#GamerGate, meet #Ferguson; #Ferguson, meet #GamerGate

Proxieme,
Usually “don’t read the comments” is a good rule but apparently that’s not the case at the Mary Sue. This comment on that article wins the internet today

Hey Assassin’s Creed, it looks like Bloomberg Businessweek managed to animate a woman, and they’re not even a game studio.

These trolls keep claiming that none of this is coming from “real” gamergaters.

I randomly checked out a couple of the people quoted in the OP. “Hotel Inspector 8255,” “Shota Loli Trap” and “Roguelzel” all have thousands of tweets, hundreds of followers, and appear to be actively tweeting support to @gamergate. If these aren’t real gamergaters, who are? Are there any actual gamergaters out there, or is everyone involved in gamergate not a true gamergater?

Reblogged this on SHES TOO LOUD.

Also, is our friend Shota Loli Trap part of the super seekrit gamergate plan to win over Twitter and thus defeat the SJWs of doom? Cause honestly, you really couldn’t come up with a more “it came from 4chan!” name than “Shota Loli Trap”.

@freemage, the “system” I’m referring to is the system of indictment that needs strong “probable cause” to charge someone; in other words the system that makes it difficult to bring criminal charges against a person. I was not referring to the criminal justice system in general.

I agree that this system is far too harsh on society’s underdogs. You are correct that I was far too generous when I implied that it was a system that protects everyone equally. It is not, and this is wrong.

BUT, and this is a big but, the solution should to tighten the system for minorities, not to loosen the system for everyone else. Remember, its the privileged that can afford the expense of a good lawyer and the time off from work. It’s the privileged that can weather the social stigma associated with being charged with a crime and found innocent, it the privileged that can expect to get a fair trial and don’t need the extra layer of protection of a suspicious grand jury. If I showed my privilege by overstating how much the system protects “all”, you showed your previlege by underestimating how much it already protects minorities. After all, as a privileged, middle class, (presumably) able-bodied, CIS, white male, you have the best chances of surviving a criminal trial.

Also, let’s also mention something about grand juries; grand juries have to (reasonably) believe that someone is likely guilty before they can indict them. It’s a lower standard than that needed in a criminal trial, but it’s still higher than “well there’s questions and disagreements about what happened”. There must be a “preponderance of proof” against a person.

@Cassandra, honestly I have no clue what you are talking about. I never compared destroying property to taking a human life ffs. Obviously they are not similar. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misread. However if you are going to start making shit up, then I’m going to have to start ignoring you.

Also, just to clarify the progressive levels of proof needed in the justice system; Legal Burden of Proof from Wikipedia. To indict there should be over 50% probability that the person is guilty.

Off hand comment I mean.

Wasn’t beegees with the property damage is assault thing, btw, was Chrissa. Not that there’s much difference between the two in terms of their complete inability to get along with anyone else.

I’m pretty sure beegees has pulled this specific sort of nonsense before? Also, today in “words mean things”, property damage is not assault. Property is replaceable, people are not.

Yes, she has, to the point where David put her on moderation for a while.

Wasn’t Beegees the one who argued that people getting welfare should be drug tested that one time? I seem to remember that I inadvertently started that fight by making an off [hand] comment about it.

Yup, that was the one.

I’m leaving that up to David, beegees. If he’s still got you on moderation … ::shrug::

Jesus Christ, does every single troll fixate on Cassandra?

Also, it’s not surprising that Bob McCulloch didn’t get an indictment. It seems that he actively tried to avoid getting one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347684/-The-Ferguson-grand-jury-was-never-intended-to-bring-an-nbsp-indictment#

@Alais

Sorry about the name. My phone ate this twice so I hope it comes out ok.

Yes, its clear that the prosecutor didn’t want to indict. It’s obvious that he didn’t think the forensics proved Darren Wilson guilty and that he didn’t find the witnesses credible. (Although I think it’s bullshit to attack someone’s credibility based on mental illness, that’s another issue). But I fail to see why I should want the prosecutor to want to indict someone he didn’t think was guilty?

Look I’m honestly here in good faith. When I first heard about Micheal Brown I heard about a kid shot in the back while trying to surrender and I was horrified. But then the story started to change. The forensics proved Brown’s friend wrong. The forensics couldn’t prove the cop’s story wrong. Many of the witnesses supported the cop’s story or had issues with credibility.

Honestly I want to know why I should care that this weak ass case didn’t go to a criminal trial when there’s probably been tons of black kids shot by cops in the meantime. Where am I wrong?

Prosecutor’s literally have the power to put someone’s life or liberty in jeopardy with their decision to charge someone with a crime. I wish they were more reluctant to do it with people other than cops.