Quote:
No one came out and said "I'm doxxing Felicia Day in the name of GAMERGATE!!" nor was Gamergate ever mentioned in the threat sent to the university in Utah but people were very quick to lump them together and accuse people even casually supportive of Gamergate of thus supporting those acts by association.
Utah, I accept. I have little doubt the idiot is a gamergater, but it didn't cite gamergate's hashtag from what I can tell.
But false for Day. At least, according to Kotaku, the username of the person who doxxed Day on her blog post was "gaimerg8." I'm inclined to say that counts?
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory wrote:
If anyone has the tweets, I'll happily participate in the "that was really ****** up, Quinn" discussion.
There's
this, where she claims she accidentally caused a DDoS on a group she didn't agree with. For argument's sake, even if it
were an accident (
I don't buy it, too convenient for my taste), the congratulatory replies certainly don't help any cause.
Any self-congratulation is definitely in extremely poor taste, regardless of if it was an accident or not. Doesn't even matter (or, more specifically, doesn't matter in the context that we'll never know which is true) - it's a ****** circumstance and that's about where the comments should end. Period.
I don't really feel any call to defend Quinn's character at all. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing it up. Maybe you and I just see different posts on the internet, but I haven't seen anyone try to paint Quinn as an innocent angel, anywhere.
It wouldn't even be a smart tactic, if she was 100% innocent of all accusations and was an altogether pleasant person to be around. Basing your argument on the integrity of a single person just isn't wise.
Literally all I care about is that she was being doxxed, harassed, etc. That's it. I'm sure there are many people who dislike her for legitimate reasons, and I'm sure there are plenty of reasons people dislike her for misogynistic reasons, and I'm 100% sure I have no interest in trying to construct a defense of her character in the context of the larger discussion going on. It's a waste of time.
For one, there's way too much mud being thrown to get any realistic look at her character. For another, who cares? Quinn could be the spawn of satan, and that still doesn't excuse harassment. And she could be an angel, and the harassment would be equally as unacceptable.
Unless you disagree and think that people you don't like should be harassed, in which case you and are at an am impasse.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Yet you want everyone else to accept your arguments, even though your fringe's behavior is just as detestable as the behavior you're arguing against,
That's because idiggory is the fringe of any argument he takes on.
Oh how deep the rabbit hole goes. I'm conservative at best in activist communities.
(No, but really).
That said, I'm not sure how I'm the fringe voice in this particular debate.
Maybe fringe in gamer communities, but gamergaters = womanhaters is the general public consensus. Media influence, yadda, yadda, but still.
I'm definitely USUALLY the fringe argument, yeah. But I seriously doubt it for this one.