Categories
#gamergate anti-Semitism antifeminism empathy deficit entitled babies evil SJWs hypocrisy irony alert literal nazis memes memesplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA

Is this anti-Semitic cartoon of Anita Sarkeesian harassment or legitimate criticism? You'll be surprised by the answer these dudes gave!

Yeah, let's see your data for this.
Yeah, let’s see your data for this.

So I found the meme above on a Facebook page called “Feminist Hypocrisy.”

I also found this familiar pic posted there as well.

10300269_306328116233228_6929891633765431344_n

And this highly edifying discussion underneath it:

anitagoldstar

Huh. I’m seeing some hypocrisy here, but it doesn’t look much like feminist hypocrisy.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

184 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Skye
Skye
5 years ago

I’m going to add to the Taruhi should get lost voices because that whole discussion on xeir (?) part started off bad and got increasingly worse and ewww

Orion
5 years ago

Okay, so you’re taking issue with something that isn’t her main point and that she hasn’t addressed directly or fleshed out in a comprehensive manner. That does not make much sense to me.

I just don’t understand this attitude at all. Look, if you don’t think this is the place to talk about the content of her videos, that’s one thing. But if the videos are on-topic, I would think that the entire video is on-topic. This is a thread where Joe Klemmer said “no rational person could be upset by any of her points” and Scott said “the closest thing I’ve seen to a legit criticism is that she sometimes picks bad examples.” That’s why I stepped in to share my own view.

I’ve always felt that looking critically at the entirety of a piece is a way of demonstrating respect for the writer. When someone basically on my side has taken issue with one detail in something I’ve written, I’m flattered, because it indicates to me that they are taking me seriously. Furthermore, I thought that demonstrating what honest criticism would look like would be a good way to repudiate the bullshit harassment. I dunno; Growing up, I spent a lot of time on discussion boards where the posters could be quite abrasive and focused on one-upsmanship. I have fond memories of those spaces because they did help me refine my own work, but I know that women don’t always have the same experience and that there’s a reason those spaces are invariably male-dominated. I like to think that I’ve moved past that ethos, but I’m open to the idea that I haven’t fully.

she could have a comprehensive theory that totally encompasses everything you want it to include. Or that makes a really airtight case for why it shouldn’t include those things. Or, for that matter, maybe she just hasn’t thought about it that hard because it’s not her point and it’s not the thing she wants to argue about.

I’d be very surprised if she had a satisfying theory already worked out, because I don’t think a good theory could include the statements that she’s made. If she did, and took the time to articulate it, that would be really beneficial to everyone; I don’t see why we should pretend to be satisfied until that happens. On the other hand, if she’s hasn’t really thought about it, I’d think that would be even more reason to point out her missteps. People generally do hold dogmatic attitudes because they haven’t thought them through, and it’s critical feedback that encourages them to reconsider their opinions. If she decides that presenting her own aesthetics is peripheral to her project, then that’s fine, but in that case I’d think her videos would be more effective if she avoid simplistic editorializing on topics she hasn’t thought out.

katz
5 years ago

I’d be very surprised if she had a satisfying theory already worked out, because I don’t think a good theory could include the statements that she’s made. If she did, and took the time to articulate it, that would be really beneficial to everyone; I don’t see why we should pretend to be satisfied until that happens.

…You are now literally demanding that she talk about what you want her to talk about.

Orion
5 years ago

No, I’m not. She also has the option of not talking about that topic at all. Making a few hasty, ill-considered statements during a video about something else entirely is the worst of all worlds.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Honestly, Orion?

>.<

andiexist
andiexist
5 years ago
Reply to  Orion

Hades, dude, do you not realize you just said she either has to say you-approved things or shut up? Go flounce your ‘splaining self into a sea of Legos.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

She also has the option of not talking about that topic at all.

http://media0.giphy.com/media/7mamDxggOxlJK/200_s.gif

andiexist
andiexist
5 years ago

Woops, thought the “reply” button would tag him on that. >_<

Orion
5 years ago

I guess I don’t understand how responding to an opinion piece is the same thing as making a demand. I think some of the things she say are wrong. If she agreed and wanted to fix it, she’d have two options; either to stop saying the wrong thing, or start saying something right instead. If she doesn’t agree with me, she also has the option of carrying on as she is. And that’s fine. I haven’t contacted her directly, and I haven’t said she should stop making videos. I’ve said the videos are generally good and the public discourse is richer for having them.

I’ve recommended her videos to friends, but I have to do so with the caveat that I don’t think certain parts of them hold up. I’m not saying she has no right to her opinion, just that I feel the videos would be more effective if they were more focused. I don’t understand what the desired response is to a video like this (I literally don’t; I’m not totally sure whether she’s positioning herself as more like an opinion columnist, more like an academic critic, or what), but I always imagined it included starting a discussion about what arguments were convincing or unconvincing.

Taruhi
Taruhi
5 years ago

Okay. Now I can address things more efficiently. Okay, into my emails to address everything one by one.
@ParadoxicalIntent
“Intent isn’t fucking magical. Saying “I could stab you” is just as threatening as “I will stab you” when it comes from someone who you don’t know, because you don’t know how far they’re willing to go. I’m sick of all these “False flag!” bullshit arguments based on some absolutely bullshit semantics. Why is this okay to say at all? To anyone?”
I’ll agree, it’s still frightening to say “I could” because it’s still personal. That was a bad example on my part. Let me clarify the point I was trying to make: The guys in the picture were divorcing themselves from the equation. In fact, one was just calling her ugly. They didn’t show any intent to act on it themselves. So, sorry. That’s on me. I’m bad at examples. However, if you finished reading the comment that the quote you used was from I said “Are -ANY- of these statements -good-? Absolutely not.” I was saying it’s not okay to say to anyone, but we can’t stop them because they have the freedom to say it.
“How many times do we have to sit back and assume nothing will happen until it’s too fucking late to do anything about it”
When did I say nothing should be done? My only argument this entire times have been that these 5 guys did not harass in those 3 pictures. When threats are issued, like Anita’s school event, I think it should be taken serious before it’s too late. Hell, I was in the camp of asking people to relinquish fire arms doing the speech knowing that, if they refuse, they will be watched carefully and give Anita even extra cover in the form of something like a bullet-proof shield guarding her, just to ensure the lowest risk possible.
Threats should be taken seriously and precaution should be taken for them. People should be investigated for the threats they issue and served properly. However, I also believe we have to acknowledge the difference between threats and jokes.
“No one deserves this. At all. No one deserves to be bombarded with rape and death threats. How fucking dare you try to say that someone should have to suck it up instead of checking the fucking problem at the source.”
Again, you misunderstand me. I’m saying that this, specific instance is passable because no one has to suck it up. The posts weren’t intended to be seen by Anita, even if someone screen capped them and sent them to her. Could they turn around and send threats afterwards directly to her? Sure. That’s when they need to be properly investigated. These pictures aren’t enough.
Finally, read what you paraphrased and what I actually wrote again. Paraphrase: “Anita isn’t being harassed.” Actual quote: “Which is why I claimed they weren’t harassing her. They are, by definition, doing nothing of the sort.”
You didn’t account for my entire quote when assuming my statement. When I said she wasn’t being harassed, I was referring those 5 guys specifically.
@Contrapanglass
“… So, you’re arguing that because four dudes posted genocidal and nasty stuff to a Facebook hate page, there’s no harassment.”
Not “no harassment”, that they weren’t harassing.
““Hate speech should be a-okay as long as it’s between friends? And it’s totes not harassment if you don’t say it to their face! It’s just… healthy venting!””
It’s not harassment if the other party is involved in some way. I honestly must have screwed up my wording somewhere considering everyone seems to think that I’m just alright with hate speech. No. Seriously. It’s disgusting and disturbing. I just don’t have any right to stop someone from saying it. If they say it to someone to intentionally degrade or insult them, then that person has every right to do something about it. Lawsuits exist for that.

Taruhi
Taruhi
5 years ago

@Daisyrawks
“Further, are you really laboring under the delusion that nobody who views this shit appreciatively is forwarding it on to Ms. Sarkeesian or that none of it was originally posted to show off what the poster had already sent to her?”
All of that was incorrect, actually. My delusion is that they posted it in an area where Anita would never go. If someone forwarded it to Anita, then that doesn’t put them at fault. Their intent doesn’t change. They had the sensibility to keep it away from Anita. They shouldn’t deal with the police for it. They should be dealt with for the any threats or inflammatory things they say -to- her. Not just about her. If they had sent threats or otherwise to her, then the authorities should get involved, but this shouldn’t be representative of any intent to commit genocide without further, more direct incident.
@Renegade
“Seriously? Posting something on a website that has the business model of “keep track of what is being said by whom, where, and how often so we can sell that information” is supposed to make us believe that a conversation is intended to be more private?”
Not more private. It’s very much public, but it’s in a very specified area where none of them can even tag her without having her approved. It’s not public, but it’s restricted. It’s not going to display to her without action by her or a third party.

Taruhi
Taruhi
5 years ago
Reply to  Lea

@Lea
Okay, you have a lot of responses to. This is probably going to be an equally long one to Paradoxical’s. Starting out:
““She should be put in a concentration camp and then murdered” = just venting” =/= “She deserves a golden star” “and a nice shower”
One guy said she deserved to be killed. One used a, I believe, nazi symbol in one of the pictures, one said she deserved that she should be identified as Jewish. And one said she’s ugly. Two, at most, referred to nazi activity. At most, one said she “deserved” a gas chamber shower. No one said she “should” die. Regardless, saying someone deserves to die is a very negative and uncalled for statement.
“Telling someone you are going to kill them is assault. No one knows your intent but you, so it’s pretty rich that you expect a woman to prove intent before she can call her assault and assault.”
If it were physical assault, sure, a spade is a spade in that sense. However, verbal assault, what that is, is an entirely different, and more complicated story.
“Don’t fucking tell me that the intention here is not to terrorize this woman by making her afraid everyday of her life. Telling someone you are going to kill them is not OK because it doesn’t scare you that men chased her from her home in fear for her fucking life. It never will be. In fact, you’re an apologist for them. They’ll never send death threats to your mom or your kids.”
The intention isn’t to terrorize Anita. No, it’s not okay to tell someone you’re going to kill them. Even in my poor excuse for an example, it wasn’t okay. You keep saying I think things are okay, even after I say otherwise. You have some strange logic.
By the way, actually, my mother just recently got through a several month long court case to get a restraining order on someone who was threatening her. That was just incredibly rude for you to say.
“you’ve even stated that these men are all one banned death threat away from becoming rapists and murders.”
Wrong. I said they’re one death threat away from being harassers. Where dd you get rapists and murderers?
“You said it wasn’t a big deal because she was a woman and women should just accept this as harmless in order to be considered adults”
WOAH! Excuse, but I’m going to yell for a second because this is the biggest lie in this entire article. I have NEVER said any of this was just acceptable because she’s a woman or that women in general should accept it. I haven’t even brought gender as a factor into this AT ALL. Where in the ACTUAL hell did you pull that from? That is INCREDIBLY disingenuous and I’m shocked that you’d even accuse that.
“The two different standards you hold men and women to are obvious to everyone but you.
You came here a misogynist and you remain a misogynist. Fix it or fuck off.”

No. My standard between men and women are the same. Everything that applies for men, within reason, applies to women and vis versa. Men and women are equally capable of harassment in the same ways.

“Considering you’re condescending comment to me, your whining about how we expect too much of you is hilarious! If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have time to write.”

Wait… What? I never said that you all expect too much of me. I said “I like to do this, but I can’t right now.” That has nothing to do with what you expect of me and everything to do on how I like to operate. And yes. I didn’t have time to read and so I didn’t write. That’s kind of what I said. “I can’t keep up right now, so I’m going to give it another shot later.” In other words, “I can’t read, so I can’t right.”

“Did you just try to neg us?”

Honestly, I had to look up what this word meant. So either I’m a PUA now or you are. I think both assertions are wrong, but if you’re a PUA, you’re -probably- in the wrong blog. Anyway, no. I wasn’t giving a veiled compliment. I was saying that there were better articles with more heated comments than this one. You’re really bad at asserting things.

@isidore13

“Zie admits zie is basically here to play devil’s advocate by sealioning everyone here, and that’s just… overdone.”

Oh! Thank you for not gendering me! Some people have things they could learn from you. However, I think you misunderstand my “admission” No, when I agreed I was playing devil’s advocate, I was more referencing that I seem to be alone in how I think and that has forced me into a position where people keep asserting things that aren’t true, but I have to respond to anyway. Sealioning isn’t my admission at all. It was an assertion from someone else. Actually, three now, but still. I’m not here to sea lion.

Taruhi
Taruhi
5 years ago
Reply to  andiexist

@andiexist

“So did other people miss that Taruhi said that white nationalist websites are a-ok as long as they don’t do anything? Because NOPE.”

Perhaps I made another error in how I worded things, so let me clarify. White nationalist websites are “okay” to the extent that they’re allowed to exist by their freedom of speech. They’re allowed to exist and that right should only be denied when they’re proven to act or start to show signs of wanting to act on their beliefs. What they say isn’t inherently “alright” or “good”, but they’re allowed to say it. I’ll expand on this in a bit.

“Though it was painfully obvious that you are here in bad faith, I was willing to engage with you in good faith. But no. Just no. Those sites are dangerous BECAUSE their awful culture makes the general culture worse.”

Which is why, restricting them to just those websites is more of a quarantine than an eradication of their ideals. Although, I’m still not here in bad faith.

“And now you try to claim that you are NOT sea-lioning? Laughable, if you hadn’t come here to defend horrible specimens of humanity.”

Now, here’s an assertion I don’t understand. I wasn’t defending them. I was trying to call a spade a spade. No defending. Their actions are terrible and unnecessary. I’m not going to say the police need to be called on them or go under investigation, but that doesn’t make them good, just not bad enough to investigate every joke.
There. That should be everyone responded to. I had to split them up though, so sorry for that.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

…I miss Orion the First, or Other Orion. Name Twins with colored blotches make things complicated.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

How is saying someone deserves a gas shower not the same as saying they should die?

Taruhi
Taruhi
5 years ago

TL;DR – Semantics
Deserve: “1. To merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation. 2. to be worthy of, qualified for, or have a claim to reward, punishment, recompense, etc.”
Should: “1. simple past tense of shall. 2. (used to express condition) 3. must; ought. 4. would”
Shall: “1. plan to, intend to, or expect to 2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will. 3. must; is or are obliged to. 4. (used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations)”

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Enjoy the ban, asshole!

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
5 years ago

Also, when it comes to threats, out of sight is not out of mind. If someone talks about how person x deserves to die, etc, it is in the best interests of the safety of person x that person x know that this is being said.

Yup. Bill O’Reilly probably never said a word to George Tiller, but just by relentlessly talking about him and calling him names he made Tiller a target and arguably led to his death. You don’t have to directly threaten someone to be a threat to them.

Orion
5 years ago

Okay, I’ve tried to change my gravatar to something more distinctive. Hopefully it worked. Contrapangloss, I am the first Orion. I’ve been hanging around since the days of NWO and Meller, although I mostly lurked then. I’ve been commenting fairly often for a year or so, though I have definitely put my foot in it a few times. I’m not the one who was stalking LBT or the other one who appeared briefly about a month ago. I’m a disabled male undergraduate literature student living in Chicago.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Sweet. Thanks, Orion!

We had a teal orion and a green orion and a blue orion (and didn’t we have a beige Orion at one point?) and it’s nice to actually be able to attribute the correct comments to the correct orion.

So, yeah, thanks.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

That said, yeah, this might not be the best thread for hashing out what you do and do not value with respect to Anita’s work.

Also, David, thanks for the ban! It came at a good time, based on the sudden odd formatting crisis that our troll just went through…

ParadoxicalIntention
5 years ago

Bless your face, David. I’m not sure how much more of that bullshit justification and “it’s not really harassment u guiz because semantics!” I could take.

mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

I will just ask the universe*, what the hell is it about jerks and dictionaries??!!!?

This dictionary shit comes up regularly on the climate wars blogs … and in atheism … and in feminism / harassment, all the rest of it. It’s neverbloodyending.

* nobody here needs to reply.

Daisyrawks (@daisy20071)

It’s about decontextualizing everything and then defining it out of existence, IMO. Unless, of course, it’s something that effects them, in which case your direct quote of the entirety of what they said in full context is quote mining.

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
5 years ago

Our feminist friend Katie told me that the troll was tedious should be banned. I said that he was tedious and deserved to be banned. Thank goodness the troll turned up with the final ruling from Merriam-Webster, because before that I thought Katie and I were in agreement about the proper course of action. I didn’t realize that I was merely sending thoughts out into the universe while Katie was taking a firm stand. Thanks for the clarification!

Too bad that David decided that zie both deserved to be and should be banned. How will we ever know what words mean without zir wisdom?

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
5 years ago

Oops, a “he” sneaked into the the second sentence when I meant to use “zie.” Sorry about that, I don’t want to misgender anyone, no matter how tedious our feminist friend Katie thinks they might be.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

The message I often see from misogynists is, “If it isn’t a big problem you can’t talk about it and I will never consider any of your problems anything other than trivial. Smile, Sweetheart. I’ll tell you when you can speak up.”

Our troll here was doing mental back flips to try to minimize a woman being terrorized. I’m sure all the guys who have harassed her or encouraged other guys to harass her will deny that they did anything wrong. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts this troll has done one or the other since he said he came here to look into David’s point of view aka “women are people”. Some of these guys better hope that the FBI never looks for them because they will find them and I have a feeling some of them may eventually do some time behind bars. They should.

Anita has been on the Colbert Report. She’s speaking in the Sydney Opera house. She’s been noticed by a wider world than the ‘Gaters seem to know exists. The authorities won’t put up with this online version of burning crosses on lawns for much longer. These men sending death and rape threats better get their stories straight because taking something off the internet is like taking piss out of the ocean.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

I maybe should not have used that analogy.

N.P.S.
N.P.S.
5 years ago

Ugh. Yes, fuck off back to stormfront, taruhi. Or the red pill. Or both. Pretty sure it’s both.

LBT (with open writeathon!)

Goddamn, Taruhi was still at it? That was a huge slab of badly formatted wordvomit right there!

kellyrtillson
5 years ago

Oh my god… I didn’t get the “gold star” thing until I read the comments. 🙁 Ouugghh. That gives me unpleasant chills. Something like that can legitimately be reported to Facebook as hate speech, right?

misseb47
misseb47
5 years ago

Yesterday I thought this thread was dead! I logged on to my email just then and saw a shit load of notifications. I made the mistake of clicking on one of them to find out what was going on…… URGH!! Taruhi is such an arsehole. Thank you David for banning him. <3 And well done to Paradoxicalintent, Lea, Sparky, Isidore13, Daisyrawks, Andiexist and others for dealing with him so well. I would have ran out of patience a long time ago. All of you deserve medals, seriously.

PS

Taruhi-You do know that it is the hate that is the problem and that this toxic culture gets innocent people killed, right? It doesn't matter if the victims are aware of this vitriol at the time, it doesn't matter if the hatred is expressed in private, it doesn't matter if no one except that group can read this stuff. It doesn't matter at all. Do you know why doesn't matter? BECAUSE HATRED BREEDS HATRED AND IT STILL ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO GO OUT THERE AND KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE! How many Eliot Rodger’s and Ben Moynihan’s do there have to be before you get that? How many innocent women, black people, gay people, Trans people, Muslims, Sikhs and Jews have to die for you to get that into your thick skull?

Anna
Anna
4 years ago

I thought this horrible shit was banned?