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

 

[adrianovaroli]

Joao Sousa[/url]":3p4ozpf1]

An important quote from the article that you claim is somehow reasonable to misinterpret:

Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

It was abundantly clear that it wasn't everyone who was at fault. Just the kind of people who attacked Zoe Quinn and pretended that this was a crusade for ethics in games journalism.

"Don't give press to the harassers" by itself would be perfectly clear, but then why is the title of the article "Gamers are dead"? If it is all about the harassers and nothing else why would the title of the article be about gamers, instead of harassers and trolls? Why does she make such a point about the death of the traditional gamer, if it is all about the harassers?

A reasonable interpretation is that for Leigh Alexander the traditional gamer stereotype is linked with harassment.

Or... You could read the damn article. We're not telling you people your interpretation is unreasonable just because we like to be contrarian.

To expand: Your mind isn't actually blown when you read http://mentalfloss.com/article/52275/65 ... -your-mind . You aren't driven insane if you peruse http://pulptastic.com/45-photos-will-drive-insane/ . Authors didn't die after Barthes wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author . It's rhetoric. Basic rhetoric. Get. Over. It.

 

[Thordane]

The Crash Override site,[...], offers free services from "experts in information security, white hat hacking, PR, law enforcement, legal, threat monitoring, and counseling"

All they need is a blackhat hacker named Hathaway.

 

[adrianovaroli]

Joao Sousa[/url]":34r5j0fk]

Or... You could read the damn article. We're not telling you people your interpretation is unreasonable just because we like to be contrarian.

Instead of telling me to read the article, why don't you elaborate on why my reasoning in ilogical? Why would an article that has as it's sole target the harassers and trolls, have "Gamers are dead" in the title?

Just did. Refresh.

 

[adrianovaroli]

Joao Sousa[/url]":1x5xloqd]

adrianovaroli[/url]":1x5xloqd]

Joao Sousa[/url]":1x5xloqd]

Or... You could read the damn article. We're not telling you people your interpretation is unreasonable just because we like to be contrarian.

Instead of telling me to read the article, why don't you elaborate on why my reasoning in ilogical? Why would an article that has as it's sole target the harassers and trolls, have "Gamers are dead" in the title?

Just did. Refresh.

You didn't, I'm not saying that gamers are really dead, and it makes no sense to remove the title from the interpretation of the article. But forget the title

You asked specifically about the title. Don't try to spin this as if it's my fault. It makes you look disingenuous.

please explain why an article focused on harassers and not on traditional gamers in general has this gem:

"‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works"

You expect to me accept that it is unreasonable to interpret that the article targeted more then just harassers and trolls, but rather gamers in general?

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

 

[Zastava]

Joao Sousa[/url]":24op61ge]

adrianovaroli[/url]":24op61ge]

Joao Sousa[/url]":24op61ge]

Or... You could read the damn article. We're not telling you people your interpretation is unreasonable just because we like to be contrarian.

Instead of telling me to read the article, why don't you elaborate on why my reasoning in ilogical? Why would an article that has as it's sole target the harassers and trolls, have "Gamers are dead" in the title?

Just did. Refresh.

You didn't, I'm not saying that gamers are really dead, and it makes no sense to remove the title from the interpretation of the article. But forget the title, please explain why an article focused on harassers and not on traditional gamers in general has this gem:

"‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works"

You expect to me accept that it is unreasonable to interpret that the article targeted more then just harassers and trolls, but rather gamers in general?

Yes, because it's incredibly obvious when reading the article that it is specifically talking about a toxic subset of stereotypical gamers, and not gamers as a whole. Either you didn't read the fucking thing or your reading comprehension is willfully lacking. I say willfully, because it's been pointed out on every comment thread that's touched upon the article, but it's continually ignored because you guys are too embarrassed and too locked into the outrage to admit you done fucked up and got upset over nothing.

Edit: I find this comment from Kasoroth over in the Education plus ideology exaggerates rejection of reality article relevant.

Kasoroth[/url]":24op61ge]
There are some people who seem to view any criticism of our (collective) way of life as an attack on themselves (personally), rather than a suggestion for collective improvement, and then decide that whatever group made the criticism is "the enemy". Once they've decided who "the enemy" is, they feel the need to oppose anything "the enemy" supports, regardless of whether it makes any sense to do so.

I'm not really sure whether it's an honest inability to distinguish criticism from attack, or simply a predisposition toward an "us vs. them" mentality which needs to seek out and define a "them" to support a conflict-driven view of life even when cooperation would be better for all involved.

 

[Zastava]

Joao Sousa[/url]":1g4nfol8]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

That was the entire point of the Gamers are Dead article, dog.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

epobirs[/url]":18z51yx7]A bit disingenuous, Peter. Who claimed that Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, or Anita Sarkeesian were journalists? The complaint was regarding how journalists interacted with them.

So why aren't you attacking the journalists? Strange how it seems like gamergaters are just attacking a bunch of women, and men who support women. But then again, as the "movement" was started as a tool to attack a women, that's hardly surprising.

No, GamerGate was not created for the purpose of harassing women.

Yes it was. It was kickstarted by jilted ex-bf for the explicit purpose to harass his ex-gf. It's the manifestation of the exact same bullshit that drove Kathy Sierra away from internet back in 2007. It's a desperate reaction by bunch of guys to the perceived change in demographics of "gamers", from bunch of dudes, to just about everyone.

Also, Leigh Alexander's 'gamers are dead' idea was just desperate and stupid.

So why not just leave it at that? Why go whine to the advertisers? Opinions that gamergaters disagree with must be silenced. With cutting off funding and threats of violence if needed?

Are there some awful people drawn to GamersGate for reason entirely driven by their personal animosities? Sure.

It just happens that most of the people who identify with gamergate are fucktards. The few reasonable people involved in that "movement" should do well to distance themselves from that crowd.

But it must be remembered that the same can be said for the other side.

Except that when it comes to asshattery, the gamergaters are leading the "SJW"s by about 120-1.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

I need to find a way to stop reading these stories and the comments. Yet here I am, reading and commenting. I lack the will to stop. Worse: I'm feeding this hideous, months-old, troll-in-story-skin.





I'm going to try to stop. Help me Sam. Stop writing about it. <whimper> please?

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

Joao Sousa[/url]":maeffu12]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

" Aris Bakhtanians, a prominent Street Fighter x Tekken player, declared that "sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community.""

"the first woman to join a professional StarCraft 2 team, Kim "Eve" Shee-Yoon, was chosen "for her skills and looks," according to the team's manager"

http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2014/02/w ... -e-sports/

 

[Nulls]

I think this site is a good thing as long as they don't discriminate on who they offer their services too.

I don't think Zoe Quinn should have promoted her personal patreon, if this is a non profit or a service about helping people then if she shouldn't get it mixed up with her personal stuff and potentially mislead people who want to support the site and not her personal work.

The problem with this whole thing from the start has been online harassment, which has gone on pretty much entirely on social media with the majority IMO being on twitter.

It doesn't happen for just this topic, trolling and harassment on social media has been happening to every type of person for a very long time.

I think if it was about this and social media enabling and even supporting this kind of behavior because they need the ad views it brings. Instead of being turned into an attack on gamers and lumping them in with social media trolls or some kind of political discussion with a ton of stupid terms and acronyms.

 

[Joao Sousa]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":1316w2r9]

Joao Sousa[/url]":1316w2r9]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

" Aris Bakhtanians, a prominent Street Fighter x Tekken player, declared that "sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community.""

"the first woman to join a professional StarCraft 2 team, Kim "Eve" Shee-Yoon, was chosen "for her skills and looks," according to the team's manager"

http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2014/02/w ... -e-sports/

What is your point? That there are douches in "games culture" just like in any other sub-culture?

 

[Peevester]

Marcos2247[/url]":22ld44or]

Peevester[/url]":22ld44or]In terms of gender issues? Frankly, not a hell of a lot. I certainly have absolutely no desire for the MRA to speak in my name.

And there are a lot of women who don't like feminists to speak in their name. What now?

The only significant men's issue I can think of is child custody.

The other guy who said men don't have issues mentioned a disproportionate suicide rate. So that's already two issues. Who knows, let's give it some times and maybe someone else comes up with a third.
How many do we need before you drop your smug m'kay?
Just because you don't have issues doesn't mean nobody else is allowed one. And no, not all issues must apply to all men. Because...

Gay and Trans men have almost all of the same issues that women do

Elton John is living the life, what are you talking about?! Issues my ass.
See...

Fish. Barrel. *BLAM*

I brought up a perfectly valid and laudable men's rights issue, and you immediately dismissed it AND took a crack at a gay man (not that Sir Elton can't take it). Do you enjoy undermining your own arguments, or do you just have an unconscious knack for it?

 

[adrianovaroli]

Nulls[/url]":1lzvyd7t]I think this site is a good thing as long as they don't discriminate on who they offer their services too.

I don't think Zoe Quinn should have promoted her personal patreon, if this is a non profit or a service about helping people then if she shouldn't get it mixed up with her personal stuff and potentially mislead people who want to support the site and not her personal work.

Her Patreon page does say what you'll be paying for. I don't see that as misleading.

 

[Nulls]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":3njik0rz]

Joao Sousa[/url]":3njik0rz]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

" Aris Bakhtanians, a prominent Street Fighter x Tekken player, declared that "sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community.""

"the first woman to join a professional StarCraft 2 team, Kim "Eve" Shee-Yoon, was chosen "for her skills and looks," according to the team's manager"

http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2014/02/w ... -e-sports/

But look at the comments of that story, you don't really see other gamers supporting this asshole or the esports culture behind it.

Which goes against the whole generalization of gamers argument that has been going on since August, and it is especially disappointing for ars because the same writer who wrote the article you linked is the same person who wrote the awful gamers are dead article on this site.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

Joao Sousa[/url]":30uoyzmk]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":30uoyzmk]

Joao Sousa[/url]":30uoyzmk]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

" Aris Bakhtanians, a prominent Street Fighter x Tekken player, declared that "sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community.""

"the first woman to join a professional StarCraft 2 team, Kim "Eve" Shee-Yoon, was chosen "for her skills and looks," according to the team's manager"

http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2014/02/w ... -e-sports/

What is your point? That there are douches in "games culture" just like in any other sub-culture?

It sure seems like some cultures have overrepresentation of sexist assholes than others. And this isn't just about gaming, this is about every area that has traditionally been dominated by men. Like technology and IT in general.

 

[Peevester]

Yep, totally called it on the upvote/downvote counts. The sad and pathetic GG invasion squad managed to upvote their crap for about 2 hours, then it all came crashing down. Miserable failure.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

Nulls[/url]":2ewmyidj]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":2ewmyidj]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2ewmyidj]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

" Aris Bakhtanians, a prominent Street Fighter x Tekken player, declared that "sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community.""

"the first woman to join a professional StarCraft 2 team, Kim "Eve" Shee-Yoon, was chosen "for her skills and looks," according to the team's manager"

http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2014/02/w ... -e-sports/

But look at the comments of that story, you don't really see other gamers supporting this asshole or the esports culture behind it.

Which goes against the whole generalization of gamers argument that has been going on since August, and it is especially disappointing for ars because the same writer who wrote the article you linked is the same person who wrote the awful gamers are dead article on this site.

Hey, I'm a gamer as well. I have been gaming longer than many of the people here have been born. Does that mean that I should pretend that gaming does not have a problem with sexism and asshattery, just because I don't recognize myself to be a sexist asshat? No.

And are you saying that eSports has a problem with sexism? eSports is part of gaming-culture. It's like the hardcore competetive branch of gaming. So are you saying that "gaming doesn't have problem with sexism, only this tip of the spear, eSports, has that problem"? If that is the case, then it looks like more hardcore gaming becomes, sexism becomes bigger problem.

Asshattery in gaming so widespread that it's not even funny. Common advice is that "when you play multiplayer games on the Xbox, mute the other players", why? Is it because they are assholes? Surely that is not the case?!

 

[BasP]

It's totally about ethics in games journalism though.

 

[Zastava]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2mfxi5c1]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":2mfxi5c1]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2mfxi5c1]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":2mfxi5c1]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2mfxi5c1]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

" Aris Bakhtanians, a prominent Street Fighter x Tekken player, declared that "sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community.""

"the first woman to join a professional StarCraft 2 team, Kim "Eve" Shee-Yoon, was chosen "for her skills and looks," according to the team's manager"

http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2014/02/w ... -e-sports/

What is your point? That there are douches in "games culture" just like in any other sub-culture?

It sure seems like some cultures have overrepresentation of sexist assholes than others.

Because of your "gut feeling" right?

But go ahead and insult gamers all you want. The point I was trying to make was that this wasn't an attack on harassers/trolls being misinterpreted, rather that this whole thing is an attack on gaming culture which includes many people besides harassers and trolls.

Leigh Alexander attacked gaming culture when she described it as a petri dish of social inadequate people, she didn't attack just harassers. Saying she did, is denying what is written in the article.

Kasoroth[/url]":2mfxi5c1]
There are some people who seem to view any criticism of our (collective) way of life as an attack on themselves (personally), rather than a suggestion for collective improvement, and then decide that whatever group made the criticism is "the enemy". Once they've decided who "the enemy" is, they feel the need to oppose anything "the enemy" supports, regardless of whether it makes any sense to do so.

I'm not really sure whether it's an honest inability to distinguish criticism from attack, or simply a predisposition toward an "us vs. them" mentality which needs to seek out and define a "them" to support a conflict-driven view of life even when cooperation would be better for all involved.

It's been pointed out to you a bunch of times that your reading of those articles is in error, and that you're seeing insult when there is none. You've ignored it every time, because it doesn't suit your persecution complex and that would require admitting you made a mistake. Instead you seem to want to keep saying the same disingenuous bullshit over and over again so you can keep pretending you're the victim here. It's pathetic.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Joao Sousa[/url]":26b2m88b]
Instead of telling me to read the article, why don't you elaborate on why my reasoning in ilogical? Why would an article that has as it's sole target the harassers and trolls, have "Gamers" in the title?

Yeah, I absolutely agree-- it's absolutely true that every word in the title must be taken absolutely literally. Furthermore, why would it have the word "dead" in the title if it didn't mean to imply that they were actually deceased? Clearly, this is an article all about how every person who plays games suddenly died one day. We're all dead, apparently and this article is just telling us all about it.

Game over, man. Game over.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

Joao Sousa[/url]":25w5hr78]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":25w5hr78]

Joao Sousa[/url]":25w5hr78]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":25w5hr78]

Joao Sousa[/url]":25w5hr78]

The point of typing 'games culture' is precisely to not say "gamers in general". It describes a specific subset of it.

"Games culture" includes much more then just harassers and trolls. Much, much more.

" Aris Bakhtanians, a prominent Street Fighter x Tekken player, declared that "sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community.""

"the first woman to join a professional StarCraft 2 team, Kim "Eve" Shee-Yoon, was chosen "for her skills and looks," according to the team's manager"

http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2014/02/w ... -e-sports/

What is your point? That there are douches in "games culture" just like in any other sub-culture?

It sure seems like some cultures have overrepresentation of sexist assholes than others.

Because of your "gut feeling" right?

Because that behavior is reported over and over again.

But go ahead and insult gamers all you want.

I'm a gamer as well, and I will sure as hell insult asshole gamers. Don't want to be insulted? Don't be an asshole. And if you are a gamer, it does not mean that you should turn a blind eye to the issues your hobby has. It just happens that how the hell are men supposed to know how women are being treated? To men it might seem that there is no sexism. Well no shit Sherlock, as men are not the victims of sexism!

The point I was trying to make was that this wasn't an attack on harassers/trolls being misinterpreted, rather that this whole thing is an attack on gaming culture which includes many people besides harassers and trolls.

Sure it does. But gaming has it's dark side that should be exposed to light.

Leigh Alexander attacked gaming culture when she described it as a petri dish of social inadequate people, she didn't attack just harassers.

That is the stereotype. And while it's exaggerated, it has it's roots in reality. I have been involved with gaming for long enough to have seen it with my own eyes. And that's even with me being a white heterosexual male. I can only imagine what it's like for women.

And let's make it clear: Sexism is not a problem that is only apparent in gaming. It's everywhere. What infuriates me is that men seem to be totally blind to it. Like goddamn car-reviews on Youtube. When a man does a review, the discussion that follows is about the car and the review. When a woman does the review, the discussion that follows is basically "show ur boobs!". What's that? "It's Youtube, what do you expect". Like it or not, that is a good indicator on how women are treated. But I guess we should just ignore that, and other cases like that? There is no sexism, and all instances of sexism should be disregarded, and that means that there is no sexism. "If we disregard the asshole-gamers, everyone on Youtube, booth-babes, 4chan/8chan/gamergate, MRAs, pickup-artists, favouritism towards men in workplaces, blaming the victims of rapes, street-harassers etc. etc. etc, there is no sexism!".

And what have the Romans ever done for us!?

 

[adrianovaroli]

Joao Sousa[/url]":18brycdp]

There are some people who seem to view any criticism of our (collective) way of life as an attack on themselves (personally), rather than a suggestion for collective improvement, and then decide that whatever group made the criticism is "the enemy". Once they've decided who "the enemy" is, they feel the need to oppose anything "the enemy" supports, regardless of whether it makes any sense to do so.

I'm not really sure whether it's an honest inability to distinguish criticism from attack, or simply a predisposition toward an "us vs. them" mentality which needs to seek out and define a "them" to support a conflict-driven view of life even when cooperation would be better for all involved..

I just love how what is expressed in this quote disregards all possibility that the criticism may actually be unfair. It basically states that's impossible and whoever says the criticism is not entirely valid must be in denial. And people actually use this, as some sort of "higher thought".

And the "us vs them" mentality is active on both sides of the argument. I've already been called "you guys". Just because I said something, I'm already in the "them" group for someone. I've basically been pushed into one camp by the advocates of the other one. Great stuff.

Yes. I'm lumping you with user Oblivion in the camp of "can't read basic English, but can't admit it."

 

[mmiller7]

0bliv!on[/url]":2kmhffxa]

evan_s[/url]":2kmhffxa]

marsilies[/url]":2kmhffxa]

exploder[/url]":2kmhffxa]I find it sad that a police department can be warned a week in advance that a bogus complaint will be made, and yet they still feel they need to execute a search of the premises.

They probably need to investigate every claim. Otherwise, terrorists or someone would call the police and say, "I'm being harassed online, and I may become the target of false tips," and then proceed along with their criminal/terrorist activities safe in the knowledge that the police will not investigate any tips they receive.

Exactly. A criminal can use your process against you. Fake up some online stuff saying that someone was going to call in a fake tip to cover real criminal activity.

Don't worry if my neighbors call in complaining I'm running a meth lab because I'm going to tell you ahead of time that someone is going to falsely claim I'm running a meth lab.

Now obviously you can say there is a difference between an anonymous online tip and a neighbor calling in a tip but it illustrates the point. There are certain things you just have to treat as being a real threat even when you are 99% sure they aren't because of the consequences if you are wrong about it. It's the same reason they'll evacuate a building for a bomb threat even if there have been several fake bomb threats recently and they are pretty sure it's another fake.

I think a lot of neighbors would prefer to call in anonymously, and I doubt there's a good way of checking if a call to a non-911 line really did come from a neighbor as opposed to someone claiming to be one.

You don't think that calls to the dispatcher are recorded or caller ID logged? Whenever I've had to call in non-emergency things (road debris/flooding, door to door people as directed by our apartment management, etc) they ask my name and then seem to have my contact info and just read back "is xxx-xxx-xxxx the phone number we can reach you at with other questions" I'm assuming that they got that from the fact my caller ID should be matching my name...and I also assume they probably record/trace calls so they could refer to them if necessary (e.g. respond to prank calls).

I always figured the main difference from the longer non-emergency number was it went into a lower-priority queue or was flagged differently on the operator's terminal than 911 calls. The only difference from that and when I've had to call 911 (such as reporting an accident) is the initial operator answers saying it's "xyz-area police dispatch, do you have an emergency" instead of "911 what's your emergency".

edit: spelling

 

[Zastava]

Joao Sousa[/url]":1qi4j2o7]

There are some people who seem to view any criticism of our (collective) way of life as an attack on themselves (personally), rather than a suggestion for collective improvement, and then decide that whatever group made the criticism is "the enemy". Once they've decided who "the enemy" is, they feel the need to oppose anything "the enemy" supports, regardless of whether it makes any sense to do so.

I'm not really sure whether it's an honest inability to distinguish criticism from attack, or simply a predisposition toward an "us vs. them" mentality which needs to seek out and define a "them" to support a conflict-driven view of life even when cooperation would be better for all involved..

I just love how what is expressed in this quote disregards all possibility that the criticism may actually be unfair. It basically states that's impossible and whoever says the criticism is not entirely valid must be in denial. And people actually use this, as some sort of "higher thought".

And the "us vs them" mentality is active on both sides of the argument. I've already been called "you guys". Just because I said something, I'm already in the "them" group for someone. I've basically been pushed into one camp by the advocates of the other one. Great stuff.

The entire objection about the Gamers are Dead articles is based off misunderstanding the criticism. Not that it's unfair, but that it means something else from what was intended and the vast majority of people have read it as, with this misunderstanding seemingly based entirely out of identity politics. This is stupid.

On another note, your pearl clutching about the term "you guys", as if that was an insult, is hilarious. Such a victim complex.

 

[jawlz]

Peevester[/url]":3fefw8wr]

Marcos2247[/url]":3fefw8wr]

Peevester[/url]":3fefw8wr]In terms of gender issues? Frankly, not a hell of a lot. I certainly have absolutely no desire for the MRA to speak in my name.

And there are a lot of women who don't like feminists to speak in their name. What now?

The only significant men's issue I can think of is child custody.

The other guy who said men don't have issues mentioned a disproportionate suicide rate. So that's already two issues. Who knows, let's give it some times and maybe someone else comes up with a third.
How many do we need before you drop your smug m'kay?
Just because you don't have issues doesn't mean nobody else is allowed one. And no, not all issues must apply to all men. Because...

Gay and Trans men have almost all of the same issues that women do

Elton John is living the life, what are you talking about?! Issues my ass.
See...

Fish. Barrel. *BLAM*

I brought up a perfectly valid and laudable men's rights issue, and you immediately dismissed it AND took a crack at a gay man (not that Sir Elton can't take it). Do you enjoy undermining your own arguments, or do you just have an unconscious knack for it?

Are you deliberately misreading his comment? Or quoting the wrong post? The poster you quoted didn't say anything about men not having issues, and brought up Elton John and the gay community as an analogy to white men and male issues, to make the point that just because one subset of a group doesn't have issues doesn't mean that the group it self has no issues.

 

[passivesmoking]

But it's all about integrity in gaming journalism! </sarcasm>