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?
“I’m not a troll – that’s why I’m trolling, to prove that you’re the real trolls!”
D00d, tf00t is clearly a harasser. VFX anyone?
Hmm, just for funsies, can someone explain to me why the English language suddenly changed in the last hour to a language where “contributed to” = “responsible for” ? Because (silly me) I’ve been in Real World Bubble, where the English language doesn’t change that fast…
Also, lol at some of those goal post shifting statements! First the language butchering and then the blatantly false accusations.
(Oh, and for reference, this is what I was talking about Chock)
Please show me this quotation. By anyone. On this site. Srsly.
And, for another reference, saying “Look at this blog post” … doesn’t dispute anything? I looked, I obviously didn’t see what you did (since I’m still on the WHTM side) so you need to actually like, explain shit, with like, reasons and things, ya know? Preferably without all the emotion and fallacies.
I’m not holding my breath though.
Smells more like butthurt to me.
And our “moral flaws” and “lack of integrity”, as you call them, are none of your fucking business. Why the hell should anyone feel morally obligated to engage with a halfwith like you about that?
@cassandrakitty:
This is what he’s talking about? Christ, Mr. Nuance gets more and more nuanced with each post, with no hint of projection anywhere.
And yet, you come in here prattling about “moral flaws” and “lack of integrity”, in pious tones. And you get upset at me for cussing your fool ass out.
Who’s the fucking Manichean, again?
I think that “ethics in journalism” thing is another bit of speed-of-light-changing English language I missed. I’m 100% sure it doesn’t mean to this person what it means to like, everyone other than GGers…
*halfwit, to correct earlier typo.
“Hey, Mister Nuance, who actually said that?”
Your friends, when they said that “my side” (which doesn’t exist, since I don’t have a side) approves of death threats.
And David Futrelle, when he heavily implied that thunderfoot is in favor of death threats.
““I’m not an MRA, but here’s why I’m going to parrot MRA talking points” reminds me an awful lot of the “I’m not a Republican, but here’s why I’m going to parrot Republican talking points” I used to see.”
Because if you care about not leading others to associate a Youtube critic with a death threat, you’re a MRA. Lovely.
Remember the guy who thought that it was unethical for journalists to review games they didn’t like? Ethics!
@Bina:
Don’t use “butthurt,” please.
@SittieKitty:
If you want to know why that blog post was linked, it has to do with a huge screed against PZ Meyers that came out a short time ago. It was basically an enormous collection of libel written during a time when the “thought leader” concept was disintegrating, and there was a lot of worry over how you treat people you used to look up to when they do something wrong.
Jesse Singal and Amanda Marcotte have both gone through exactly why GG is in fact hurting the practice of ethical journalism.
But Marcotte’s a feminist and Singal once wrote something “SJW-ish” that GGers disagreed with, so I don’t expect the Vulcantroll here to have actually taken any of those points on board. But the movement is totes about journalism and not hating on social justice advocates. *nods*
We’ve seen Sea Lions before, dude, we know how this goes.
“I’m not a halfwit, I just talk an awful lot like one. Gotcha! Checkmate femmunists!!!”
I normally enjoy picking apart the total lack of logic that trolls use, but Chockanga is so fractally wrong that I’m actually not sure where to start. And all these posts are so boring. I’d rather spend my time doing urban sprawl calculations.
Congratulations, Chockanga. You are less interesting than urban sprawl.
Dood, Anita Sarkeesian is a YouTube critic. And she has received actual death treats from followers of Thunderfart, among others. What the fuck is your whiny-ass point?
@chockanga:
Of course you don’t. How convenient.
I know what you think they said. I’m asking for an actual citation, because I’ve been reading along and I haven’t seen what you’ve seen.
How is implying a single person is in favor of death threats implying that everyone on an opposing side does the same? That’s the part/whole fallacy, and you’re the one using it. (Not to mention that David did not, in fact, imply that thunderf00t was in favor of death threats, Mr. Nuance).
“It was basically an enormous collection of libel written during a time when the “thought leader” concept was disintegrating, and there was a lot of worry over how you treat people you used to look up to when they do something wrong.”
It was a satiric piece about PZ Myers’ hypocrisy. It was written with the same standards that PZ uses when he accuses others of rape and sexual harassment.
And PZ confirmed his unethical nature by doxxing the author of a joke which wan’t even part of the original piece. But since he’s a feminist, I guess he can do whatever he wants and you’ll approve his actions nonetheless. In-group morality at his worst.
In-group morality is a person? Rude of him not to introduce himself formally, then.
“Disappointed at your lack of integrity and willingness to discuss your moral flaws.”
Is it just me or is anyone else seeing the abusive asshat red flags this d00d is waving.
“I know what you think they said. I’m asking for an actual citation, because I’ve been reading along and I haven’t seen what you’ve seen.”
thebewilderness | October 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm”When your side is pro death threats to silence women d00d, you don’t have a side. You have a serious problem.”
“How is implying a single person is in favor of death threats implying that everyone on an opposing side does the same? That’s the part/whole fallacy, and you’re the one using it. (Not to mention that David did not, in fact, imply that thunderf00t was in favor of death threats, Mr. Nuance).”
Read my comment again. I was referring to both futrelle and the civil gentlemen I quoted above. “Your side” is with every probability meant to be “those against us feminists”. And Futrelle did imply that thunderfoot is at least indirectly in favor of death threats when he chose to name him as one of possible sources of the ideas behind the infamous death threat.
He’s all “I want to fight, why won’t you fight with me! I arrived pre-enraged and everything! Submit to my authority!”.
This was made even funnier by the fact that my iPod was set to random and “How Deep Is Your Love” popped up in the middle of reading one of his spittle-flecked rants.
The bewilderness is not a gentleman, she is a catshark. Can’t you see the helpful little pictures?
I jumped online to procrastinate about scrubbing out the shower stall. I’d rather go do that now, at least I’ll see some progress at the end of it (a clean shower stall!).
Chockanga, you’re also less entertaining than the gunk stuck in my bathroom tiles. Well done.
“Is it just me or is anyone else seeing the abusive asshat red flags this d00d is waving.”
Because when you call out unethical behavior, you’re an abuser. I could tell you a couple of things about abuse. Abusers think you’re always in right and refuse to admit their moral failings. They’re also prone to call people who shed light on their dark side “abusers”.
NO U!
(Pt, what? 3? 4? I lost count.)