Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
What's even more hilarious is GG trying to frame someone as being pro-CP (again) when one of their former patrons lived by it
Gamergate convinced an anti-sex trafficking org to join crusade against NoA employee
- Thread starter chaobreaker
- Start date
- Status
Suzushiiro
Banned
It reminds me of the situation with that girl who was very anti-GG and had some old chat logs where she (jokingly, according to her, IIRC) admitted to child molestation- yeah, it's totally true that the sole reason why this was dug up was because a bunch of shitheads had an axe to grind with them, but that doesn't mean they should automatically be treated as if they're saints who have done no wrong- being a victim of a mob of shitheads and being wrong are not mutually exclusive things. That's not making a judgement on that case or this one, just on the tribalistic tendency of people to make judgements based on whether the accusers/accused are one of Teh Gators or Teh SJWs rather than the actual evidence (or lack thereof.) But I think it's far worse to defend someone who has done something wrong because the people calling them out on it are assholes than to only give a shit that someone did something wrong because you don't like them.
As far as the case in question goes... it doesn't seem like she's actually *done* anything wrong, she just has beliefs as to what is okay and not okay re: underage sexuality that are... "non-standard," to put it gently. I don't necessarily think it's fair to fire someone for their beliefs, but in the end these decisions aren't about what's fair, it's about what's in the best interests of the company. And the rules certainly change when the things being said are attached to an account that has the company's name on the bio, regardless of any "my tweets do not represent the company" disclaimer.
As far as the case in question goes... it doesn't seem like she's actually *done* anything wrong, she just has beliefs as to what is okay and not okay re: underage sexuality that are... "non-standard," to put it gently. I don't necessarily think it's fair to fire someone for their beliefs, but in the end these decisions aren't about what's fair, it's about what's in the best interests of the company. And the rules certainly change when the things being said are attached to an account that has the company's name on the bio, regardless of any "my tweets do not represent the company" disclaimer.
DownWithTheShip
Member
You have a point. If they really want to get her they should praise her for her positive views on CP. Nothing would upset NoA more than a bunch of pedophiles rallying around in support of an NoA employee.
As it is their motives are clear as day. They don't really care what the paper says, only that they can use it to attack someone and ruin their lives.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
The other guy said that she is targeted by a group of men that are upset because a game in which they can act out their pedophilic (sp?) fantasies was ruined...and they attribute that to Miss Rapp.
He then said that those men should be the ones that we are concerned about.
And then I said...and possibly not clearly because it's late.
But they're not tweeting their controversial views are they? But that's just an assumption on my part. Maybe the creepy fucks are tweeting it and they should be called on it, much as Miss Rapp is being called on her more controversial tweets.
What are you trying to prove with your post here? Aside from being a self-appointed arbiter?
People are talking. It's possible that not all views will parallel your own.
They've always been framed as the bad guys.
You take the good, you take the bad,
You take them both and there you have
The facts of life, the facts of life.
SolicitorPirate
Member
At this stage, I no longer find the blatant hypocrisy funny. I'm just amazed how many people still fall for that shit
Brad Grenz
Member
If you ever wonder if GG actually stands for something real, they are self professed "Anti-Censorship" crusaders trying to get someone fired for her anti-censorship scholarship. They want to make women suffer. That is the beginning and end of their agenda.
the_batman
Banned
uhh.. maybe you should read it?
TheSlySoul
Member
Yeah, they do the same things over and over. Whether it is Quinn, Anita, Brenda, Allison, etc. They will find another target to harass (and soon I hope).
8chan has loads of it. FoldableHuman did a good piece on it.
Emperor_Uriel
Member
Pedophilia and child sexual agency are very, very murky topics. Especially in a world where plenty of highly developed countries do very well with low age of consent laws, and one where sex offender registries destroy the futures of plenty of people who are deserving of a second chance.
I'm grossed out by the thought of a grown man/woman sleeping with a child under any context, but I can also acknowledge that, when legitimate consent and attraction are involved, it isn't always something that should be dismissed and derided as inherently evil without some very close examination.
As a father of a teenage girl, I can honestly say I'm far more concerned about what the boys her age are tempted to do to her than I am of a bunch of overhyped bogeymen.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I feel like poor reading comprehension is a prerequisite for being a member.
I don't think anyone is attacking you for not advocating child porn, but because you're making some pretty big accusations born from ignorance and refusing to be educated on it.
The fact that people in here are falling for that and also accusing her of supporting pedophilia is even more desperate.
This campaign is even more pathetic than the Nyburg one. Rapp wrote a thesis that they've cherry-picked and removed all context from to start a witch-hunt.
They're vile human beings.
Isn't that obvious? I mean, they're just hating on her just for the sake of hating.
I may not agree with her views but I don't think she deserves this kind of harassment. I just think she needs to tone down her social media presence a bit and probably remove that thesis from her LinkedIn.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
100% they are.
It's not an all the time sort of thing but yes...dependent upon situation; of course this sort of thing is happening.
So to frame this...
Nintendo - a company that most older people associate with being "for kids" happens to employ a person who has thrown up some controversial tweets in the past around child pornography and age of consent laws.
Whether she's allowed to talk about it or not.
Whether she's right or wrong. (In this case it literally doesn't matter as this isn't "opinion" around good games or bad games but actually honest to goodness opinion)
How do you think Nintendo is going to feel about this?
Her thesis makes it clear that she's against the creation and distribution of child porn, how is that advocacy?
Her point is the correlation between possession and creation more than anything. She doesn't even call for legalizing possession in the thesis, but a laxing in comparison to creation.
What accusations? Did you read her thesis? If not, then do it.
Dude her boss is Bill Trinen who follows her on twitter, and odds are has read her linked in and her thesis.
That's been their MO for ages though. That sort of gotcha discourse is pretty standard in all walks of life (Twitter really doesn't help) but GG are dedicated to it it to a fascinating degree.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
lol nah
Most people can read
are you supposed to be giving me new info, or...?
cropduster
Member
Vita means life
I don't believe you did. I believe you read the cherry picked parts that are taken out of context to make her seem like something she is not.
PrioritySe7en
Banned
Ugh. Fuck GamerGate.
That's right, it was 8chan. Disgusting and for them to try this, it's ridiculous.
Modest Mauser
Member
How many of them are women?
I think you're one of the few that did read it. You're a good dog.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I doubt she'll get fired, but I am betting Nintendo has her take a more background role and minimize her social media presence. So probably less time on Treehouse streams overall. I imagine it will be more about her safety than her presence being a bad look.
But Gamergate will celebrate it as a victory, regardless.
But Gamergate will celebrate it as a victory, regardless.
Logically my brain says no, but I'm gonna say that this is the internet so probably.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
I'm not defending them.
Seriously.
But I think the medium with which they do all of their transactions (read: the internet) has them cloaked in an ignorance so great that yes; they can LuLz it up that they "ruined some bitch's life"
But I'm not convinced they actually understand what they are doing. It's quite literally a game for them.
There was a picture earlier of a chat stream and some guy gave a smiley face when discussing how he hoped Zoe (I can't remember he last name) tries to kill herself.
That's a level of ignorance that I can't help but think if you actually sat down with that guy and said.
"Seriously?!? You really think she needs to kill herself over this and that makes you happy?"
I would tend to believe that most of these Gamergate guys would actually realize that what they are doing is pretty fucked.
Just finished reading her thesis. It's a bit rough and speculative in some areas, but she is in no way advocating for the creation, dissemination, or trafficking of child porn. She says:
1. The pressure on Japan is a way for moralistic countries to scold them about a cultural difference (the lower age of consent and the historical relationships Japanese figures have had with minors) and an attempt to police thought.
2. There is no evidence for a causal link between viewing cp and sexual abuse.
3. Japan has really low rates of child sexual abuse anyway.
4. Japan has done its part to fight for the rights of the child globally.
I don't see much here that should cost her her job. I guess Nintendo is seen as a children's company, so I kind of get it, but the shit we write in school is for a completely different purpose and audience than any of the stuff we advocate for in our personal lives.
1. The pressure on Japan is a way for moralistic countries to scold them about a cultural difference (the lower age of consent and the historical relationships Japanese figures have had with minors) and an attempt to police thought.
2. There is no evidence for a causal link between viewing cp and sexual abuse.
3. Japan has really low rates of child sexual abuse anyway.
4. Japan has done its part to fight for the rights of the child globally.
I don't see much here that should cost her her job. I guess Nintendo is seen as a children's company, so I kind of get it, but the shit we write in school is for a completely different purpose and audience than any of the stuff we advocate for in our personal lives.
Schnozberry
Member
Her position on Child Pornography is quite controversial. Whether or not she holds that position today I have no idea.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
That's an interesting thesis she wrote, but I see where she is coming from. She is not advocating CP at all, but rather stating cracking down on CP consumption is like cracking down harshly on those that possess drugs rather than those that distribute them. Too much energy is put into the former when that latter is the real problem and is what is affecting people's lives. She also goes on to say that pedophilia can be applied to things outside of molestation and CP, for instance having a nude photo of your kids in the bathtub on your phone (something most parents have), could be considered an offense in some of the laws countries are trying to force onto Japan.
But it is easy to cliff note her article into saying she doesn't have a problem with CP and that there should be less restrictions. Context is key.
But it is easy to cliff note her article into saying she doesn't have a problem with CP and that there should be less restrictions. Context is key.
No it's not.
It's rather frank, but if you read any academic study or thesis on the link between child pornography and sexual abuse you'll see that her views are not controversial at all.
Yeah, right. Why people that aren't even psychiatrists or therapists dare to discuss this subject? Yikes.
I don't agree with her views, even if she claims she's against the distribution but at the same time thinks the laws should be softened.
SolicitorPirate
Member
I love how GAF always harps on about free speech, but somehow a fucking thesis is beyond the pale. What the fuck is wrong with y'all today
Except is not controversial.
can you list what her views are?
Lets get someone fired for a non-controversial thesis but taking out a date-rape scene from a stupid anime game IS BEYOND THE FUCKING PALE!
bigdaddygamebot
Member
It might not be controversial amongst academics who have studied it and clearly you.
I think a significant portion of society would disagree with you almost immediately out of simple reflex however.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked