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

 

[Coriolanus]

Batmanuel[/url]":6kqavhqo]

vlam[/url]":6kqavhqo]

adrianovaroli[/url]":6kqavhqo]Ah, right. But I see no obvious ways to support CO directly. And she does makes games. Maybe you think she shouldn't?

If depression quest is what she's making, no. She shouldn't. She should stick with her campaigning. She is, very clearly, much better at it than at making a video game.



And to all you silly peoples complaining about mens rights, feminists, lgbt issues. Fucking cake walk. Try being a sociopath. At least half of society will jump down your throat if you're an asshole to women or gender-fluid people. Ever see people defend sociopaths?

You people and your privilege. You get to be who you are. If I told people I wouldn't bat an eye at their misery because I'm just incapable of caring, I'd have the whole of society at my throat. Simply for being who I am. Must be great to have all that privilege, or at least champions for your cause.

You could just be an asshole, you know.

10-15 years ago, it was all about self-diagnosed ADD, a few years ago, it was all about self-diagnosed Asperger's. Nowadays, it's all about self-diagnosed sociopaths or psychopaths.

 

[Coriolanus]

vlam[/url]":2528yck4]

Batmanuel[/url]":2528yck4]

vlam[/url]":2528yck4]

adrianovaroli[/url]":2528yck4]Ah, right. But I see no obvious ways to support CO directly. And she does makes games. Maybe you think she shouldn't?

If depression quest is what she's making, no. She shouldn't. She should stick with her campaigning. She is, very clearly, much better at it than at making a video game.



And to all you silly peoples complaining about mens rights, feminists, lgbt issues. Fucking cake walk. Try being a sociopath. At least half of society will jump down your throat if you're an asshole to women or gender-fluid people. Ever see people defend sociopaths?

You people and your privilege. You get to be who you are. If I told people I wouldn't bat an eye at their misery because I'm just incapable of caring, I'd have the whole of society at my throat. Simply for being who I am. Must be great to have all that privilege, or at least champions for your cause.

You could just be an asshole, you know.

This is true. I could be an asshole. I could also simply have a mental abnormality (what some would call mental illness; personally I see nothing ill about it). The simple fact that you brush it off so casually, however, demonstrates my point.

Ever try to convince people that gays are just confused? They're really straight on the inside? No, seriously. Have you? I know it sounds ridiculous, because it should sound ridiculous. Yet this is exactly what you just told me. "I'm not gay, I'm just confused."

Unless you have a diagnosis from a psychiatrist, you're just a confused kid who thinks being a self-diagnosed "sociopath" is a license for him to be a dick.

 

[sonolumi]

vlam[/url]":3nm41fjr]And to all you silly peoples complaining about mens rights, feminists, lgbt issues. Fucking cake walk. Try being a sociopath. At least half of society will jump down your throat if you're an asshole to women or gender-fluid people. Ever see people defend sociopaths?

You people and your privilege. You get to be who you are. If I told people I wouldn't bat an eye at their misery because I'm just incapable of caring, I'd have the whole of society at my throat. Simply for being who I am. Must be great to have all that privilege, or at least champions for your cause.

I initially misread your post as satire.

Surely if you are a sociopath you don't give two fucks for sympathy? Or am I getting that wrong too? You'll have to excuse my misunderstanding, I only ever get to talk to sociopaths in most online games and almost any forum I've ever read.

 

[Coriolanus]

vlam[/url]":a1vind70]

Coriolanus[/url]":a1vind70]Unless you have a diagnosis from a psychiatrist, you're just a confused kid who thinks being a self-diagnosed "sociopath" is a license for him to be a dick.

I'm actually quite pleasant to people I meet. It makes life much less of a hassle. It also affords me leeway on the rare occasion I slip. Point of curiosity, why is someone claiming to be a sociopath "just a kid [looking for] a license to be a dick"?

Because sociopathy is a medical diagnosis and without a professional diagnosis, you're just somebody looking for attention and an excuse to act badly.

After all, if a guy wakes up one day decides that he has, say, cancer or lupus or some other disease without any evidence of it or any diagnosis by a medical professional, nobody would take him seriously, either.

vlam[/url]":a1vind70]

Oh, I'll freely admit that this is more for amusement than me wanting some mental illness revolution. Genuine sympathy is actually pretty annoying and pointless. You feeling like shit over whatever bad incident that happened to me isn't constructive nor does it solve anything.

You know what real sociopaths don't do?

They don't talk about how they're sociopaths, and certainly they don't try to tell everybody on the internet how they are a sociopath, either. They wouldn't give two shits about it.

 

[Coriolanus]

vlam[/url]":3fhy1fb4]

I'm actually quite pleasant to people I meet. It makes life much less of a hassle. It also affords me leeway on the rare occasion I slip. Point of curiosity, why is someone claiming to be a sociopath "just a kid [looking for] a license to be a dick"?

edit: I have actually had people tell me that they think I have a mild case of asperger's. This, of course, has been via online interaction where it's a little safer to be completely uncaring (and have it be interpreted as purposely being an asshole).

If you act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier, then you don't have asperger's, either.

 

[noops]

0bliv!on[/url]":2xl2vfep]
To address your specific point - I'm not a writer or a journalist so obviously I can't give a detailed answer. But any coverage of different publications, like Gawker, PC Gamer, Boingboing.net, etc updating their disclosure requirements of both their writer's relationship to their subjects, or of affiliate links next to articles, would be a good start.

This was not my specific point which was: you felt the media didn't cover the similar anti-harassment efforts put forth by the likes of KotakuInAction, so what are these efforts?

 

[4KrkF]

vlam[/url]":2x7q1qkj]

Batmanuel[/url]":2x7q1qkj]

vlam[/url]":2x7q1qkj]

adrianovaroli[/url]":2x7q1qkj]Ah, right. But I see no obvious ways to support CO directly. And she does makes games. Maybe you think she shouldn't?

If depression quest is what she's making, no. She shouldn't. She should stick with her campaigning. She is, very clearly, much better at it than at making a video game.



And to all you silly peoples complaining about mens rights, feminists, lgbt issues. Fucking cake walk. Try being a sociopath. At least half of society will jump down your throat if you're an asshole to women or gender-fluid people. Ever see people defend sociopaths?

You people and your privilege. You get to be who you are. If I told people I wouldn't bat an eye at their misery because I'm just incapable of caring, I'd have the whole of society at my throat. Simply for being who I am. Must be great to have all that privilege, or at least champions for your cause.

You could just be an asshole, you know.

This is true. I could be an asshole. I could also simply have a mental abnormality (what some would call mental illness; personally I see nothing ill about it). The simple fact that you brush it off so casually, however, demonstrates my point.

Ever try to convince people that gays are just confused? They're really straight on the inside? No, seriously. Have you? I know it sounds ridiculous, because it should sound ridiculous. Yet this is exactly what you just told me. "I'm not gay, I'm just confused."

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.

Back in the day, a guest speaker I saw (a neuropsychologist) told the audience that sociopaths of low intelligence wind up in jail, and sociopaths of high intelligence wind up in management. Maybe now we know what happens to sociopaths of ordinary intelligence: they become internet trolls. (I jest: most internet trolls are actually just assholes)

 

[4KrkF]

0bliv!on[/url]":3o08epst]
Yes, yes I am. Despite the deluge of down votes. An old dog with a bone I guess. I really don't like this general idea of "Yes some, or a lot, of people on the Gamergate side of things are assholes so their points are invalid." That's not how this works. They can all be assholes, AND their points may also be valid. One doesn't preclude the other.

This is very true. Just because someone is an asshole doesn't automatically make their point invalid.
However, in the case of GamersGate I think that there are a lot of people who are both assholes and who have invalid points. It's just that the points are not invalid simply because the person is an asshole.

 

[Static and Noise]

0bliv!on[/url]":1gn7jiy4]

noops[/url]":1gn7jiy4]

0bliv!on[/url]":1gn7jiy4]
Considering how much revenue gaming sites make, yes, yes it is.

Oh hey you are still here. So what would an 'equal coverage' article look like for the gamergate side? This is in regards to fighting harassment.

Yes, yes I am. Despite the deluge of down votes. An old dog with a bone I guess. I really don't like this general idea of "Yes some, or a lot, of people on the Gamergate side of things are assholes so their points are invalid." That's not how this works. They can all be assholes, AND their points may also be valid. One doesn't preclude the other.

Lots of people are saying, don't talk about ethics because Gamergate is going on. But the fact is, ethics *is* an issue now, irrespective of whether or not Gamergate exists or not. That it is, is just garnering more attention, positive or negative, for the issue and like it or not they have gotten publications to change or improve their disclosure guidelines. However you may feel about Gamergate, that's a good thing - and I don't like seeing the Ars readership, which is otherwise pretty level headed about removing emotion from issues, getting caught up in the ideological war that Gamergate people are assholes so their points are all invalid and absolutely nothing they do is positive. Judge actions and results by their own merits, not the people behind them.

The problem is, GamerGate started from a completely unethical and obviously sexist incident (man writes unhinged rant about his ex, people start harassing her). GamerGate started off completely wrong, and the term should've been abandoned within days. From day one, it was obvious that "ethics in game journalism" was just an excuse for harassment, and that's how it's remained.

Hence why it isn't taken seriously. Stop tryng to reclaim the GamerGate tag. It was vile from the beginning, and certainly hasn't gotten less so over time.

 

[DrPizza]

noops[/url]":5t5rhx4k]

0bliv!on[/url]":5t5rhx4k]
To address your specific point - I'm not a writer or a journalist so obviously I can't give a detailed answer. But any coverage of different publications, like Gawker, PC Gamer, Boingboing.net, etc updating their disclosure requirements of both their writer's relationship to their subjects, or of affiliate links next to articles, would be a good start.

This was not my specific point which was: you felt the media didn't cover the similar anti-harassment efforts put forth by the likes of KotakuInAction, so what are these efforts?

Those efforts were abandoned, after the harassment patrol decided that anything that wasn't outright illegal didn't count as real harassment.

 

[0bliv!on]

noops[/url]":wtnhz1th]

0bliv!on[/url]":wtnhz1th]
To address your specific point - I'm not a writer or a journalist so obviously I can't give a detailed answer. But any coverage of different publications, like Gawker, PC Gamer, Boingboing.net, etc updating their disclosure requirements of both their writer's relationship to their subjects, or of affiliate links next to articles, would be a good start.

This was not my specific point which was: you felt the media didn't cover the similar anti-harassment efforts put forth by the likes of KotakuInAction, so what are these efforts?

As far as I'm aware, they have some kind of semi-organised "Harrassment Patrol" which would trawl Twitter and see if anyone is being, well, harassed, and if so report them to Twitter. Apart from that, they also report various harassment and doxxing and false allegations to various publications and to the authorities where appropriate.

 

[0bliv!on]

DrPizza[/url]":a2jt2fpg]

noops[/url]":a2jt2fpg]

0bliv!on[/url]":a2jt2fpg]
To address your specific point - I'm not a writer or a journalist so obviously I can't give a detailed answer. But any coverage of different publications, like Gawker, PC Gamer, Boingboing.net, etc updating their disclosure requirements of both their writer's relationship to their subjects, or of affiliate links next to articles, would be a good start.

This was not my specific point which was: you felt the media didn't cover the similar anti-harassment efforts put forth by the likes of KotakuInAction, so what are these efforts?

Those efforts were abandoned, after the harassment patrol decided that anything that wasn't outright illegal didn't count as real harassment.

Oh, I wasn't aware of this. When did they stop the Harassment Patrol?

 

[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.

 

[noops]

0bliv!on[/url]":3eovaw75]
Oh, I wasn't aware of this. When did they stop the Harassment Patrol?

I only ever hear about the harassment patrol existing. I never hear about them actually doing stuff.

 

[Andara]

Coriolanus[/url]":w5lce670]If you act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier, then you don't have asperger's, either.

As with all autism, it's a spectrum. Some people on the functional end can understand how that works, though not always recognize when it's appropriate, while those on the non-functional end don't even understand that it's a thing, much less a thing they should do.

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":w5lce670]There is no pay gap...

Cute... You do know that areas of your own country say there is, right?

http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/about ... agegap.php

 

[Outrider/Ronin]

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":35xuwnvj]

Andara[/url]":35xuwnvj]

Coriolanus[/url]":35xuwnvj]If you act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier, then you don't have asperger's, either.

As with all autism, it's a spectrum. Some people on the functional end can understand how that works, though not always recognize when it's appropriate, while those on the non-functional end don't even understand that it's a thing, much less a thing they should do.

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":35xuwnvj]There is no pay gap...

Cute... You do know that areas of your own country say there is, right?

http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/about ... agegap.php

If they stay on the job and work as much as men, they earn as much as men. Taking time off, for whatever reason, will push back raises, promotions, etc. It only makes sense.

Any study worth its salt will control for this. The gap still exists.

 

[tesseractive]

Skipio_Afrikanus[/url]":39d09aam]Is it just me, or is anyone else sick and tired of this nonsensical shite sprouting up on the internet?

Simple solution to any problem:
DO NOT USE SOCIAL MEDIA, YOUR REAL NAME, ADDRESS, OR ANY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET.
If you are in the media, get over it. You put yourself in a position on a medium specifically designed to cater to any and all viewpoints, and now you cry about certain peoples actions. If its illegal, file a police report, if its someone calling you a wanker 1000 times in emails, you are in the wrong line of work, and definitely on the wrong medium to do it. Quit, become a mormon and go on a mission somewhere.

Case closed, now shut the fuck up already. Im tired of this crap in the news based on the stupid multitudes failure at personal privacy but who are living in the publics crosshairs.

That's some damn fine victim blaming going on there. From what I understand, Zoe Quinn is a pseudonym, and she sure as shit didn't post the other info either -- that doesn't fucking help if you get doxxed. And if you follow Ms. Quinn's online posts, she HAS filed police reports, as well as a restraining order -- all that happened was that her ex used the lawsuit as an opportunity to leak more information about her as one of the parties to the suit.

Also, people use Linked In accounts for jobs, buy things at Amazon, connect with family members over Facebook, use Internet banking -- it's a little impractical to suggest people never use their real name or info on the Internet. Suggesting people voluntarily travel back in time to 1985 if they don't want to be harassed is the worst kind of trolling non-solution.

 

[DrPizza]

0bliv!on[/url]":1zt4d8lf]

DrPizza[/url]":1zt4d8lf]

noops[/url]":1zt4d8lf]

0bliv!on[/url]":1zt4d8lf]
To address your specific point - I'm not a writer or a journalist so obviously I can't give a detailed answer. But any coverage of different publications, like Gawker, PC Gamer, Boingboing.net, etc updating their disclosure requirements of both their writer's relationship to their subjects, or of affiliate links next to articles, would be a good start.

This was not my specific point which was: you felt the media didn't cover the similar anti-harassment efforts put forth by the likes of KotakuInAction, so what are these efforts?

Those efforts were abandoned, after the harassment patrol decided that anything that wasn't outright illegal didn't count as real harassment.

Oh, I wasn't aware of this. When did they stop the Harassment Patrol?

AFAICT, weeks ago.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

MattEvansC3[/url]":1kh7rozb]

Alfonse[/url]":1kh7rozb]

Marcos2247[/url]":1kh7rozb]

mattand[/url]":1kh7rozb]

Marcos2247[/url]":1kh7rozb]

mattand[/url]":1kh7rozb]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

Off to where?

Are you saying (white) men don't have issues worth talking about?

I'm all for feminism (although I'd like find a word not ending in -ism for it), equal participation. I have nothing against Zoe Quinn, I find that anti-harassment task-force a nice idea, I don't use words like fag in online chat.

But you're saying Men's rights issues have nothing good associated with them. How about cirumcision? That's an MRI. Okay, maybe we can make it a minority issue by focussing on the jews first...

I'm sorry that I as a white man have issues too. And saying "Doesn't matter, women have it worse" is like countering a complaint about doxxing with #firstworldproblems.

You're right that mattand should not have equated MRIs with GamerGate, which is when the derailment happened.

That being said, men's rights activism has a similar stigma to it to GamerGate. Not nearly as bad, but there are people who support it for reasonable reasons, and quite a few people who are sexist twats. That's not your fault, but that association is real and it's something you have to deal with.

Men's Rights Activism is a weird one. Lets split general problems into three broad categories;

A) Problems that can only be resolved through action.
B) Problems that can be solved through education.
C) Problems that are really just annoyances.

Most Rights groups have a plethora of class A issues. An end to Apartheid or the LGBT right to marry are class A. What class A issues do us men, especially the white heterosexual men, have? What is denied to us?

We can't have babies? But, even though we can't have babies, as we don't have a womb, we could fight for our RIGHT to have babies!

Don't oppress me!

 

[MattEvansC3]

vlam[/url]":j4ipec7k]

Batmanuel[/url]":j4ipec7k]

vlam[/url]":j4ipec7k]

adrianovaroli[/url]":j4ipec7k]Ah, right. But I see no obvious ways to support CO directly. And she does makes games. Maybe you think she shouldn't?

If depression quest is what she's making, no. She shouldn't. She should stick with her campaigning. She is, very clearly, much better at it than at making a video game.



And to all you silly peoples complaining about mens rights, feminists, lgbt issues. Fucking cake walk. Try being a sociopath. At least half of society will jump down your throat if you're an asshole to women or gender-fluid people. Ever see people defend sociopaths?

You people and your privilege. You get to be who you are. If I told people I wouldn't bat an eye at their misery because I'm just incapable of caring, I'd have the whole of society at my throat. Simply for being who I am. Must be great to have all that privilege, or at least champions for your cause.

You could just be an asshole, you know.

This is true. I could be an asshole. I could also simply have a mental abnormality (what some would call mental illness; personally I see nothing ill about it). The simple fact that you brush it off so casually, however, demonstrates my point.

Ever try to convince people that gays are just confused? They're really straight on the inside? No, seriously. Have you? I know it sounds ridiculous, because it should sound ridiculous. Yet this is exactly what you just told me. "I'm not gay, I'm just confused."

As someone who is the process of being diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, no, you are just an arsehole.

Having a mental health issue does not make you an arsehole and being an arsehole is not a mental health condition.

I display traits that make me come across as an arsehole at times, those traits are why I'm going through the diagnosis process. Guess what? I take steps to recognise when I might be perceived as an arsehole and then take further steps to STOP ME BEING AN ARSEHOLE!

If you did seriously have a mental health condition you would be taking responsibility for it and trying to stop acting the way you act.

 

[4KrkF]

vlam[/url]":2y60tn2e]

4KrkF[/url]":2y60tn2e]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.

I understand the point you are making (I think), and the internal struggles someone has are indeed important. However, there are reasons to think of them as being a different kind than sex or race issues. First, sex and race and inherently visible (as you've somewhat acknowledged), so the individual has no real control over their visibility. That makes it much easier for them to be the target of other-information-free biases. They are also virtually unchangeable. There are other things that this applies to, but the permanence of sex and race, combined with their visibility, does make them much more amenable to victimisation.
There is some validity to the comment you make about division by personality, specifically because there are biases around personality. Some personalities are more likeable more quickly, and people may receive favourable treatment in the context of employment (among others) because of that. However, it may also be that the more likeable person is actually less competent, but gets hired because of their likeability.
(Note: I'm using the term likeability, but I don't mean that they are actually more likeable so much as they are more likeable initially; they give a better first impression).

A bit disconnected, but there also is no reason that I should not feel sympathy for a sociopath insofar as their sociopathy is outside their control; much like feeling sympathy for someone who was raised in a highly criminalised environment and so didn't learn relatively basic life skills for living without engaging in crime. That doesn't mitigate the extent to which actions should be addressed - with punishment if necessary.

 

[4KrkF]

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":26mz14re]

Andara[/url]":26mz14re]

Coriolanus[/url]":26mz14re]If you act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier, then you don't have asperger's, either.

As with all autism, it's a spectrum. Some people on the functional end can understand how that works, though not always recognize when it's appropriate, while those on the non-functional end don't even understand that it's a thing, much less a thing they should do.

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":26mz14re]There is no pay gap...

Cute... You do know that areas of your own country say there is, right?

http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/about ... agegap.php

If they stay on the job and work as much as men, they earn as much as men. Taking time off, for whatever reason, will push back raises, promotions, etc. It only makes sense.

That would be fine, if that were the only cause.
Actually, it still wouldn't be fine. The fact is that women are the only ones that can have children, and are typically the ones to take time off as a result of that. Unless someone wants to say that if women want to stop having lower incomes, they should stop having children, then education and employment structures need to be designed to provide equalisation opportunities for that.
There have been some inroads: for example, role sharing of management roles where two people can work part time sharing a full time senior role. The two people need to be good at information sharing, but it can work well. (Particularly because of the diminishing returns of additional days/hours spent working as the number of days increases).

There is the other question of why jobs traditionally held by women (using the term a bit loosely) are more poorly paid. One argument is that it is because as women moved from no work to filling these roles, they could be paid less. They simply didn't have the alternative job options available to them. Simply through continuation of the tendency for women to work in these roles, and the originally low starting wage, these roles (teaching, childcare, etc) drag down the average incomes for women. This isn't universal - some countries actually pay childcare workers and teachers very well.

Anyway, it's complicated and simple views of why women earn less ignore the nuance of the problem. Simple views on all sides when they occur.

 

[4KrkF]

Skipio_Afrikanus[/url]":2knudeba]Is it just me, or is anyone else sick and tired of this nonsensical shite sprouting up on the internet?

Simple solution to any problem:
DO NOT USE SOCIAL MEDIA, YOUR REAL NAME, ADDRESS, OR ANY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET.
If you are in the media, get over it. You put yourself in a position on a medium specifically designed to cater to any and all viewpoints, and now you cry about certain peoples actions. If its illegal, file a police report, if its someone calling you a wanker 1000 times in emails, you are in the wrong line of work, and definitely on the wrong medium to do it. Quit, become a mormon and go on a mission somewhere.

Case closed, now shut the fuck up already. Im tired of this crap in the news based on the stupid multitudes failure at personal privacy but who are living in the publics crosshairs.

That is profoundly stupid advice. Some people do things professionally online, and part of that involves having your name out there. Should every researcher, writer, journalist, developer, etc., etc not use their real name anywhere? That's going to work well when they go for a job and can't demonstrate that they actually did anything.

Your comment is as stupid as saying "Don't want to get hit by a car? Live on a desert island." or "Don't want to get food poisoning? Don't eat."
I hope I'm conveying adequately how stupid your comment is.

 

[MattEvansC3]

vlam[/url]":1d5kt9ru]

Coriolanus[/url]":1d5kt9ru]After all, nobody would take seriously a guy who claims that he has lung cancer or lupus without any medical evidence or a professional diagnosis, either.

Surely you jest. If someone made the claim that they had a terminal illness, nobody would question it. There are anecdotes of this. People don't naturally request proof of medical diagnoses unless they are in the medical field and it is their job.

You know what real sociopaths don't do?

They don't talk about how they're sociopaths, and certainly they don't try to tell everybody on the internet how they are a sociopath, either. They wouldn't give two shits about it.

Um,
1. Nobody here believes me anyway. If my effort is to not be discovered, there is no harm in telling a room of disbelievers.
2. This is the internet. If my effort is to not be discovered, telling a group of anonymous people via anonymity will not hamper my effort.
3. This whole "sociopaths don't give shits about anything, ever" is very clearly incorrect. Sociopaths, unlike psychopaths, have a code of morality. It may be greatly warped from that of society, but it is a morality nonetheless. They also will have a very, very small "inner circle" of people they are able to act "normally" (read as: like normal people) around. This circle can vary in size or even consist of nobody but themselves.
3b. Is life not easier when you are able to act like yourself? Don't sociopaths act in their best interest?
4. Considering 3 and 3b, would it not be logical for a sociopath to see being accepted for what he/she is without societal rejection as the perfect outcome?
5. Read 4 from the perspective of someone who isn't ambitious. Certainly, anyone with the ambition to succeed and become better (perhaps "more" is a better word?), when combined with being a sociopath, will see being hidden as a benefit to their goals. It is easier to take advantage of people when they aren't aware of it.
6 (should be after 1 and 2, but I don't want to go back and edit). Mixing in a bit of whimsicality makes it even less likely people will believe me, as some might misconstrue my statements as trolling or satire (which seems to be all reactions so far).

If you act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier, then you don't have asperger's, either.

I never said I had that. My problems do not stem from inability to act sociably. I simply prefer not being social at all. I want to be left alone. I was simply stating that I was accused (rather rudely, as it were) of having asperger's.

Nobody believes you because you are making up your own definition of sociopath so that it coincides with your behaviour.

First off there is no diagnosis of sociopath. The diagnosis is Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Modern psychopathy, which includes sociopathy is derived from the work of Robert Hare who proposed that in his opinion the difference between a pschopath and sociopath was about morality but also acknowledged that the terms are used interchangeably and that others use Socio to imply the condition is caused by that person's surroundings or Psycho to imply its part of their psyche and that's how their brain was wired.

 

[Alfonse]

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

noops[/url]":2durzbes]

0bliv!on[/url]":2durzbes]
Considering how much revenue gaming sites make, yes, yes it is.

Oh hey you are still here. So what would an 'equal coverage' article look like for the gamergate side? This is in regards to fighting harassment.

Yes, yes I am. Despite the deluge of down votes. An old dog with a bone I guess. I really don't like this general idea of "Yes some, or a lot, of people on the Gamergate side of things are assholes so their points are invalid." That's not how this works. They can all be assholes, AND their points may also be valid. One doesn't preclude the other.

That is very true. However, I have found that, online, if an asshole puts forth a idea, ignore it.

If it happened to be invalid, then you've avoided having to deal with an asshole. If it happened to be valid, don't worry. Sooner or later, someone who isn't a raging asshole will come along to put that idea forth. Then you can pay attention to it, and to the non-asshole.

This saves a lot of time and aggravation.

0bliv!on[/url]":2durzbes]Lots of people are saying, don't talk about ethics because Gamergate is going on.

Nobody's saying that. They're saying "don't attribute any ethical changes to GamerGate."

0bliv!on[/url]":2durzbes]But the fact is, ethics *is* an issue now, irrespective of whether or not Gamergate exists or not. That it is, is just garnering more attention, positive or negative, for the issue and like it or not they have gotten publications to change or improve their disclosure guidelines. However you may feel about Gamergate, that's a good thing - and I don't like seeing the Ars readership, which is otherwise pretty level headed about removing emotion from issues, getting caught up in the ideological war that Gamergate people are assholes so their points are all invalid and absolutely nothing they do is positive. Judge actions and results by their own merits, not the people behind them.

As previously stated, if an idea has merits, it will be presented by someone who isn't an arrogant, self-obsessed, whiny twat.

Furthermore, I won't thank assholes even if the existence of assholes happens to accidentally have a positive outcome. Somehow, I don't think the people GG swatted will feel pleased that their pain and suffering was worth bringing some minor change to a few websites.

 

[MattEvansC3]

Coriolanus[/url]":cnzz5w20]

vlam[/url]":cnzz5w20]

I'm actually quite pleasant to people I meet. It makes life much less of a hassle. It also affords me leeway on the rare occasion I slip. Point of curiosity, why is someone claiming to be a sociopath "just a kid [looking for] a license to be a dick"?

edit: I have actually had people tell me that they think I have a mild case of asperger's. This, of course, has been via online interaction where it's a little safer to be completely uncaring (and have it be interpreted as purposely being an asshole).

If you act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier, then you don't have asperger's, either.

Sorry but no. People with Asperger Syndrome do not go out of their way to be arseholes and do attempt to make social interactions easier.

Having Asperger Syndrome means you don't fully understand or comprehend social norms. This can lead to situations where somebody with Asperger Syndrome attempts to be nice and ends up being rude and offensive instead.

 

[fivemack]

Coriolanus[/url]":2194lfwv]If you act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier, then you don't have asperger's, either.

Err, no; he just has well-managed, mild aspergers. A way people deal with it is by making constant deliberate efforts to act pleasantly to people to make social interactions easier; think of it as making a constant deliberate effort to speak a second language that you're not very comfortable with.