Trouble at the Koolaid Point

Pages

Women-hating trolls claim another victim. Kathy Sierra (@seriouspony) has left Twitter again.

Read this while it's still up - it's painfully enlightening and completely heartbreaking.

Mirror now available here: http://www.webcitation.org/6TBCSiPh7

Came here to post about this, couldn't think which thread to put in it, found you'd saved me the trouble. And Leigh Alexander's tweet in response is heartbreaking too.

I wish every one of them could find a place like GWJ where, if only for a time, they could feel safe.

mudbunny wrote:

I wish every one of them could find a place like GWJ where, if only for a time, they could feel safe.

Before being disappointed yet again.

I was telling Maq earlier about how I had explained the whole #GG situation to my wife last night, and watched the latest talk Sarkeesian gave about her experiences - and it was just hugely embarrassing to me as both a) a gaming enthusiast and b) a while male.

I hope that one day these guys learn empathy. I know it can be a hard process of self-examination that is required for any real growth, and I hope some of these men can get to that place before they do more damage. I know that I haven't always been at the place I am now, specifically I remember my reaction to BadKen's thread supporting his daughter career with confusion/consternation(I look back on my reaction with a great deal of shame and sadness. I hope that I can be as understanding and decent towards my own daughters when they come of age).

I just feel very dirty via my privileged when I read these tweets. These angry young bastards are ruining lives and are not equipped to understand how. I just feel like we have failed them, their victims and ourselves.

Sorry for the discombobulated block of text I just feel really down about this whole thing.

Kathy Sierra wrote:

And the trolls aren’t stupid. The most damaging troll/haters are some of the most powerful people (though they self-describe as outcasts). Typically, the hacker trolls are technically-talented, super smart white men. They’re not just hackers. They are social engineers. They understand behavioral psych. They know their Kahneman. They “get” memes. They exploit a vulnerability in the brains of your current and potential listeners.

How? By unleashing a mind virus guaranteed to push emotional buttons for your real, NOT-troll audience. In my specific case, it was my alleged threat to a free and open internet. “She issued DMCA takedowns for sites that criticized her.” Yes, that one even made it’s way into a GQ magazine article not long ago, when the writer Sanjiv Bhattacharya interviewed weev and asked about — get this — the “ethics” of doxxing me. Weev's explanation was just one more leveling up in my discredit/disinfo program: DMCA takedowns. I had, apparently, issued DMCA takedowns.

If you are in the tech world, issuing a DMCA takedown is worse than kicking puppies off a pier. But what I did? It was (according to the meme) much much worse. I did it (apparently) to stifle criticism. If a DMCA takedown is kicking puppies, doing it to “stifle criticism” is like single-handedly causing the extinction of puppies, kittens, and the constitution. Behold my awesome and terrible power. Go me.

But here’s the thing. I never did that. I never did anything even a teeny tiny nano bit like that. But sure enough, even on my last day on Twitter, there it was again: Kathy did DMCA’s. And it wasn’t even a troll saying it, it was another woman in tech who believed the meme because she believed weev. Because in twisted troll logic, it makes sense. She must have done something pretty awful to deserve what, according to weev, “she had coming.”

After the GQ story came out, the one where weev “justified” the harassment of me by introducing the DMCA fiction, I asked him about it on Twitter. “Where, seriously, where exactly did I ever issue a DMCA?” His answer? Oh, right, he didn’t have an answer. Because it didn’t happen. But see? he doesn't have to. He's already launched the Kathy-does-DMCA-takedowns meme. Evidence not required. For that matter, common sense not required.

(For the record, far as most people have been able to determine, most of what happened to me long ago was triggered by a blog comment I made that said “I’m not moderating my blog comments, but I support those who do and here’s why.” That’s right, Blog. Comment. Moderation. Just a tiny hop, really, from that to full-blown DMCA takedowns. Easy mistake.)

I want to smash [em]everything[/em]. >_<

Hypatian wrote:
Kathy Sierra wrote:

And the trolls aren’t stupid. The most damaging troll/haters are some of the most powerful people (though they self-describe as outcasts). Typically, the hacker trolls are technically-talented, super smart white men. They’re not just hackers. They are social engineers. They understand behavioral psych. They know their Kahneman. They “get” memes. They exploit a vulnerability in the brains of your current and potential listeners.

How? By unleashing a mind virus guaranteed to push emotional buttons for your real, NOT-troll audience. In my specific case, it was my alleged threat to a free and open internet. “She issued DMCA takedowns for sites that criticized her.” Yes, that one even made it’s way into a GQ magazine article not long ago, when the writer Sanjiv Bhattacharya interviewed weev and asked about — get this — the “ethics” of doxxing me. Weev's explanation was just one more leveling up in my discredit/disinfo program: DMCA takedowns. I had, apparently, issued DMCA takedowns.

If you are in the tech world, issuing a DMCA takedown is worse than kicking puppies off a pier. But what I did? It was (according to the meme) much much worse. I did it (apparently) to stifle criticism. If a DMCA takedown is kicking puppies, doing it to “stifle criticism” is like single-handedly causing the extinction of puppies, kittens, and the constitution. Behold my awesome and terrible power. Go me.

But here’s the thing. I never did that. I never did anything even a teeny tiny nano bit like that. But sure enough, even on my last day on Twitter, there it was again: Kathy did DMCA’s. And it wasn’t even a troll saying it, it was another woman in tech who believed the meme because she believed weev. Because in twisted troll logic, it makes sense. She must have done something pretty awful to deserve what, according to weev, “she had coming.”

After the GQ story came out, the one where weev “justified” the harassment of me by introducing the DMCA fiction, I asked him about it on Twitter. “Where, seriously, where exactly did I ever issue a DMCA?” His answer? Oh, right, he didn’t have an answer. Because it didn’t happen. But see? he doesn't have to. He's already launched the Kathy-does-DMCA-takedowns meme. Evidence not required. For that matter, common sense not required.

(For the record, far as most people have been able to determine, most of what happened to me long ago was triggered by a blog comment I made that said “I’m not moderating my blog comments, but I support those who do and here’s why.” That’s right, Blog. Comment. Moderation. Just a tiny hop, really, from that to full-blown DMCA takedowns. Easy mistake.)

I want to smash [em]everything[/em]. >_<

Pretty simple parallel Zoe Quinn didn't sleep with anyone to get a review of her game... but #GG still talks about that as if it were proven fact... even though it's clearly been proven not to be the case.

And this one, the reason she decided to bow out again:

Kathy Sierra wrote:

But a few days ago, in the middle of one of those “discussions”, this time with @erratarob, I realized it wasn’t worth it. He concluded that I was just trolling so people would troll me back. I asked him what he thought I should have done. And his answer was “don’t feed the trolls.” “Ignore it and move on.” Perhaps Rob didn’t know that I'd already tried that for six years, but that it was weev who kept that damn thing alive no matter how gone I was. He managed to tweet to my social security number not long before he went to prison, and well before I resurfaced. No, I didn't troll him into that. I didn't "engage".

IMAGE(https://t.co/WZjoohD9eS)

Here's the thing: I've seen in tweets discussing this that it is in no way limited to tech or gaming. There are these twisted social engineers attacking women for the lulz in basically any discipline where a woman dares to be successful and gain an audience. Any woman anywhere who reaches Sierra's "Koolaid Point" is a target.

What I don't understand and where I think people can maybe be successful fighting back is the reaction of otherwise reasonable people to these attack memes. What is it about me that makes me seemingly immune to them, but makes one of my IRC friends, a perfectly reasonable guy, suddenly start victim-blaming and conspiracy-theorizing?

The people who fall for this social engineering aren't stupid. They aren't hateful.

I guess I don't know enough about behavioral psychology to understand why these techniques work so well on some people.

BadKen wrote:

Here's the thing: I've seen in tweets discussing this that it is in no way limited to tech or gaming. There are these twisted social engineers attacking women for the lulz in basically any discipline where a woman dares to be successful and gain an audience. Any woman anywhere who reaches Sierra's "Koolaid Point" is a target.

What I don't understand and where I think people can maybe be successful fighting back is the reaction of otherwise reasonable people to these attack memes. What is it about me that makes me seemingly immune to them, but makes one of my IRC friends, a perfectly reasonable guy, suddenly start victim-blaming and conspiracy-theorizing?

The people who fall for this social engineering aren't stupid. They aren't hateful.

I guess I don't know enough about behavioral psychology to understand why these techniques work so well on some people.

I wonder this as well. Especially after the original motivations have been clearly exposed and documented. At some point, no offense to your friend, I lost the ability to give the benefit of the doubt for these people and am assuming they are all in it for the same reason.

If you can stomach it, I just saw John Siracusa link to a post from the guy she's talking about:

@siracusa wrote:

If you're wondering about the "other side" of http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point here he is, in his own words: http://www.donotlink.com/bvbu

BadKen wrote:

Women-hating trolls claim another victim. Kathy Sierra (@seriouspony) has left Twitter again.

Read this while it's still up - it's painfully enlightening and completely heartbreaking.

Speechless rage. Utterly speechless rage. [insert incoherent babbling obscenities]

BadKen wrote:

I guess I don't know enough about behavioral psychology to understand why these techniques work so well on some people.

I only know enough to link possibly relevant Wikipedia pages, but it's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-wo...

To explain these studies' findings, Lerner theorized that there was a prevalent belief in a just world. A just world is one in which actions and conditions have predictable, appropriate consequences. These actions and conditions are typically individuals' behaviors or attributes. The specific conditions that correspond to certain consequences are socially determined by a society's norms and ideologies. Lerner presents the belief in a just world as functional: it maintains the idea that one can influence the world in a predictable way. Belief in a just world functions as a sort of "contract" with the world regarding the consequences of behavior. This allows people to plan for the future and engage in effective, goal-driven behavior. Lerner summarized his findings and his theoretical work in his 1980 monograph The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.[5]

Lerner hypothesized that the belief in a just world is crucially important for people to maintain for their own well-being. But people are confronted daily with evidence that the world is not just: people suffer without apparent cause. Lerner explained that people use strategies to eliminate threats to their belief in a just world. These strategies can be rational or irrational. Rational strategies include accepting the reality of injustice, trying to prevent injustice or provide restitution, and accepting one's own limitations. Non-rational strategies include denial, withdrawal, and reinterpretation of the event.[citation needed]

There are a few modes of reinterpretation that could make an event fit the belief in a just world. One can reinterpret the outcome, the cause, and/or the character of the victim. In the case of observing the injustice of the suffering of innocent people, one major way to rearrange the cognition of an event is to interpret the victim of suffering as deserving.[1] Specifically, observers can blame victims for their suffering on the basis of their behaviors and/or their characteristics.[6] Much psychological research on the belief in a just world has focused on these negative social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation in different contexts.[2]

My layperson tl;dr: it's tough to face a world where bad things happen to good people. If someone offers an explanation where that good person is revealed to actually be a bad person, it's a lot easier to go on with your own life feeling undisturbed and safe.

But in the case of #gg that's just flipping who is the good person and who is having bad things happen to them. From the #gg side, SJWs are doing bad things to the good gamers. I don't buy it.

Ranger Rick wrote:

If you can stomach it, I just saw John Siracusa link to a post from the guy she's talking about:

@siracusa wrote:

If you're wondering about the "other side" of http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point here he is, in his own words: http://www.donotlink.com/bvbu

IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/59d89903250e13782a11b972c6dca9ef/tumblr_mw590mV4yB1rmin5no1_400.gif)

Could not stomach.

BadKen wrote:

What is it about me that makes me seemingly immune to them, but makes one of my IRC friends, a perfectly reasonable guy, suddenly start victim-blaming and conspiracy-theorizing?

The people who fall for this social engineering aren't stupid. They aren't hateful.

I've seen dozens of perfectly reasonable guys come out with the most vile, hateful crap under the right circumstances.

I don't touch any social media for a good reason.

BadKen wrote:

The people who fall for this social engineering aren't stupid. They aren't hateful.

I guess I don't know enough about behavioral psychology to understand why these techniques work so well on some people.

Just think of how many people fall for consumer advertisements, even for crap they never wanted, or even all the spam emails we all get for viagra and hot! hot! hot! Would the spammers keep doing it if it wasn't profitable? *Somebody* is falling for it and in large enough numbers to keep other people in the money.

Demyx wrote:

I've seen dozens of perfectly reasonable guys come out with the most vile, hateful crap under the right circumstances.

I don't touch any social media for a good reason.

I've thought of the book Lord of the Flies numerous times since I first heard of this whole GG atrocity.

bekkilyn wrote:
Demyx wrote:

I've seen dozens of perfectly reasonable guys come out with the most vile, hateful crap under the right circumstances.

I don't touch any social media for a good reason.

I've thought of the book Lord of the Flies numerous times since I first heard of this whole GG atrocity.

Funny you should say that. I've been thinking about McCarthyism in relation to GG.

OG_slinger wrote:

Funny you should say that. I've been thinking about McCarthyism in relation to GG.

It's all just barely different flavors of the persecution of anyone who is "different".

OG_slinger wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
Demyx wrote:

I've seen dozens of perfectly reasonable guys come out with the most vile, hateful crap under the right circumstances.

I don't touch any social media for a good reason.

I've thought of the book Lord of the Flies numerous times since I first heard of this whole GG atrocity.

Funny you should say that. I've been thinking about McCarthyism in relation to GG.

Is it because they accuse their opponents of "cultural marxism"?

BadKen wrote:

The people who fall for this social engineering aren't stupid. They aren't hateful.

I guess I don't know enough about behavioral psychology to understand why these techniques work so well on some people.

Because they might actually be stupid? I dunno, just spitballin' here.

I don't know if they are stupid (generally unintelligent) but I do believe that most people who perpetuate these attacks are not aware of the emotional toll the attacks take on their victims. I think there is a real lack of social intelligence and perspective.

My favorite (and by that, I mean the worst) is the obnoxious tactic of claiming women seeking equal representation in spaces are somehow trying to spread female dominance while their opponents are seeking egalitarianism. Alert Webster: Equal representation is now dominance while egalitarianism now means patriarchy. -_-

The crazy thing is, I have never seen a woman arguing for dominance - just for parity.

SallyNasty wrote:

The crazy thing is, I have never seen a woman arguing for dominance - just for parity.

Exactly, but that "parity" becomes "dominance" in the minds of their opponents. Reminds me of the line from the Queen of the Awoken in Destiny. Often when we try to guess other's motives, we reveal only our own.

When you're used to invisible privilege -- especially if you don't subscribe to the idea of invisible privilege -- parity feels like dominance.

SallyNasty wrote:

The crazy thing is, I have never seen a woman arguing for dominance - just for parity.

Using past arguments I've heard for things like hiring regulations for diversity:

"The law is MAKING them hire women/minorities that they otherwise wouldn't have hired and are therefore taking away jobs from more qualified straight white men!"

I used to constantly hear the stories about this or that lazy minority bum was being hired just because they had to fill a quota and that the company had suffered from all those know-nothings they had to hire to make the government happy. Mind you, most of these positions weren't for highly skilled posts. I think a lot of people failed to realize that one big reason a lot of white males seem to have a hard time finding anyone but white males to fill positions in their company is because they only know and relate to white males. It's not that everyone else in the world isn't qualified. If you can only find completely ignorant people outside of that group then you're not looking very hard.

Ranger Rick wrote:

If you can stomach it, I just saw John Siracusa link to a post from the guy she's talking about:

@siracusa wrote:

If you're wondering about the "other side" of http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point here he is, in his own words: http://www.donotlink.com/bvbu

It's propaganda.
In many ways we still operate under the assumption that the internet at large is a source of truth.
Accepting that the internet merely provides communication by other means, we can see that this large scale, malevolent trolling is a new form of propaganda that we're forced to deal with.
I have a feeling even Goebbels would be impressed with the speed, and eagerness with which people, real individuals, help to escalate and disseminate the propaganda coming from trolls.

I don't have like an answer, just thoughts.

[size=16]We Will Force Gaming To Be Free[/size]
On GamerGate & the Licence to Inflict Suffering
(Katherine Cross, First Person Scholar, 2014-10-08)

A different view of this phenomenon, looking at things from the point of view of political philosophy. (Tons of citations.) My interpretation: Talking about the idea of ideological purges and the thought that's gone into struggling against it in leftist philosophy, along with why GamerGate is especially prone to these evils, since the movement has as a central goal "to be without politics" and the movement is therefore incapable of moral self-reflection.

Throughout his life the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin grappled with a haunting question: why are revolutions, especially violent ones, so often unsuccessful? In Berlin’s considered view, the great problem of utopian thinking (whatever its political provenance) is that it effaces human difference and diversity of thought: the honest and sincere disagreements about principle that characterise political life. True tragedy, he wrote, lay not in good against evil, but good against good. How, for instance, are we to always successfully reconcile justice and mercy? Revolutionary movements depended on an ideological fiction of harmony: that all conflict could be erased by their “final answer” and the cacophonous chorus of dissent would fall silent before the sight of perfection.

This, Berlin believed, was a recipe for disaster. “If this is possible,” he wrote in The Crooked Timber of Humanity, “then surely no price is too heavy to pay for it; no amount of oppression, cruelty, repression, coercion will be too high… This conviction gives wide licence to inflict suffering on other men.” The ends, in other words, would justify the means because the revolutionaries always knew better. Citing Rousseau, he believes that this lies behind his conviction in “the right of society to force men to be free.”

It may sound like an unwarranted compliment to see GamerGate in such consequential terms. But these social ills have their strains in all of us, and internet organising provides us with means of enacting social dynamics in miniature that once demanded the energies of mass physical crowds. Thus, on a much smaller scale, these ideas have their salience.

Consider their goal and their methods. Ethical and “agenda-free” journalism and criticism, achieved by scouring games journalism of any and all dissent from GamerGate’s views—i.e. the hated “SJWs.” This purge was driven by a harmonious idea: the idea of games journalism without corruption, graft, those mysterious “agendas,” or influence-peddling, and a journalistic enterprise that had a sympathetic and symbiotic relationship with its core audience. But above all there need never be a conflict between a journalist’s or critic’s duty to inform and a reader’s desire to be told only what they wanted to hear—a contradiction that would surely make Berlin cringe.

They chase a virtuous horizon; games journalism’s problems are myriad. But at no point could the movement lay genuine claim to virtue. It was, itself, corrupted from the start by the idea that all means were justified or excusable if it meant “saving” video gaming.

Pages