views, economic background, etc), it started splitting off into sub factions and things kinda took a turn for the worst there. You have Black feminists against white feminists(really who the bigger victim is and such), female feminists against male ones(or rather white knights I guess), etc. .

To be fair Black Feminists and other minority feminists do have a reason to complain, the majority of the feminism movement seems to mainly talk about the problems and horrors white women suffer while playing lip service to the others. The media follows the same pattern as well.

Just take a look at Suey Park and Adria Richards.

They both got threats because of an internet backlash but compared to the LWs they were either mocked or had a flash in the pan bout of fame before fading into the background.

Richards, despite her situation having been considered another example of supposed sexism in technology, has been mentioned a total of once in this thread, showing how forgotten she has become.

[Llamalandia]

That long blog I read sure seemed to be his side of the story to me. Anyway I'll ask you the same question since you responded... What do you want feminists to do about it?

He can't use any of what he said in that blog it in court because he's legally not allowed to say it.

Right now? I really don't think there's anything anyone can do about it except wait and see, I do believe that there should be support for ending the gag order, let the Ex boyfriend present his evidence legally and let the courts decide if it's valid or not.

A good thing to look at over this for feminism and others is on if this sets a precedent on such cases, if his appeal goes through it might force a change in how gag orders are done. There needs to be more study on if gag orders could be used by abusers of both sides to silence the other.

Maybe a push to change the laws to state that accusations of physical or sexual abuse should not be blocked by gag orders?

Gag orders (except perhaps for national security) are clearly prior restraint of free speech an doubt to be disallowed on first amendment grounds. In fact many that are initially imposed in high profile cases are quickly eased or lifted when press demands access.

[Susurruses]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

[New Edom]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

When you say "thread devolved into victim blaming" I wonder whose posts you are referring to? Because I don't think anyone but feminists were waving aside concerns about the consent or safety of anyone. Mentioning that false rape claims exist and can be a concern doesn't mean that they happen all the time; it just means that they exist and are a concern for those who suffer from them. Saying that popular feminist catchphrases and thoughts are not genuinely fair or reasonable doesn't mean that you don't care if someone is raped and murdered or not.

However if you want to back out,t hat is up to you, but you are wrong when you say that this is about echo chambers. On one side, posters have tried to explain why they have issues with an ideology; on the other people have denied that there are any issues to be concerned with regarding feminism as a popular movement.

The murder of this young woman is terrible. However:

"a federal complaint filed Thursday alleges the public university failed to act on this knowledge and permitted a hostile environment against female students."

. Emphasis on 'alleged', which means 'not proven'.

There's this as well in this report.

"All we are in a position to say at this point is that to the University's knowledge, no known reports of direct threats of violence and/or sexual assault have gone unheeded," UMW spokesperson Anna B. Billingsley said in a statement. "The University of Mary Washington's No. 1 priority has been and continues to be the creation and maintenance of a safe environment where all students can learn and grow."'

Now all this aside, it's possible that she was killed for being a feminist, possibly not. However is that the point? Let's say that this young woman killed was obnoxious, stupid or had disturbing views on race or whatever you might imagine--murdering her would still be a terrible crime.

The controversy about the rugby team I'd heard about before. Apparently the victim, Grace Mann, was a roomate of the accused, Briel, and there are a lack of details released about their relationship as roomates except for apparently the other roommates saying that Briel and Mann had no romantic relatinonship. At this point. all we know is speculation. I looked at a few screen shots of the supposed threats and hate mail, and I'm not seeing anything that I would think twice about either. I've seen a lot worse.

Now again, it's awful that this young woman got murdered. I hope that there is a very thorough investigation, I hope that evidence will prove who did it and that there will be severe consequences. However I'm looking through the other news reports, which don't focus on these online remarks, and I am not seeing that anyone identified it as being an anti feminist hate crime, and I see nothing to suggest it should be identified as such.

Is it possible? Sure, I'm not denying that. But let's bring it back to the discussion now: do incidents like this mean that feminists do not have to be fair?

[Gauthier]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

Something Something She Brought It Upon Herself Something Something.

[Llamalandia]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

Something Something She Brought It Upon Herself Something Something.

Well yeah sorta. I mean that is how the gaming community behaves anyway. Look at jack Thompson, no one gave a shit that he was being unfairly harassed and getting death threats etc but uh oh, going on a biased witch hunt against woman in a lynch mob mentality well now the feminists whine. If want equal treatment for men and women, then you have to accept that both genders might be treated equally badly. And for the record I also hate jack Thompson.

[Haktiva]

Something Something She Brought It Upon Herself Something Something.

Well yeah sorta. I mean that is how the gaming community behaves anyway. Look at jack Thompson, no one gave a shit that he was being unfairly harassed and getting death threats etc but uh oh, going on a biased witch hunt against woman in a lynch mob mentality well now the feminists whine. If want equal treatment for men and women, then you have to accept that both genders might be treated equally badly. And for the record I also hate jack Thompson.

if only people had such a a sense of reason and weren't bound by gynocentric instinct and a bunch of other tripe.

[The Lone Alliance]

Gag orders (except perhaps for national security) are clearly prior restraint of free speech an doubt to be disallowed on first amendment grounds. In fact many that are initially imposed in high profile cases are quickly eased or lifted when press demands access.

Actually turns out I have the time-line wrong, it's a gag/restraining order that was set up after the Zoe Post using the claim that he some how planned and ordered Gamergate to happen. (Like any single person could control the Chans)
https://medium.com/@brokenomelette/unde ... d001415f23

Also another thing about her supposed abusive behavior, it's apparently a person's statement on how Quinn supposed abusive behavior hurts the Social Justice movement.
(Found it in the above article, kind of confusing if you don't know the lingo)
http://theflounce.com/harassment-abuse- ... e-spheres/

[Galloism]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

That's a terrible thing if true, and deserves full punishment of the law as a hate crime.

However, your source doesn't seem to back up your claim. Do you have another source stating that the motive for the crime was that she was a feminist and the killer killed her for that reason?

[Llamalandia]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

That's a terrible thing if true, and deserves full punishment of the law as a hate crime.

However, your source doesn't seem to back up your claim. Do you have another source stating that the motive for the crime was that she was a feminist and the killer killed her for that reason?

Umm actually given that feminists can be male or female I don't think this would qualify as a hate crime. Vfeminist isn't a protected or semi protected class after all. Hate crimes which are stupid as hell laws to begin with generally don't cover these kind of crimes. Might vary by state but I doubt something like feminists isn't covered. Has to be race religion ethnicity origin or gender. Maybe if it can be spun specifically as a crime of mispgynist hate, but that seems like a stretch.

[Chessmistress]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

That's horrible, I'm speechless.
Toxic masculinity should be eradicated not just only from campuses but from the whole society, but that will take time because it' s a cultural shift. First we need to stop the worst outcomes of toxic masculinity, and very quickly, with special laws against hate speech and male violence.

[Devon Teyson]

This has been entertaining.

[New Edom]

Humanist values can be challenging to maintain, because it requires you to step back and consider what's really happening, but in a way all human advancement requires such an attitude. The very concept of justice and fairness requires a certain objectivity. So in this case, the horrible thing so far is only this: a young person was killed, believed murdered. However there has been no trial yet, and no one has been found guilty yet. No one reporting on it is privy to all the facts, and all that is know about why the murder happened thus far is still just conjecture. It is vitally important at such times not to encourage panic or hysteria about unproven things; it is also irresponsible. Salem Witch Trials, Red Scare, we all know the drill.

[Seangoli]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

That's a terrible thing if true, and deserves full punishment of the law as a hate crime.

However, your source doesn't seem to back up your claim. Do you have another source stating that the motive for the crime was that she was a feminist and the killer killed her for that reason?

Given that she was killed by her room mate, I find the idea that this was necessarily a killing perpetrated due to what was said on Yik Yak to be a bit spurious without further information. There are numerous other motives that could be present given the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, and there is no direct link between Yik Yak and the killer (From the article, anyway). To say she was killed for no other reason than what she had said is a bit of a cognitive leap without more information. There are countless motives as to why a person kills an acquaintance, and this could just as easily be more coincidental than anything else.

A tragedy, certainly, and her killer deserves whatever comes his way quite obviously.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's a terrible thing if true, and deserves full punishment of the law as a hate crime.

However, your source doesn't seem to back up your claim. Do you have another source stating that the motive for the crime was that she was a feminist and the killer killed her for that reason?

Given that she was killed by her room mate, I find the idea that this was necessarily a killing perpetrated due to what was said on Yik Yak to be a bit spurious without further information. There are numerous other motives that could be present given the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, and there is no direct link between Yik Yak and the killer (From the article, anyway). To say she was killed for no other reason than what she had said is a bit of a cognitive leap without more information. There are countless motives as to why a person kills an acquaintance, and this could just as easily be more coincidental than anything else.

A tragedy, certainly, and her killer deserves whatever comes his way quite obviously.

Her roommate was on the rugby team that had been suspended, due to A. Their sexist antics and B. Increased intolerance for it due to the feminist clubs actions. That's clearly motive.


Strangulation, especially with bare hands, is extremely violent. Takes A lot of rage and hatred to choke the life from someone. To keep strangling past the point of non response. If you don't think it's linked, you're reaching for your own vendetta.

[New Edom]

Given that she was killed by her room mate, I find the idea that this was necessarily a killing perpetrated due to what was said on Yik Yak to be a bit spurious without further information. There are numerous other motives that could be present given the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, and there is no direct link between Yik Yak and the killer (From the article, anyway). To say she was killed for no other reason than what she had said is a bit of a cognitive leap without more information. There are countless motives as to why a person kills an acquaintance, and this could just as easily be more coincidental than anything else.

A tragedy, certainly, and her killer deserves whatever comes his way quite obviously.

Her roommate was on the rugby team that had been suspended, due to A. Their sexist antics and B. Increased intolerance for it due to the feminist clubs actions. That's clearly motive.


Strangulation, especially with bare hands, is extremely violent. Takes A lot of rage and hatred to choke the life from someone. To keep strangling past the point of non response. If you don't think it's linked, you're reaching for your own vendetta.

Let's say for a moment we agree that it was sexist sexual harassment by the rugby team to begin with, which even some feminist bloggers think is dubious apparently. Let's let that go for a moment.

Is this the kind of evidence you want to be satisfactory to convict someone of murder? A set of guesses based on what some people think makes sense?

[Hirota]

Yeahh, this thread just devolved into victim-blaming bullshit.
There's a stunning lack of self-awareness when it comes to some posters actually applying critical analysis to what they've written too, when doing so might highlight some flaws in either the basis or the initial conclusions and allow some kind of constructive dialogue.

Ah'm out.

As a parting spark, a young feminist was murdered for being a feminist and speaking out against an undeniably sexist culture on campus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 ... 33702.html

Good luck with the echo chamber, folks.

When you say "thread devolved into victim blaming" I wonder whose posts you are referring to? Because I don't think anyone but feminists were waving aside concerns about the consent or safety of anyone. Mentioning that false rape claims exist and can be a concern doesn't mean that they happen all the time; it just means that they exist and are a concern for those who suffer from them. Saying that popular feminist catchphrases and thoughts are not genuinely fair or reasonable doesn't mean that you don't care if someone is raped and murdered or not.

Quite right.

I'm not victim blaming at all - I'm highlighting the falsehoods spread by a minority that cause people to doubt the credibility of genuine claims. These false allegations don't help - if anything they reduce conviction rates because it demonstrates that some (and I'm sure it's a minority) so-called rape victims are simply making it up. That's terrible, and I feel awful for those genuine victims who feel they are doubted because of the actions of a few liars.

Susurruses is just an idological bully, that when faced with genuine evidence, presented reasonably, has to make unsubstantiated and untrue claims. We've seen it several times in this thread and it's just another example of the SJW ethos that simply cannot handle logic, reason and facts.

As for the huffpo piece - apparently we've devolved to trial by blogger now. No need for a trail of ones peers folks, if some hack wants to claims x or y it simply has to be true!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Her roommate was on the rugby team that had been suspended, due to A. Their sexist antics and B. Increased intolerance for it due to the feminist clubs actions. That's clearly motive.


Strangulation, especially with bare hands, is extremely violent. Takes A lot of rage and hatred to choke the life from someone. To keep strangling past the point of non response. If you don't think it's linked, you're reaching for your own vendetta.

Let's say for a moment we agree that it was sexist sexual harassment by the rugby team to begin with, which even some feminist bloggers think is dubious apparently. Let's let that go for a moment.

Is this the kind of evidence you want to be satisfactory to convict someone of murder? A set of guesses based on what some people think makes sense?

Well, let's break down your post.

A. Having listened to the song, I thought it was crude and demeaning towards women. Is it sexist, yes. Is it sexual harassment? Hardly, unless they were singing it to people, which given that it happened on their property amongst their friends and the offended people weren't even in attendance when it happened.
B. However, while some may thing the feminists were sticking their nose where it didn't belong, the fact is even a club sport functions as a representative of their host school. (As a VP of one I can attest to this, it is stressed extensively.) If we're going to hold a frat accountable for a racist song, than we must be uniform in our intolerance of intolerance. The school took the right action. So regardless if this song actually constitutes sexual harassment, the reality it is, it was this song, combined with repeated action by the feminist group that resulted in the rugby teams suspension.

C. Do I think that's enough to convict someone? Hardly, and I never attested otherwise. What I said was that it was motive. Motive is hardly even grounds for arrest, but given that he was arrested and charged literally day of, sounds to me like they had plenty of corroborating evidence.

D. Also, what's enough evidence for a conviction in a court of law is hardly indicative of reality. The public is under no such burden of proof when coming to a conclusion. Do I know or even think he did it? I don't know all the facts of the case so I really can't speculate. What I can tell you is that he had motive, and if he is indeed guilty, these events are most assuredly linked.

[Hirota]

Is it sexual harassment?

People claim to be harassed over anything and everything (including sitting down, or finding a joke funny).

We have a culture where some people think that something they don't like is harassment.