Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So we can't call anyone stupid anymore (Score 4, Insightful) 622

by meta-monkey (#48132153) Attached to: The Correct Response To Photo Hack Victim-Blamers

There's also risk vs reward.

A guy wearing his jewelry in broad daylight in a good part of town going to a social event is not fucking stupid (well, except for questions of taste. Men and jewelry...), and if he gets mugged we should feel sorry for him. But if he's wearing his jewelry for no good reason in a shitty part of town, well...that's kind of stupid.

Same thing with the lady in the miniskirt. If she's going out with friends to a party or a club with a lot of people in a safe area and she wants to look good? Great, please do! I'd much rather look at her in that than a parka. But if she's walking through the ghetto alone at night for no good reason, well, that's pretty stupid.

As for the celebrities, I think it really sucks what happened to them. They should have been a little more careful, but it's not like they were indiscriminately mass emailing them around. For what it's worth, Ms. Lawrence, if you're reading this (just like all the other hot young women who read Slashdot), I didn't look at your pictures or any of the other girls. I don't want to look at pictures of somebody who doesn't want me looking at their pictures.

Comment: Re:Don't over generalize (Score 3, Insightful) 716

by meta-monkey (#48112031) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

The answer is not some PSA talking about feelings and awareness. That is useless clueless bullshit. If you want to have a positive influence on this situation, then you need to get people that are reacting badly to trolls to react in a more effective manner.

I completely agree. We don't need our fucking awareness raised. 99.999% of us know it's wrong to threaten to rape somebody and call the police or their boss or whatever. When the vast majority of us who didn't do a damn thing wrong now get lumped in with the actual perpetrator and then lectured to, it has the opposite effect. I am now less likely to be concerned with the plight of [insert victim group] because they're accusing me of having all sorts of attitudes I don't have.

And I bet the trolls love it. Look at gamergame (I hate typing that). One deranged lunatic makes some not particularly credible threats against a woman who completely overreacts to what was purely online harassment at that point, goes full social justice warrior and starts attacking the entirety of "men who play video games" for the actions of one asshole. Those people get offended at being generalized as some kind of subhumans chafe and attack back, and the troll sits there gleefully watching thousands of people scream at each other for some tiny little words he wrote on twitter. At no point is the actual perpetrator punished. He is rewarded with a great show. And now people are more likely to dismiss harassment of women, because their experience has been this Sarkessian woman overacting to something and making ridiculous accusations against a bunch of people who didn't do anything.

Comment: Re:We really need a different word for this behavi (Score 4, Funny) 716

by meta-monkey (#48111905) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

I agree with you. This is not trolling. Trolling is a art.

I used to troll slashdot under another account. It was great fun. I'd see a good target story and write a well-structure comment. The first paragraph would be something on topic and sensible. The second would introduce minor logical flaws, which in the third paragraph would explode into completely ridiculous conclusions that would incense slashdotters, like that the only way to ensure privacy is for the government to monitor all communications at all times or something. Then you sit back and watch moderators only read the first paragraph and mod you +5 insightful, and then people come along and actually read the post and get enraged and write 12 paragraphs about how wrong I am. Then it gets moderated down to +1 troll, then people realize it's funny and it winds up at +5 funny. It was good fun.

But sociopaths threatening and harassing people not just on the internet but spilling over into real life (phone calls, calling their boss, their customers, etc) is not trolling. It's...criminal. Online trolling can be ignored, but I think the only way to stop that kind of behavior is legal action.

Comment: Re:WHY are men trying to scare women away from gam (Score 1) 716

by meta-monkey (#48111651) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

You're talking about a very small subset of assholes. The "gamergate" (god I hate typing that) thing is about a few obnoxious assholes and some SJWs. It in no way represents the vast bulk of people who play video games. That's the problem. It takes just a few vicious sociopaths to ruin shit for everybody.

Comment: Re:Anonymity == being a schmuck for a good number. (Score 2) 716

by meta-monkey (#48111573) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

No, the choice of target is not necessarily related to gender. They choose a target based on any number of reasons, but it generally has something to do with their opinions or actions.

Once they've identified a target, they use whatever weakness they can perceive to inflict maximum psychological damage. For many women, that is rape threats.

They would target a man for the same opinions, actions, whatever, but they would use something he'd respond to, like threats against his family or his job.

The sexist language is just the weapon, not necessarily the cause.

Comment: Re:Don't over generalize (Score 1) 716

by meta-monkey (#48111451) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

I agree with you up to a point. Empty threats of violence can be dealt with. "Come at me bro. I got a glock and a big dog. Internet fucking tough guy..."

But it's something else when they start calling your place of work and harassing your boss and your customers trying to get you fired. That's actual harm.

Comment: Re:But Still (Score 1) 267

by meta-monkey (#48093301) Attached to: GNOME 3 Winning Back Users

It would be nice if they could have done better by forking distros and working out the bugs and showing us it's better, such that it would be naturally adopted by users. It would win on merit. Instead it's buggy, bloated, breaks all sorts of simple tasks (like parsing log files, really?) and has been shimmied into popular distros via slimy political means. Now I have to either put up with their unproven bullshit or switch distros. I liked Debian.

Comment: Re:Why do people care so much? (Score 4, Informative) 763

by meta-monkey (#48093155) Attached to: Systemd Adding Its Own Console To Linux Systems

In addition to the other reasons people have given you (bloated, breaks the unix idea of doing one simple thing well, binary log files, doesn't play nice with others, etc), the reason people are rabidly opposed is because of the way it's being adopted, or should I say, thrust upon us. Poettering and friends are not simply making a piece of software and releasing it and getting people to adopt it because it's good and solves a useful problem. They're playing shady political games to force adoption.

Ideally, if you think you have this great new replacement for the fundamental piece of userland software in Linux, awesome! Write it, fork a distro and build your distro around systemd. Use it. Find the bugs. Work them out. Do this long before you start suggesting people run it on their servers. If it's actually better, distros will start including it. Instead they've played political games to force it into really popular distros like Debian.

It's just not ready for prime time. Build it, test it, show us how it's better and we'll be overjoyed to use it. But ram buggy bloated bullshit down our throats for no other reason than your own ego and well, fuck you.

Comment: Re:Umm, no (Score 1) 724

by meta-monkey (#48056241) Attached to: Intel Drops Gamasutra Sponsorship Over Controversial Editorials

Also, how exactly would they find you to commit this act?

I wonder what the statistics are on crimes committed in the real world after threats online? There must be a million threats of violence per day online. If online threats were real, just going by voice chat in Call of Duty, by now my mother, dog and sister should have been raped at least 100 times each.

Sarkeesian's contribution to this drama comes from the threats she was exposed to on twitter. Somebody apparently threatened to rape and kill her. Join the fucking club.

Comment: Re:Umm, no (Score 1) 724

by meta-monkey (#48056183) Attached to: Intel Drops Gamasutra Sponsorship Over Controversial Editorials

I don't disagree with you. I've seen the analysis of the twitter threats (not logged in, no search term, etc) and it looks made up. But it doesn't matter. I can't prove they made it up, so fine, I concede the point. There's no point arguing about it since that just distracts from the real non-issue. It doesn't change the fact their argument should be with the alleged perpetrator and not with all males who play video games.

Still, they seem to be hunting for the perpetrator of these horrible threats about as hard as O.J. went after "the real killers."

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.