So I was idly perusing Janet “JudgyBitch” Bloomfield’s Twitter yesterday, and I came across an alarming tweet. It seemed as though Bloomfield had somehow penetrated the 47 levels of security protecting the Feminist HIgh Council to discover incontrovertible evidence of Operation Wicked Succubus. You know, the feminist plan to eliminate all men (except for me).
https://twitter.com/BloomfieldJanet/status/523458962704699393
Her followers were aghast:
And naturally one of them brought up #GamerGate.
There were a few others, but you get the idea.
It never occurred to any of them to, you know, try to find out just who the bald man advocating killing all men was. Or who exactly he was talking to.
So I decided to do some serious investigative journalism to see what I could uncover. I typed out “‘eliminate men as a gender’ security” into a little known internet “search engine” called Google, and boldly clicked on the first result.
This led me to a Tweet with a URL in it. Bravely, I clicked on that URL and found myself looking at a video of a presentation at something called Monitorama PDX 2014 — clearly the code name for one of the Feminist Conspiracy’s conventions.
I looked it up in Google and discovered a web page for the event, which had been held in May. It was described as an “An Open Source Monitoring Conference & Hackathon.”
Ah, clearly a clever Feminist code name.
And then I decided to look up the name of the speaker: James Mickens. Turns out the guy works at Microsoft, one of the companies at the center of the Misandrist Conspiracy. Mickens is also the author of a number of papers, with titles like “Pivot: Fast, Synchronous Mashup Isolation Using Generator Chains” and “Mugshot: Deterministic Capture and Replay for JavaScript Applications.”
Obviously, some high level feminist theorizing.
Then I decided to watch the video. And I was shocked!
Because it wasn’t a speech about killing all men after all. It wasn’t even a feminist speech. No, it seemed instead to be a highly technical talk about internet security issues, illustrated with a lot of silly slides. Like this:
And this:
I must confess that I didn’t get the overwhelming majority of his jokes. But he audience seemed to find these slides, and much of what he said, hilarious. So if you ever need to hire a comedian who can joke about Synchronous Mashup Isolation Using Generator Chains, Mickens is your guy.
So where does the whole “kill all men” thing come from?
Well, I skipped ahead a bit in the video until I found a section in which Mickens talked about the dumb things people do that can undermine even the most sophisticated security setup.
His example: gullible, horny men who are tricked into “friending” hackers on Facebook posing as hot babes — even when there are pretty obvious indications that the hot babes aren’t really hot babes at all.
Things like: saying they graduated from Central University, even though there is no school by that name in the US, or spelling the name of their profession wrong.
These are all good clues, he said, that the hot babe you just friended on facebook was really this guy:
Given that men are regularly duped with simple tricks that play on their horniness and gullibility, Mickens joked, maybe the real goal for people trying to design secure systems should be the elimination of all men.
So that’s where the slide comes from.
And by the way, that whole bit of his killed — not as in “killed all men” but as in “got giant laughs from the mostly male audience.” Expecially the part about killing all men.
If you want to see the whole bit, starting with Mary and ending with “eliminate men as a gender,” it starts at around 20:40 in the video.
Men’s Rights Activists: more gullible than guys who friend Mary from Central University on Facebook.
NOTE TO EXTREMELY LITERAL-MINDED MRAS: That bit about the feminist plot to kill all men (except me) at the start of this post was a joke. Feminists don’t really intend to kill all men (except me).
Or do they?
Is he claiming that David is a member of the Society for Cutting Up Men. Does he know David is a man. I think he has Valerie mixed up with Judgy B. She is the one threatening to shoot David.
Oh great, another Gater.
Look, I’m an actual journalist, and you’re full of shit. First, let’s go over “ethics”. Your mob of screaming macaques is chasing an imaginary enemy (waaaah sjws are gonna take away my vidya) because a Breitbart.com hack showed you journalists communicating with each other and you swallowed it as proof of collusion. Mistaking the status quo as a “politics-free” environment (a mark of privilege if there ever was one), #gamergate has been regurgitating memes from conservative politicians, conspiracy theorists, MRAs and every reactionary under the sun. You’re as fair and balanced as Fox News.
Now, to your specific claim. This is not a journalistic site, though being a #gater I guess you can’t see the difference between journalism and parody. Thunderf00t is but one among many people who are cited here as creating a welcoming environment to death threats, but somehow you, who are totes not a fan, are here defending him, and only him, from an accusation nobody made. Your ploy is so transparent it’s basically invisible.
@cassandrakitty
Maybe not a discussion, but he sure can blow smoke for two hours.
If this is true, I am against it. However, I’m confused where PZ Myers is the one doxxing if Skepchick is? And (not knowing but assuming it’s true based on this conversation and other people’s explanations) if SkepTickle has published their own name, then uh… Skepchick isn’t doxxing? Just repeating already established information.
Also, I’m not the one scrawling through twitter to find shit to back your shit up. You made the statement, you find the evidence.
P.S. This is only one of three (or more, I’d have to go back and check and that’s lots of ~words~) issues I brought up… Just sayin’
@SittieKitty:
The end of this article is where he supposedly does the doxxing. You decide. I personally don’t think you can use the language of doxxing when it involves revealing a professional’s failure to adhere to certain standards, regardless of whether the act itself was right or wrong.
“Remember your little rant about nuance? Here’s another example of how you can’t handle it. Saying a “side” is pro-death threat here is not saying that every single member of that side is pro-death-threat.”
Of course not. But in this blog there’s the idea that if you associate with people who are pro-death-threats you contribute to the environment that causes death threats, and therefore you’re morally (not legally, morally) responsible for the death threats, too.
“No, David is not saying anything about Thunderfoot approving of the death threats.”
He’s not stating it outright, but the implicit message is rather clear.
“The author may have picked up similar language.”
There was no need to cite thunderfoot as the possible source of the “poison” trope. Referring to opinions you don’t like as some kind of poison is a common trope.
Futrelle deliberately picked out Thunderfoot to associate him, albeit in a vague manner, not liable to slander lawsuits.
“You don’t understand nuance,”
I understand it more than people who want to defend Futrelle singling out Thunderfoot as a possible source of the “poison” quote. I understand what he’s trying to do, and it’s working perfectly.
“you leap to extraordinary lengths in an effort to accuse people you don’t like of bad behavior”
I’m not the one who implied a connection between someone I don’t like and a death threat, basing my analysis on the word “poison” used against feminism.
“take astounding measures to deflect criticism of people you do like”
I’m not defending anyone.
“and you continually misrepresent your opponents so you can accuse them of doing the same.”
I’m not misrepresenting anyone. If anything you’re the ones who immediately called me a misogynist with no evidence for this claim.
“I’m not defending the person who I keep defending, I’m just here to point out your moral failings. You know, as a public service. Respect mah moral authoritay!”
@kirbywarp, but is it known that Skeptickle is that person? Because if it is, then it’s not doxxing. It’s just repeating established information.
Also, lol at the idea that I said “Explain everything about why you think what you do” and this troll’s response was 2 sentences long with no explanation.
Do you know what it means to single out? Inego Montoya wants to have a word.
Hey Chock, can you blockquote? It’s hard to read your shit when I can’t distinguish it from what you’re quoting… blockquotes are
=
Lol, leave it to wordpress to correct when I don’t want it to
Blah blah blah
1
I give up, use on either side of blockquote and /blockquote.
(Maybe this time will work? I really need a preview…)
2
> < only reversed…
(This is the face I'm making atm about this stupid autocorrect as well, so it's apropos.
“(Did the SCUM manifesto even inspire an attempt on someone’s life? I legit haven’t heard anything like that)”
From wikipedia: “On June 3, she [Solanas] sought out Girodias, who was gone for the weekend. She then went to The Factory, where she found Warhol. She shot at Warhol three times, with the first two shots missing and the final wounding Warhol. She also shot art critic Mario Amaya, and attempted to shoot Warhol’s manager, Fred Hughes, point blank, but the gun jammed. Solanas then turned herself in to the police. She was charged with attempted murder, assault, and illegal possession of a gun. She was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and pleaded guilty to “reckless assault with intent to harm”, serving a three-year prison sentence, including psychiatric hospital time.”
“I personally don’t think you can use the language of doxxing when it involves revealing a professional’s failure to adhere to certain standards, regardless of whether the act itself was right or wrong.”
It was clearly a satire of PZ’s own accusations against Micheal Shermer.
“Also, I’m not the one scrawling through twitter to find shit to back your shit up. You made the statement, you find the evidence.”
https://twitter.com/skepchicks/status/519923173580873729
” if SkepTickle has published their own name, then uh… Skepchick isn’t doxxing? Just repeating already established information.”
When Jen McCreight was doxxed by Justicar, he actually just gathered data that publicly available. Do you mean that he didn’t dox her? Relevant link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/12/justicarintegralmath-wretched-skeevy-piece-of-internet-offal/
3
Oh, are we playing ignore the troll? In that case – should I buy a cardigan with a ladybug pattern (black dots on red background), yes or do? Too cutesy?
Yes or no, rather. Also 4.
Using data pulled from the 2010 US Census, Multnomah County, Oregon has 162 urbanized census tracts, comprising 129.66 square miles of land area and containing 702,700 persons. This equates to an urbanized density of 5419.56 persons per square mile. Compare with the county’s overall density of 1704.92 persons per square mile when all census tracts (both urbanized and non-urbanized) are considered.
5
What’s the counting?
Doxxing is kinda a nebulous term, like porn. You know it when you see it. That’s not really helpful I know, but it’s like – someone mentioning Skepchick by name (established public information that’s readily available), vs someone going digging. Also, I’m still confused as to how PZ Myers doxxed someone who was actually allegedly doxxed by someone else…
But yea, I’m not arguing any longer, I stand by my previous comment that this troll is a boring and terrible at arguing troll and I’m done.
What would you wear the ladybird cardie with, cassandra? I can see you rocking it with a little black dress/skirt and boots.
6
“Skep tickle” decided to give away her own information after Ophelia Benson called her by her first name in a comment. Since then, she’s been pretty comfortable with not being anonymous, what with using her real-life medical degree as leverage to insinuate PZ Myers caught gonorrhea from sleeping with convention attendees.