1. "Plus size"
[MEDIA=twitter]604284121393692673[/MEDIA]
2. lol, this shit again?
[MEDIA=twitter]604324246379089920[/MEDIA]
3. UH OH WATCH OUT
[MEDIA=twitter]604327783133626370[/MEDIA]
4. So productive
[MEDIA=twitter]604376874291175424[/MEDIA]
5. That happened.
[MEDIA=twitter]604454520417099776[/MEDIA]
6. Oh yeah, btw Wu is gonna go for Self Conference.
[MEDIA=twitter]604426609916030976[/MEDIA][MEDIA=twitter]604499102118912000[/MEDIA]
OK, let's do this thing.
So we have a Salon writer - the same outlet that hires Arthur Chu - do a puff piece about how DAT MEAN OL GAMERGATE DONE GONA GIT IT, written by someone who, impossibly, bitches about Internet e-harassment on Twitter about as much as Wu herself does:
Now that the color of this asshole's general demeanor and means are done with, I'm going to cut open her article and mock it. Enjoy.
Mary Elizabeth Williams said:
Maybe you’re the kind of person who doesn’t need to be told that threatening to rape and murder women is not okay. It’s not a casual means of communicating disagreement; it’s not a hilarious riposte; it’s not a valid expression of frustration at being a sad and lonely individual. And if you know and understand this, and practice not harassing and threatening to rape and kill women as you go about your way on social media, my hat is off to you. If however the concept is a little muddy, the Department of Justice may now be able to help you clear that up.
Or maybe the last five fucking times the DoJ's gotten involved with this, they found Gamergate completely co-operative and that
none of the so-called threats were credible. In fact, going by the fact that you have yet to post a single rape/murder threat that is not provably the work of trolls or on a single-shot burner account (and arguably the result of trolls), I'm willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that you don't
have such a credible threat. But I needn't do something so base as
cite fucking statistics disproving your horse-shit - I can point at your own fucking example of what you think harassment is:
But it's not just that you can't cite a single example of harassment that isn't a fucking throw-away, nor is it that you think being criticized is harassment, oh no! The DoJ
has to get involved! Even though
none of you fucking professional victims has ever done so much as file a police report. Your harassment is absolutely the most critical thing, even though
none of you will even take basic steps to curtail it, and instead, actively antagonize people.
Mary Elizabeth Williams said:
Back in March, Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark formally called upon the Department of Justice to
“prioritize investigations and prosecutions of cyber abuse crimes targeting women.” In her letter, Clark specifically cited “the ongoing “Gamergate” intimidation campaign,” noting that women targeted
“have been repeatedly subjected to explicit threats of rape and murder, their personal information has been disclosed, and several have been forced to flee their homes and cancel public events.” Last fall, Feminist Frequency’s
Anita Sarkeesian canceled an event at Utah State University after receiving an anonymous emailed threat that “I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it… One way or another, I’m going to make sure they die… She is going to die screaming like the craven little whore that she is if you let her come to USU.” And game developer Brianna Wu and her husband fled their home after her personal information was posted on 8chan and she was pelted with promises that
“I’ve got a K-bar and I’m coming to your house so I can shove it up your ugly feminist c__t.” Just last week, Wu posted a piece for The Mary Sue that included the audio of a threat she received from a man vowing that
“I’m coming to your f__king house right now. I will slit your throat you stupid little f__king whore. I’m coming, and you’d better be f__king ready for me.”
So let's play a little game called "spot the false-flags." Because every single one of these has been proven to be a hoax, if not the result of third-party trolls, let's briefly go over all of them:
*
The USU Threat was proven to have never been a credible threat. By multiple law enforcement agencies.
* Brianna Wu
provably never left her home in regards to threats. The initial threats that she did recieve that she claimed led to her leaving her home
provably stemmed from Something Awful, who fucking claimed credit for the threats.
* You also failed to note that Brianna Wu never disclosed the source of this alleged phone-called death threat. Or filed a police report over it. Or, indeed,
has ever filed a police report or recieved a restraining order against anyone.
* Katherine Clark, the woman who's responsible for WE MUST GET THE DOJ INVOLVED, is the same woman who has been essentially an Anti-GGer in everything but name for months, writing op-ed after op-ed about
how toxic internet masculinity is ruining everything.
* And to drive home everything else, you linked to Arthur Chu, a fellow Salon columnist who has even less credibility than you do.
I hope you guys all have your scorecards out. I'm going to be pissed if our dear Commander isn't mentioned in the coming paragraphs.
Mary Elizabeth Williams said:
And then there’s your basic
everyday bullying and intimidation that women routinely endure for tweeting while female. As Clark wrote in her letter, “The sad reality is that millions of women are faced with online abuse. From domestic violence victims to journalists, women are increasingly confronted with the reality that using the Internet in their personal and professional lives may subject them to abhorrent gender-based abuse.” And her call to change noted that “Although protections against violent online threats already exist, enforcement is drastically lagging. Of the estimated 2.5 million cases of cyber-stalking that occurred in the U.S. between 2010 and 2013, federal prosecutors pursued only 10 cases.”
Ten. Maybe that’s why, as she wrote in an op-ed for The Hill, “Young women are deciding not to pursue jobs in technology to avoid the crosshairs of men who don’t think they belong. Women who are being asked to run for public office are choosing to stay on the sidelines once they see the online abuse suffered by their peers…. online abuse is not only emotionally devastating, but
it also curtails their professional choices and their full participation in the economy.”
Of course, you don’t have to be female to be the target of violent harassment — but it sure doesn’t hurt your chances. I can attest from personal experience that having strangers — strangers who, by the way, identify as patriots, atheists, Christians, liberals and conservatives — share their graphic wishes for harm to come to me and/or their intentions to do it themselves is
pretty much a regular part of my life. I am an old friend of the Twitter block button, and a routine abuse reporter. And as Clark said in March, “The federal government is not responsible for policing the Internet, but it is responsible for protecting the women who are being threatened with rape and murder in violation of existing federal law.” Two months later, it looks like her plea — and the complaints of a multitude of other women — are being heeded. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives “formally supported” stepped up measures to
“intensify efforts to combat this destructive abuse,” adding that it “expects to see increased investigations and prosecutions of these crimes.”
Once again, you cite no sources. Your links are to
your own articles, and
those lack citations for what they're trying to say now. The one article you try to cite as proof that the DoJ is taking action
comes from Katherine Clark's own website, and - what do you know - has
no fucking citations. I'm not going to say this is openly intellectually dishonest, but I am sure as shit going to point out that not having any facts to cite makes you out to be a dangerous ideologue.
Mary Elizabeth Williams said:
I’m sure it’s a coincidence that on Thursday, I got an email from Twitter support asking for “my thoughts… about abuse on Twitter.” Favorite question: “How problematic do you feel abuse is on Twitter?” Sadly, the set responses only ranged from “Not at all problematic” to “Extremely problematic,” with no option for “LOLOLOLOL” or just a gif of a volcano. Better yet, maybe I should have just sent the Jezebel story on the Twitter reaction to Clark’s announcement of the DOJ’s new attention to the problem — like the person who announced
“I’m going 2 kick u in the c__t.”
The sheer scale of online threats and harassment — and the ease of anonymity — makes the idea of going after these gross clowns seem all but impossible. But just saying to women, “Hey, that’s how it goes” is not a valid or satisfying response. The amount of scary, disturbing crap we face on a consistent basis at best is demoralizing and at worst directly impacts how we move through the outside world and our decisions to pursue certain opportunities. This is not about shrugging it off and telling the ladies to take a joke. It’s about intimidation, and about cultures — like Twitter — that support that intimidation with inaction. If you’re afraid of a knock on your door, it should be because you’ve done something that’s against the law. And if you’re a troll who suddenly has that fear today, now you know what it feels like to be a woman on the Internet, all the time.
1. The guy you linked is already banned from Twitter.
2. The second link you provided with "evidence of harassment" includes such stunning bits of scathing examples as this:
I bring this up because posts like this are directly in response to Katherine Clark screaming about the need to police e-harassment. Clearly, you have forgotten the Rule of the Internet:
Prepare to get your shit kicked in if you think for a second that you are above criticism.
3. You know what? I'ma Devil's Advocate here. You assholes bitch about Twitter literally more than everyone else critical of it combined. You complain constantly about the lack of moderation despite the tools needed, both official and third-party, to control them. You can even make your entire Twitter private and by and large block anyone but trusted individuals from seeing your shit, but that's not good enough, is it? No, because if you go private, you can't try to profit off your own victimhood anymore. I'm going to come right the fuck out and say it:
You are the fucking problem. The reason you catch so much shit is because you openly rile people up, then shriek about your own victimhood. Nobody sane takes you seriously and every week that goes by with more of you assholes self-destructing via false flags and the like proves this.
4. Trolls have never, and will never fear the government. Not now, not ever. And they're right to not think that the government will ever get involved over some whiny Twitterista - because it
won't.
But you know what? Let's not even go by GG figures. Let's go by what
your own side has listed as the numbers:
Of course, the response to this information on Salon has been denial that it exists, because it doesn't fit the narrative. They also deny the bomb threat, attacks against Gamergate supporters, et al happened. So clearly, we're dealing with people who are no longer operating within the realm of reality, and instead within an echo chamber, as evidenced by the fact that none of them will have the fucking balls to even try to debate.
And you know what the fucking criminal irony of that is?
Brianna Wu is braver than this. Seriously, at least she met with Grummz. She got her ass positively kicked outside the hugbox when on Pakman's show and on discussions with Hotwheels, but she
fucking agreed to those interviews, and I can at least respect that much.
So contrats, Mary Elizabeth Williams:
Brianna Wu has more credibility than you, and she's an inveterate liar with a lengthy history of self-victimhood.
