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?
Oooooh, I get it now, thanks for that number explanation.
Also, thanks vaiyt for that information, that’s what I’ve been wondering. So, not doxxed. No condemnation of PZ Myers or Skepchick for that.
I agree with you kirbywarp, you can, but I think that’s the difference between digging and just repeating information that’s already loosely established with your identity. In any case, if someone’s ok with not being anonymous, by being ok with being (even loosely) associated with their own name, and people repeat their name, then that’s not doxxing.
Oh la oui carumba! 2
@cassandrakitty:
*does this*
“You haven’t provided enough information to say if the comparison was actually unethical or not. You assume it is, but then you carry that assumption over to say that David’s language comparison is unethical in the same way. You haven’t given enough info to show the two situations are parallel.”
It’s unethical to associate someone with the author of a death threat or with a criminal in any shape or form just because they happen to have some ideological and linguistic similarities.
It’s a form of the “guilt by association” fallacy.
“Lies, damn lies, and holy crap someone do something exciting before I fall asleep.”
Please do not accuse me of lying unless you can prove it.
Bras – I bought a bra, it is a very pretty bra what has birds on it. No, this does not indicate that I’m about to go full hipster and put birds on everything.
http://www.investinyourchest.co.uk/cleo-lily-balconette-bra-review
3
3
is this 3?
Damnation! 1
3
Rats, ninja’d by cassandra.
Also, how many topics do you think this troll has gone through since their original trying to prove that David accused Tf of .. uh… something… or something? I’m hazarding a guess at 2/post but I dunno how many times they’ve posted.
You already confessed to being a liar about PZ d00d. Too late to put out the flaming pants, it is documented.
10,000. Or 100,000. Or 100,000,000.
bloody slow connection
1
@SittieKitty:
Yup, I agree. Good to know that the difficult discussion doesn’t even need to happen.
@Chockanga:
So, if a KKKer tries to murder a black family and writes a manifesto before doing so, it would be unethical to associate a speaker at a KKK rally demanding that black people be wiped out to protect the white race? Even if the manifesto and the speech exhibit common phrases?
Nuance, dude, nuance.
“You already confessed to being a liar about PZ d00d. Too late to put out the flaming pants, it is documented.”
PZ contributed to the doxxing of Skep Tickle and approved it. He was integral part of the doxxing, so it’s fair to say he too doxxed Skep Tickle.
Nope, we still don’t want to talk to you even if you play numbers ninja with us.
2
2
poo. 1.
Dunno, troll is too boring to read any more of his crap.
“So, if a KKKer tries to murder a black family and writes a manifesto before doing so, it would be unethical to associate a speaker at a KKK rally demanding that black people be wiped out to protect the white race? Even if the manifesto and the speech exhibit common phrases?”
Those people belong to the same organization, so their linguistic and ideological similarities aren’t the only thing they have in common. Thunderfoot and the author of threat don’t belong to the same organization. Neither would Futrelle and Solanas.
2
dips toe back into number game…
2?
Yeah, it’s hard for two people to belong to the same org when one of them is dead. Still don’t care about your grudge against Meyers.
2
shoot.
3