Doxing victim Zoe Quinn launches online “anti-harassment task force”

Service once tipped police a week ahead. Cops' memo: "Knock with your hand, not your boot."

Read the whole story

 

[vlam]

4KrkF[/url]":xo9b59ph]Maybe now we know what happens to sociopaths of ordinary intelligence: they become internet trolls. (I jest: most internet trolls are actually just assholes)

-tips hat- good insult.

Why would anyone defend a sociopath? If they (or you) are causing actual harm to others then the punishment (or rehabilitation, if people are feeling optimistic) should be applied. If not, then they probably don't need defending.

I was simply talking about privilege from a different context. People always talk about it from a gender reference. But my point, beyond amusement, is that privilege and race aren't all that we are made of. There are infinite variations of people and to simply discard white men because they are male and white is ridiculous. I would argue that internal struggles are of much greater importance than gender or ethnicity. Certainly the obvious visual cues have a part to play, but it is just as easy to say "personality type 1 has a much better disposition to success than personality type 2." This is no more or less valid than a gendered (or ethnic) argument.

And it is easier to form an argument around something you are personally familiar with.

 

[vlam]

Grey Bird[/url]":3js3t16z]

vlam[/url]":3js3t16z]

[snip]



For the more personal argument: I wouldn't say I revel in talking about myself. It is pertinent to the tangent I created when trying to comment about perspective and privilege. But I surely don't go about blurting my problems to people for fun. I've told exactly 0 people in the real world. And it is likely to stay that way for a good, long while. As for self diagnosis. This is certainly an assumption on your part.
paragraph p.s. I've been pretty forthcoming that I am in this discussion for amusement. Or perhaps more accurately, I'm in it to stave off boredom. Amusement implies giddiness where I simply mean "something to do."

The "assumption" of self-diagnosis was likely because several commenters asked whether you self-diagnosed or were professionally diagnosed and you completely ignored the question or, as here, sidestepped without actually answering the question. It's nobody's business but your own, but if you choose to not answer the question it isn't rational to then scold them for assuming they're correct in their assumption.

I certainly agree with this. But I've this a few times. The conversation path is pretty predictable.

Me: I'm a sociopath
Them: yeah, OK. Liar.
Me: I've been diagnosed...
Them: sure whatever. People can say whatever they want on the internet. You aren't a sociopath.

So, what is the point? I certainly don't care if random person (or group) A believes me. It'd be easier to be open and accepted as different, but it doesn't bother me when people think I'm lying.

There was, however, one group that did believe me. Seems awkward that it was a sex worker and co.

 

[vlam]

DrPizza[/url]":1px28gr2]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

 

[vlam]

Coriolanus[/url]":199470re]

vlam[/url]":199470re]

DrPizza[/url]":199470re]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

Super Mario 3D Land from 2011 - Mario goes and rescues Princess Peach, who was kidnapped by Bowser.

And? Super Princess Peach 2005 - Peach rescues Mario.

Not that this matters. The universe was created in the late 80s. If you created an IP like that, would you just up and shuffle everything around because a few values changed? I certainly wouldn't. You can always invent new IP to satisfy a new set of values.

 

[vlam]

thegrommit[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

vlam[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

Coriolanus[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

vlam[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

DrPizza[/url]":3vxzuqoh]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

Super Mario 3D Land from 2011 - Mario goes and rescues Princess Peach, who was kidnapped by Bowser.

And? Super Princess Peach 2005 - Peach rescues Mario.

Not that this matters. The universe was created in the late 80s. If you created an IP like that, would you just up and shuffle everything around because a few values changed? I certainly wouldn't. You can always invent new IP to satisfy a new set of values.

Missing the point. Sarkeesian is illustrating how prevalent certain tropes are throughout gaming's history - and prompting people to rethink their use of those tropes in future. She's not (to my knowledge) said that existing IP's should be modified.

Eh, fair point. It was prevalent in the past.