Yesterday, I was busy collecting salt from the KingOfSpaghetti. We did a stream on it in the afternoon, and due to me being a idiot sometimes, I forgot to plug it here. It will be linked below this paragraph, in case you’d like to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp-qxV9vXdU

But that’s not what I came here to talk to you about this Saturday morning. Instead, I came to make fun of the joke known as the United Nations. In case you hadn’t heard about this story, here’s Master Milo giving you a short breakdown:

In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.”

In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.

So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.

Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.

Guess who was leading the charge on all this, by the way? That’s right, it was our old friends Anita the Fraud and Blowey Zoe:BroadbandCommissionReportLaunch_September2015_RLB_4011_400x267

Not only that, they even cited Jack Thompson in their anti-gamer bullshit. That’s right, they repeated the same old violent video games cause real-life violence trope. What did Polygon do when it was two bad dye-jobs peddling this propaganda instead of an old white dude? Did they tear into them like they did ol’ Uncle Jack? Of course not. They lapped that shit up like KingOfSpaghetti did yesterday:

Both Quinn and Sarkeesian were among those called on to speak about their involvement with the UN Women’s coalition that was formed to reduce instances of gendered cyber violence. Each spoke of the systemic nature of the problem, while touching upon their personal experiences as a target of online harassment.
As one of the most prominent figures embroiled in GamerGate, a loosely organized crusade to rid of the video game world of progressive voices, Quinn mentioned having “sat for two weeks in a chatroom silently recording them plotting how they would [drive her to kill herself]” during the period in which her online antagonizers were most virulent…
She defined this as not just the violence that the group has formed to combat, but also the “day-to-day grind of ‘You’re a liar,’ ‘You suck’ … making all of these hate videos on a regular basis to attack us and the mobs that come from those hate videos.”
So, when it’s two rainbow-haired bimbos pushing the same propaganda, it’s all good. They didn’t even try to challenge the report at all. It’s like a readout from some state-owned media in a fucking dictatorship. Not only that, they refuse to let readers comment on this garbage fire. I guess we can’t have anyone criticize Queen Anita and Princess Zoe! That would be #cyberviolence, shitlords.
3vgZywR
TIME summed it up quite well, although I think they were trying to be on the side of these con-artists. At least they were somewhat even-handed, though. That’s a lot more than we can say for Pravda Polygon:1vWUeYQ
Do these stupid fuckers even think about what they’re saying? Read this quote. It’s #FullMcIntosh thinking personified:
“Dead is dead,” says Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Under-Secretary-General of the U.N. and Executive Director of U.N. Women. “Whether you are dead because your partner shot you or beat you up, or you killed yourself because you couldn’t bear cyber-bullying, or you were exposed to many of the sites that lead people to suicide pacts— bottom line, we lose a life.”

Let me say this real quick: the only thing that qualifies as violence, is actual violence. The shit the SJWs are pushing is an affront to real victims of real violence. Of course, they’re either too stupid to realize that, or too invested in scrounging up some more shekels. But the truth is still the truth, no matter how many times these charlatans say otherwise. Thankfully, Twitter blew this shit out of the water yesterday:

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/647519911296802816

https://twitter.com/whenindoubtdo/status/647638942183874560

https://twitter.com/_Thurinn/status/647585923333492737

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/647550604055814145

https://twitter.com/ibbibby/status/647458631709908993

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/647395496194146304

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/647345453663715328

https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/647274058799681536

I think I’ve said almost all I can say this morning, plus I want to go watch this movie. But I’ll just finish with a few thoughts. How pathetic has the Western world become when this is taking up time at the United Nations? For that matter, how bad has the UN itself become? It’s not lke they were ever that great in the first place, but this is the height of comedy. Well, strike that. It would be funny, if these losers weren’t actually trying to use shoddy reports like the one they presented the other day as a justification for censoring the internet.  Don’t let it happen. Redouble your efforts to spread the word about travesties like this. Things are getting very serious, and we can’t afford to slack off. The SJWs certainly aren’t.

PS: Nora found this old academic paper on “cyber violence.” It’s the oldest mention I’ve seen of it so far. It was written by this woman:

ECaQL7t

Here’s how she described the batshit term:

I define cyber violence as online behavior that constitutes or leads to assault against the well-being (physical, psychological, emotional) of an individual or group. What distinguishes cyber violence from traditional off-line forms of violence is that in the former case, some significant portion of the behavior takes place online, although it might then carry over into offline contexts. Cyber violence thus may, but need not, have a physical component, and much of the harm caused by cyber violence—as indeed by offline violence—is psychological and/or emotional (which is not to say less real or destructive). Finally, cyber violence may be targeted at individuals or groups, the latter being more characteristic targets of cyber violence than of offline, physical violence, due to the ease with which a single perpetrator can gather information about and make contact with large numbers of people on the Internet. This is another aspect of online violence that can cause it to have widespread effects.

82 comments
  1. Yeah but “don’t worry, we’re not trying to take your games away…” says every jackass who’s now trying to take games away.

  2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The UN needs to be shut down and the building demolished. With everyone still in it. Only way to be sure.

    1. I’m more for the V for Vendetta solution and using one of the unused rail tunnels to send of a bomb laden train under the UN for detonation. They have been a useless entity for the past couple of decades and the officials are snotty pieces of shits (i’ve had the displeasure)

    2. Tsk tsk, that’s wasteful. The building could easily be repurposed. The bureaucrats would make good fertilizer, too.

  3. UN is currently a disgrace. I would disagree on one account but let me explain:
    “the only thing that qualifies as violence, is actual violence”.
    We cannot pretended it’s so cut and dry, often in a domestic situation it is acknowledged that psychological/mental abuse is a real thing, and especially when the woman is an abuser to the man, it is a form of violence that can leave wounds on another person’s mind. Not even the majority of bullying is physical but it can still be devastating. I already stated I was bullied and abused, but I can tell you that the psychological games and every day verbal barrage does a horrible thing to a kid growing up, I sometimes actually preferred being hit. I am only lucky things like Facebook and Twitter or people having fast internet wasn’t a thing back then. There are numerous instances of kids taking their lives over cyberbullying which is basically just bullying that follows you home, and it won’t stop if you don’t read it, if you don’t read it you just won’t know what to expect when you come to school, so your anxiety levels will go up, and the things that they write online can still affect your life, so often kids will feel that they need to see what the bullies are writing to prepare themselves or try to prevent/repair the damage done by slander. HOWEVER, dealing with cyberbullying that is going on should focus ON kids of both gender, NOT poor womyn who are offended because someone disagreed with them on the internet. So yeah, I also agree that what they are doing is only a disservice to the real victims. I care for the topic of bullying maybe a bit more then an average person, and it simply enrages me that these two cunts were allowed to even come close to represent the subject, especially since Anita is the epitome of that one girl at school who would always weasel her way out of trouble with a devilish smirk and lies. What they did is basically gave voice to two bullies, two pretend victims, two privileged “nice girls” that are anything but nice.

    1. Grow up women are children who needs every form of protection they can get. Not much different from the old world, the difference is that they are children without a male authority nowadays.

      1. I would respectfully disagree on that kind of irrational blanket assertion but I do acknowledge your right to hold it, especially since I agree with you on numerous other things you’ve said.

        1. Don’t think he meant this is true; more that this is how society is trying to treat women. And unfortunately, all too many women are willing to take advantage D:

      2. Precisely, that’s what women like Anita are proving about their type in ways we could never do. They have to be protected from the internet, for their own sanity.

  4. In Yellowstone NP we have geysers, poison gas, scalding springs, buffalo that gore people and bears. The whole thing should be bulldozed to make a safe space amusement park. Or people should not go there or realize it isn’t safe in many places.

  5. We need to talk about this CONSTANTLY. We need to make everyone we can aware that this is what the Anti-Gamers want, and the UN’s proposed censorship is entirely at the impetus of ideologues like Quinn and Sarkeesian, and NOT a response to #GamerGate. We need to state clearly and unequivocally that we oppose censorship and our opponents invite it, and the gaming press is cheering them on.

    The UN may be toothless, but any push for censorship needs to be squashed before it learns to walk. This may well be the height of absurdity the onlooking neutrals need to realize how insane our authoritarian opposition really is.

  6. I recently heard of a story where a girl talked her boyfriend into killing himself; would you have done it? Probably not. Would he have done it if she hadn’t pushed him to? Maybe not. Did she need to do that? No.

    So who’s responsible? Both of them.

    The fact is, not everybody’s in the same mental state, and pushing them to do terrible things even online (she did it through the phone) can have terrible consequences, and they might not have happened otherwise. So while I don’t consider it violence, there should be repercussions if someone contributed to something terrible, especially needlessly, as just one party isn’t responsible.

  7. Cyber violence aka pretend violence is not real violence and people making that argument should be ashamed (and silenced for making the world a worse place). Anita and Quinn are LITERALLY backing government aparachik (i spelled that wrong) censorship of the internet to be able to control the flow of information and ideas. It has NOTHING to do with so-called harassment.

    Also, a commission on violence against women and girls? Where’s the commission on violence against men and boys? Unless they’re going to deny it happens (and they’re empirically wrong – see: the harassment and censorship of Eron Gjoni) they need to be paying attention to THOSE issues to (which would just make their shit look even more ridiculous).

    1. In the criminal justice system,cyber based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated feminists at the UN who instigate these vicious internet harassment felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Professional Victims Unit. These are their stories.

  8. The UN is not know for its rational ways, just look at #HeForShe, but this is a new low. At least Watson seems to be a nice person if willfully ignorant of what she supports. Anita and Chelsea are monsters. Might as well say it now before Google and UN censor the Internet completely.

    All the recent happenings lead me to believe that GamerGate was lucky when we stumbled on to Quin. She is incredibly connected and along with Sarkeesian gave us the modern faces of feminism to combat. Now the “not all feminists” fallacy won’t apply. Both of them have been on national TV multiple times and invited by Google and the UN. Once we prove (to the public anyways) what type of people they are we will deal a critical hit on the gender ideologues.

  9. ….UN didn’t exist pre-WW2. That was League of Nations which failed pretty hard bc America wasn’t there waving its weapons around to serve as a backer and was otherwise toothless

    like by all meas let’s talk about how a governing body made up of world powers who get whatever they want doesn’t function well but keep the facts straight

  10. “day-to-day grind of ‘You’re a liar,’ ‘You suck’

    That’s because zoe and anita are, in fact, LIARS WHO SUCK. Quinn is the woman who raped her boyfriend 5 times (or more likely, lied about her definition of rape to score points with radfems), and started that fake crash override network which just steals the money

    meanwhile, anita stole footage, makes the videos slowly, and may well not even be a gamer ?

    i’m not excusing all harassment or anything, but jesus – all personalities on the internet are going to get criticised, and it’s obviously going to be worse if you are, in fact, a liar who fucking sucks

    Also, ‘“Whether you are dead because your partner shot you or beat you up, or you killed yourself because you couldn’t bear cyber-bullying, or you were exposed to many of the sites that lead people to suicide pacts— bottom line, we lose a life.”’

    Listen, you cock. Cyber-bullying is something that happens to 16-year-olds on Facebook. And it’s something that I don’t like either – as a nerd and semi-outcast in the truest sense, I am lucky that I shaped my game up in time as these sites started existing, or I might’ve gotten cyberbullied, and I know how that would’ve felt.

    But this has nothing to do with the actions of adults; can you name a single adult which has killed themselves over cyber-bullying? no, because adults are A: far more mature and stable and B: able to find themselves different peer groups. Moreover, being ‘cyber-bullied’ by someone you don’t even know is near-impossible, in my opinion-it’s all about the peer group that you do know and have to face every day in class.

    Also, what sites have suicide pacts? I guess those, uh, could be cleaned up in some way? *shrug*

  11. Yeah, we really need to stop with the drama and infighting and constant twitter battles with aGG. Getting into arguments with aGG, especially people like Nyberg, is just a waste of time and a distraction. We need goals and OPs, we need to get some real shit done. Winning a twitter argument does nothing for no one.

  12. Like we needed any more proof that Anita is a progressive Jack Thompson with a vagina, now she’s straight up peddling his bullshit. And Zoe is so fucking smug about her shit. The UN is such a damn joke. People are dying in wartorn lands, there are still parts of the world where famine and disease run rampant, and instead of worrying about fixing all that we’re going to protect feminist feelz on the Internet.

    1. Jack for his part was fairly apolitical. He appealed to people on both sides of the aisle.

      Sad though that 10 or so years after his heyday people are dredging his old talking points to attack gaming and gamers. But from within this time.

        1. Both. But when I say appealed I mean to our “wonderful” Congresscritters in DC. I remember politicians from both sides throwing him support. Though I remember Hillary Clinton being the loudest of them.

          1. Probably dates back to when Tipper Gore and her hubby were bitching about music (and getting schooled by Dee Snider).

  13. Tell me…. did you sleep through history classes at school then?

    “Which may have been your fault for putting the Jews in an area surrounded by people that hate them”….which the UN had nothing at all to do with. The Jewish diaspora resulted in Jewish people seeking to re-establish their traditional homeland of Israel, which was (mainly) at that time called the Palestine Mandate and run by Great Britain, as it had been since the end of WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

    “you could have stopped WWII from starting if you weren’t sitting around with your thumbs up your asses”. Really? so all those qualified historians were all wrong then and it was the UNs fault. Well bugger me

    Look sparky….try reading a fecking history book eh?

    1. In defense, the British were, in Lord Balfour’s own words, trying to ‘create a loyal Jewish Ulster in the Middle East’.

      Honestly, we could’ve avoided a lot of problems if we’d just moved all the Jews to the Dakotas and Montana, It’s not like people live there anyways ;D

    1. The looks on their faces are priceless. Its like they see the other skank for the first time and cringe at the ugliness.

      1. Someone should photoshop a thought balloon between both of them that says, “This bitch thinks she’s more harassed and oppressed than me? I bet I make more Patreon dollars than this ho!”

  14. So let me get this straight….Anita thinks that criticism is “harassment”….but she herself is a critic…
    ….
    ….
    ….
    Sorry. My brain had to reboot, since it crashed trying to comprehend the stupidity of it all.
    I’m guessing that it’ll be OK for Anita to be a critic, since it’s only OK when she does it.

    Honestly i’m not worried about this at all. The UN was been as effective at changing anything as a twice used tampon. Not to mention that idea of changing laws to censor all and any dissenting opinions is a major violation of the First Fucking Amendment.

    First Quinn gets Eugene Volokh on his radar with her bullshit gag order on Eron, and now this? She’s just begging to get legally bitch-slapped by Volokh.

  15. As far as I know, Chelsea van Valkenburg never legally changed her name to Zoe Quinn yet the card says “Ms. Zoe Quinn”. Does that mean if I ever get invited to the UN that I could call myself spiderman?

  16. These SJW’s should try playing college football. My Mom, sister, girlfriend and our cheerleaders were all threatened with rape and death and that was before half time of the first game lol. After several years now, none of them were raped or killed and we all live happy lives.

    1. It’s always the same with these hacks. When they talk about sexism they say men are pigs and women are as strong as men but when someone is mean on da internet its “muh harassment, soggy knees, women are weak, FEED MA PATREON!!!”

  17. “Women are equally strong as men” Anita Fraudkeesian.
    “We must protect the poor wymonz on the internet” -Guess who

  18. Please Social Justice Wankers tell us again that your hero is nothing like Jack Thompson. She sided with people who actually cited him. C’mon SOCJUS defend the Queen tell us why she is so much different than Jack just because she gives you a boner.

  19. Until I can pull people’s heads through my computer screen and punch their faces until they’re bloody, there’s no such thing as Cyber Violence.

    Once I can, then sure, it’s real.

    1. On planet earth, yes. But in the SOCJUS world it looks like this:
      Criticism = Harassment
      Trolling = abuse
      Mean Words = violence
      Exposing frauds = rape
      #SJWLogic

  20. Have these UN Clowns nothing better to do? Last year it was that retarded Heforshe bullshit promoted by Emma “bossy” Watson and now its this shit.

  21. I think the UN jumped the shark when they put Saudi Arabia in charge of the Human Rights panel… this is just them continuing their stupidity.

  22. Oh look who’s defending the UN because his waifu was there. Will the motherfucker white knight everyone who has the fraud in it?
    Also remember how Jim Sterling said “She’s not going to take your games away” and GTA 5 was banned afterwards?

    1. The (not) funny thing is that is exactly what they want to do. They want to control what we do. What we own. What we partake in. What we think. They can’t say it out loud but among themselves that is what they always want and they don’t want people to realize it until it is too late.

      1. The (even less) funny addendum to this? They think that something like this proposal will exist in a vacuum. That it won’t be used as precedent for things that we in the west would consider vile and reprehensible (and probably would have considered them vile and reprehensible for the past 300 years or so, if not far longer).

        1. The good thing is: money talks. Politicians care mostly about cash. They wont say “lets censor the net because feelz” and risk losing a ton of dollars while doing so. These skanks want to ban porn, for fucks sake. We all know that porn makes millions dollars each year.

          Its also funny that van valkenburg thinks she will succeed. She failed as nude model, game dev, at the congress and now at the UN.

          Sharkeesians videos have gone from 2.000.000 views to 300.000. They will be forgotten by the end of 2016.

          The bad news is the next fraud will show up and tell us that video games make us pedophiles. Since satanism, violence and sexism have been done to death.

          1. The good news is that it’ll likely be even harder to convince anyone of that.

            The reference to porn is a damned good one. The anti-porn movement began long before these two cunts came into the limelight and will continue long after these two cunts are forgotten. However, porn isn’t banned in capitalist western societies because there’s WAAAAAAY too much money in it. Even as Google Ideas invites these two skanks to the office, big boy Google will throw as much money at the governments of the western world as is necessary to keep from having to aggressively moderate their search engine, because at the end of the day, it’s a good investment.

            Basically, the moralizers achieve nothing other than making money in their niche, because the politicians love their “campaign donations” from corporate interests. In a few years, I expect the only result of the last five years will be that people decide that the whole “social media” thing was a horrible idea. Twitter’s already become unattractive due to the maturation of the outrage culture over there, Tumblr’s been the joke of the internet for years now, and I expect Facebook to really only survive because of people who stick to family and friends.

            See, Gawker existed before the advent of “social media,” and were always in the business of clickbait, but only with Twitter and Tumblr are they able to galvanize mobs, to send hundreds of thousands of people in the direction of someone with whom they disagree in order to ruin the dissenter’s life. Social media platforms need to figure out how to curb THIS behavior, lest people start staying away in fear of being the next target.

          2. These eunuchs and feminist nuns can fuck themselves. Its funny cause they think pedophilia is not wrong but porn on the other hand is.
            If I’d ever catch someone of these sick fucks I’d beat the hell out of them (That goes to you too Nicholas Edwin in case you ever read this)
            I on the other hand prefer full grown women. Also porn is great!

          3. That shows the hypcrisy of SJW’s and how their accusations change when irony strikes and their lies turn against them.
            January: “Gameragte are pedohiles. Pedophiles are evil!”
            Now: “SRHbutts is a pedophile but Pedophiles are not evil”

      2. Everytime Sharkeesian tries another scam, I remember that untalented wannabe musician Johnathan Mann and his “We are not Jack Thompson” song.
        He is somehow right though. Anita Is not Jack Thompson. She is far worse than he ever was.

        Thompson never wanted to censor the whole fucking internet. He also never
        attacked Pokemon.

        Thompson hated violent video game. Ms. “Emegherd Im sucha gamur” wants to retool them or destroy them if she fails. She wont succeed with any of the two.

        The funny thing is everyone protested against SOPA. NOw that these frauds try their SOPA 2.0 These retards (Blob, SRHpedo) support them.

        1. Yeah, Jack but have been an ass (lulz) but he didn’t really want to control what adults did.

          It is astounding though that the so many of my friends have accepted this line of thinking that Anita and other espouses and only because she is a “feminist” and has the “women are always a victim” mentality.

          1. True. The same doesn’t go for that lying twat and her retarded cuck fullmcintosh. These asshats want to control everything. Especially Josh.

        2. Hell. He wasn’t even that discriminating. Thompson hated violent video games because he strongly disapproved of the idea of children being able to get their hands on games.

          I think if video games were exclusively marketed to adults, treated like rated R movies at almost all levels, he’d never have even showed up to talk to anyone.

  23. This fucking bullshit right here.
    I spent a large portion of yesterday morning in an augment with a grown ass adult about pedophilia being bad. He was trying to tell me that my having been molested means I have a “warped view of pedos”
    W.T.FUCK
    He tried to turn the tables and tell me that I was self hating because surly if I hate pedos that much I must be one. When I blocked him several of his friends piled on to tell me what a horrible person I was for hurting the feelings of the poor child fucker (Oh I’m sorry he had taken the MORAL obligation to not fuck kids. . .supposedly)
    I got rammed on twitter, I got rammed on my fucking facebook, for all of my friends to see and (Already in a depressive place because of a year from hell) thought for half a second. . . .maybe 0.0024989 seconds that maybe they where right. That maybe my experience being molested warped my view of these people and maybe, just maybe made me into one. That my hated of them was so absolute that maybe it was time to just let it all go and end it.
    But then I realized I’m a grow ass fucking adult, turned off the computer, put my phone on silent and went a watched a fucking movie! (Hotel Transylvania 2, it was pretty funny but there where some really off color jokes and a few moments genuinely kid scary, I wouldn’t take the little little ones.)
    So pardon me UN as I say FUCK YOU! These two cunts have been coning people out of their time and money for a while now and you gave them a god damn platform to do it. They don’t give a flying fuck about real violence against women they care about violence that they can turn a profit on.

  24. These broken idiots are basically arguing for separate laws for men and women, and past that, for whites/non-whites, gays/straights. This proves feminism is the greatest argument against feminism. They would not only dismantle our Constitution in 5 sec., but destroy themselves in the process, since the strong need no laws, just the weak like Quinn and Sarkeesian. As always, be careful what you wish for.

  25. Can you imagine how this would go down if a case like this went on Judge Judy:

    Anita: …and then Thunderfoot said I only looked at a minor part of a single level in Hitman and that you don’t even have to go to the dressing room and you aren’t supposed to kill civilians and..

    Judge Judy: That’s enough! Thunderfoot was just pointing out flaws in your argument. You are a public figure. Criticism isn’t harassment. Unless you agree that you are harassing Square Enix and Rock Star?

    A: Of course not.

    JJ: Good. Do you think Jay Leno should be sued or silenced because he makes light of recent events, takes jabs a celebrities, or disagrees with a public figure, even if it was the president? That’s ridiculous. It looks like Mr. Thunderfoot just makes videos for his audience like any other Youtuber. His logic isn’t a personal threat. Did Mr. Thunderfoot ever threaten you or physically attack you?

    A: That’s not..

    JJ: Shoosh! Did Mr. Thunderfoot ever send you threats or physically harm you?

    A: But I..

    JJ: Stop! Answer my question, Did Mr. Thunderfoot ever attack you?

    A: No.

    JJ: Case dismissed.

  26. Until 1992, just after the USSR dissolved, the UN was merely a place where Communism and Capitalism duked it out in a political arena. It was the USA and Russia playing metaphorical chess with the rest of the world as their pieces. This may or may not have kept the USA and USSR from going to war, so there is a chance that the UN was a useful body at that time.

    From 1992 to about 2000, the UN was listless and rudderless, with the USA having no one to play metaphorical chess against. The US pretty much stepped back from being an active leader in the UN (at least compared to when they had to contend with the USSR, anyway) and let the multinational (in all the negative senses of that word) aspects of the UN step into the divers seat. Sort of. The USA still had veto power (as did Russia, the former USSR), but they were content to let the money dictate where things went.

    From about 2000 onward, the UN has become the political playground of political Islam. Oil-rich countries in the middle east, particularly Saudi Arabia, have stepped up and started to exert a great deal of influence over the UN. And while this is mostly symbolic, with no actual teeth to bite the USA or most Western nations with, it does have some impact on other nations. This is where my comment starts to be relevant to the article.

    The biggest reason the UN is entertaining this notion (beyond looking good in the West) is that putting something like this into place sets a precedent that hurt feelings is violence. By doing that, they will be able to use the same justification to pass “blasphemy” laws which will technically protect ALL religion, but will only be used to protect Islam – in nations which allow it. This would have no effect on most Western nations at all.

    But it would have devastating effects on women and minorities in Islamic nations, as well as nations like China (who would likely adopt it in ways which protect the Communist party) and Russia (who would likely adopt it in ways to protect the government in power at the time). It would make it nigh-impossible to be a journalist in many places, if hurt feelings were violence and you could legitimately argue that criticizing a government hurts the feelings of the people making up the government. Or, even more sinister, if the precedent of Corporations being People is used as well, so criticizing a corporation becomes an act of violence. Imagine saying “Monsanto is a horrible company for (X^X^X provable reasons)!” and Monsanto says “I’m having you charged with Cyber Assault for hurting the feelings of Monsanto.”

    So, short of it is: If these people actually get the UN to pass something, it won’t directly influence their individual lives. (the only influence will be the exposure they get for going in the first place, and the bump in perceived authority that may come with it) It won’t affect anyone directly in the West, or in nations who are willing to ignore this. But it will make the lives of vulnerable people – primarily women and minorities (racial, religious, sexual, etc.) – in nations that do adopt this sort of idea far more dangerous and make them far more vulnerable to harm.

  27. Zoe Quinn’s Patreon before GG: about $1000. After GG: nearly $4000.

    Feminist Frequency received a substantial donation increase shortly after Sarkeesian received a death threat and she tweeted about fleeing her home.

    Both have made numerous public appearances to speak about harassment, which seems to be their main focus rather than the work they supposedly do. How often does Sarkeesian speak about games in comparison to harassment? When did Quinn last create something of substance?

    Yes, someone is making a living off this cottage industry harassment.

  28. Off topic but sort of relevant – Love the new page format Ralph. One suggestion – Centre and make bigger your site banner at the top of the page. Looks too small and sort of odd off to one side

  29. I can’t help but imagine everyone in that room biting their lip SO hard to keep from laughing. Even the delegates have to know that Zoe and Anita are jokes, especially with references sourced from their own hard drives.

    Considering how toothless the UN is, I doubt there’s really any need to lose sleep over it. Just one big bureaucratic circle jerk that does nothing.

  30. It’s disturbing how closely the slacktivist travails about harassment dovetail with the ardent desire of governments to censor and control the internet and public discourse.

    As absurd as their justifications may be, never forget that petty twitter authoritarians have powerful allies. Because those in power will always seek to keep it by suppressing the capacity for dissent.

  31. The first thing that strikes me is how willing these feminists are to accept the idea of incitement, but not when it comes to encouraging women to lie about rape or the racial incitement that gets a cop assassinated pumping gas. That typical double standard tells me right there it’s the usual con game.

    The second thing is the slip-shod nature of this report’s sourcing. In other words the fems have no argument, just a bunch of bullshit. It’s too bad someone didn’t document the entire sequence of events of Gamergate in real time starting with John Scalzi’s “white privilege” post at Kotaku and Sarkeesian’s Kickstarter, both in May of 2012. Doing so would show a repeated pattern of racial and sexual harassment based on the same principles as anti-Semitism. “Straight white men are bad” is not science and nor are rape culture and patriarchy real things. It’s probably not too late to prepare such a document showing the Gamergate side of affairs and what groups were being aggressive towards who.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.