Anonymous said: why do black people use you in the wrong context? such is "you ugly" instead of "you're ugly" I know u guys can differentiate, it's a nuisance
you a bitch
It’s called copula deletion, or zero copula. Many languages and dialects, including Ancient Greek and Russian, delete the copula (the verb to be) when the context is obvious.
So an utterance like “you a bitch” in AAVE is not an example of a misused you, but an example of a sentence that deletes the copular verb (are), which is a perfectly valid thing to do in that dialect, just as deleting an /r/ after a vowel is a perfectly valid thing to do in an upper-class British dialect.
What’s more, it’s been shown that copula deletion occurs in AAVE exactly in those contexts where copula contraction occurs in so-called “Standard American English.” That is, the basic sentence “You are great” can become “You’re great” in SAE and “You great” in AAVE, but “I know who you are” cannot become “I know who you’re” in SAE, and according to reports, neither can you get “I know who you” in AAVE.
In other words, AAVE is a set of grammatical rules just as complex and systematic as SAE, and the widespread belief that it is not is nothing more than yet another manifestation of deeply internalized racism.
(note: TW on all 4chan and IRC screenshots/links to such)
Several days ago, game developer and harassment victim Zoe Quinn released screenshots from #burgersandfries, the IRC chatroom that 4channers had been using to discuss the “controversy” around her alleged relationships with major figures in game journalism. She claimed that the logs proved that the controversy itself was manufactured, a deliberate and malicious attempt to smear her reputation, through dishonest and even sometimes illegal means. That this much could be gathered from what she had posted alone she took for granted. There was even more shocking evidence, she also claimed, that she wasn’t showing yet, since she was also taking her case to the FBI, and for legal reasons some of the information would have to remain confidential.
Evidently, IRC users didn’t see it that way. In response to her leaked screencaps, they leaked the entire room’s history, a move that puzzled even Quinn herself:
The supposedly “complete” logs do seem to be missing the most incriminating piece of information Zoe revealed, a log in which one user linked to a file containing Zoe’s internet and domain history. Either this was hastily deleted, or it took place on another IRC channel (there appear to have been several, and it is not clear if they have all been archived or made public). The same could be true of other potentially illegal conduct, so clearly as far as investigating that aspect of this case, the 4chan-released logs are not to be trusted.
(Most mentions of hacking screencapped by Zoe remain in the logs, however, presumably since most of them cannot be linked to anything that actually happened. The missing incident is the only case Zoe has released in which a hack was followed through with and illegal documents actually shared on the IRC, which strengthens the case that its absence is not a coincidence.)
Their response, of course, will be to claim that this proves Zoe can’t be trusted, that her screencaps were faked. I don’t think I need to dwell for too long on why this is silly. If it were true, it would probably be possible to sue her for libel*, and while I’m not 1337 enough to know how exactly one would authenticate an IRC log (h4xx0rs pls contribute!), the fact that Zoe is bringing screenshots as evidence to the FBI would seem to suggest that there is some way to do this.
Either way, if they wanted to they could have cut out everything in her screencaps, the rest of which she considers equally damaging to the #GamerGate movement, ideologically if not legally. But surprisingly, they don’t. In fact, they reveal 14 mbs of mostly the exact same behaviors and attitudes Zoe screencapped. As far as the organizers of #GamerGate are concerned none of this is damaging - although none of it is non-damaging enough for them to simply not respond to the original screencaps.
What’s the deal? Is she “cherry picking” and “taking things out of context”, as is sometimes claimed?
These questions can be answered, mostly, without even the help of the full logs, but access to those can help make our analysis clearer.
Let’s start with one of the first screencap releases, which put the difference (and inconsistency) of opinion in an exceptionally clear light.
One (extremely sockpuppet-looking) #GamerGate supporter commented:
Indeed, that is, technically, what they are discussing.
However, this very fact reveals an interesting flaw in the narrative of #GamerGate. As many of its critics have noted, corruption in videogame journalism has been an elephant in that particular room for years. Why are gamers choosing remarkably flimsy allegations surrounding a female developer, who has already been harassed just because of her gender, to finally make it an issue? The party line is that there’s never really been “proof” of corruption until Zoe Quinn.
But here in the IRC, everyone seems to admit that there is no “proof” of their current allegations of wrongdoing.
Leaving open the question: why now? Why Zoe?
To be fair, you don’t have to go on IRC to start asking this question, or even figure out that /v/ is asking it.
What seems unusual in the IRC examples is the casualness with which people admit this, and not the dissenters but the very people pushing the claims. The people looking for proof on the IRC are the exact same people claiming to have it.
So, similarly, it’s easy to read this as a genuine call for self-policing - except that it’s couched heavily in the language of self-justification. “Winning” against the “opponent” is more important than actually ending the harassment. But could this just be white-boy entitlement and fucked priorities, not a conspiracy?
Why not both? Is there even a meaningful difference? That’s the answer one comes to after reading the IRC. See, this bit of cognitive dissonance, like the cognitive dissonance that makes “speculation” about Zoe more legitimate than the “speculation” that’s been going on in the gaming community for years, has effects on their behavior. Consider another Zoe screencap:
The video they’re referring to was a video (now deleted) by Cameralady, an extremely active (and as far as I can tell, actually female) member of the IRC. The video was supposed to be the public introduction of their new, post-Zoe conspiracy theory, focused on the IGF and the supposed influence-peddling of PR professional Maya Felix Kramer. Maya has connections to Zoe but her alleged role in “rigging” the IGF or something is completely separate from the allegations about Zoe; nonetheless, the video finished with a Five Guys joke, shooting #GamerGate’s claims to be above sexism & harassment in the foot.
A normal movement or organization, concerned with undesirable behavior in their midst, would have acknowledged the video, affirmed their stance against it, made clear that Camerlady was unwelcome in their spaces at least until she understood what she had done wrong, and apologized.
The IRC decided to lie and call it a “false flag”.
I’m not sure how they even thought that would be good PR: nobody not completely immersed in /pol/’s trust-nobody “PSYOPS roleplay”, as one anon called it, could be expected to believe that story for a second.
But either way, it’s not a step towards seriously preventing people from targeting Zoe - it just makes it look like they aren’t targeting Zoe. This approach influences the decision-making of the people behind #GamerGate at every crucial choice between the two. Take #GameEthics, a hashtag started by a feminist to host the exact same discussion #GamerGate has been claiming it wants for the entire duration of its existence. If #GamerGate really believed it was about ethics, and that it only targeted feminists because they were misguidedly stonewalling that discussion, #GameEthics would have meant victory.
Instead, #GameEthics is being treated as some sort of trick. To do what, if #GamerGate is about ethics? Shut down discussion specifically about Zoe*? Why should that even matter? Why is an unproven, unprovable scandal implicating, at best, five people and one game more important than known industry-wide structural issues like these?
Or take the fact that when #GamerGate decided to broaden its scope and start talking about corruption outside the “Quinnspiracy”, instead of taking on any of these issues, they attacked another woman, Maya Kramer? Recently /v/ appears to be considering moving on to yet another.
At the risk of Faraci-tier hyperbole, this is starting to feel like watching a serial killer in action. IT’S CALLED METAPHOR GUYS
One last interesting example, pulled exclusively from the full IRC. Among the many plans that no-one goes through with are repeated attempts to frame the claims about Zoe as a feminist issue.
I’ve never once seen this narrative on the mainstream #GamerGate Twitter. I do often see Zoe called “a rapist by her own definition” (assuming the cheating did happen, an oversimplification, if not exactly wrong).
Making Zoe the victim, however, would make it unacceptable - on more than just a surface association level - to victimize her further. And it would further feminist attitudes in the gaming community - something these guys are not willing to do, even as a means to “exposing corruption”.
Quinn’s screenshots prove that this behaviour isn’t just entitlement, bad priorities or what Jim Sterling calls a “not all gamers” attitude. Attempts to clean up #GamerGate’s act are described in purely instrumental terms, rather than as moral ends in themselves. And the full log proves that the sort of “psyop” rhetoric in the screenshots is not a cherry-picked aberration, but the norm for discussion. As everyone has noted, the IRC, named #burgersandfries, is almost entirely about Zoe. Even though halfway through the logs they drop their attempts to seriously investigate her case any further and switch over to Maya Kramer, her name is still mentioned more than corruption, integrity or even journalism.
The users who believe they have been vindicated by the logs will point to the fact that no-one ever admits to outright making up #GamerGate’s central claims, which is what they believe Zoe is saying when she describes “the whole thing” as “fabricated”. Nobody, as far as I’ve seen, ever claims to not believe there was collusion between Zoe and journalists (or Kramer and the IGF board, or whatever). When Phil Fish got hacked, surprise (and conspiracy-theorizing that he did it himself) was universal and genuine.
(At least, as far as we know, outside of the PM’s and private rooms of RogueStar’s mysterious “side of things”. But then, it’s worth remembering that factions outside of 4chan have also been escalating this from the beginning.)
What actually appears to be fabricated here is their negative claim that this isn’t about Zoe Quinn - as well as the idea of a spontaneous outpouring of gamer outrage. (In light of 4chan board politics, the falsity of this latter claim is especially stark. The IRC responsible for spamming the threads on /v/ from which everything else was organized seems to have been created by /pol/, 4chan’s unsuccessful “containment board” for rabid anti-SJ’s and neo-Nazis, not its “gamers”. (Disdain for “gamers” used to be as common on /pol/ as it is in “SJW” communities)).
I almost wonder whether the reason Zoe hasn’t made this distinction yet is that it would hijack her unsuccessful peace efforts. In the aftermath of her revelations she’s claimed to reach to a demographic of people leaving #GamerGate “in light of stuff”. A demographic that, sadly, doesn’t seem to be manifesting that visibly anywhere.
But everything Zoe or 4chan have proven to be a ruse are the things most people knew were a ruse before, we just didn’t know the extent or the source. No-one was “fooled” - people fooled themselves. Self-deception and overt deception have gone hand in hand throughout this entire campaign, to the point of probably being inextricable. But anyone could have seen what was wrong with the campaign by asking the right questions. And gamers still need to hold themselves accountable.
*Which no-one’s doing, even within #GameEthics. On the very first page of the hashtag I found this. Nobody’s trying to remove this post, even despite what I’d consider the blatant obfuscation in the video. As far as I know its poster never even made #GameEthics’s infamous "block list", which was made (and then deleted) by one random poster with no authority over the hashtag, or even connection to a coordinating IRC.
Anonymous said: What do you think is a better method of creating gender/racial equality? Attempting to blur the lines between gender/race to the point of insignificance, or pointing out gender/race and turning it into a big deal?
Men and women will never be completely equal. Men will always excel at some things and Women will excel at others. The same can be said for genetic differences that define the human race.
What we need to make sure is that people aren’t defined into these roles, and people with ideas and skills can do what their best at for the benefit of all society.
The Fine Young Capitalists are such great feminists you guys
BREAKING: September 9th will be officially an entire month since the murder of Ferguson African-American unarmed teenage Michael Brown, at the hands of racist Ferguson PD Officer Darren Wilson. In this entire month, Officer Darren Wilson hasn’t been heard from, he has literally disappeared. He still has not been arrested, charged, or indicted in the murder of Michael Brown.
"I think the act of carrying something that is normally found in our bedroom out into the light is supposed to mirror the way I’ve talked to the media and talked to different news channels, etc," Emma continues in the full video which you can watch here.
So, I just want to go into HOW MUCH Columbia and the NYPD has failed, and revictimized, Emma Sulkowitz.
In her school hearing, Sulkowitz ” had to explain to the three administrators on the panel how anal rape worked. She told them she had been hit across the face, choked and pinned down, but, she said, one still seemed confused about how it was possible for someone to penetrate her there without lubricant. Sulkowicz said she had to draw them a diagram.”
"Her best friend was meant to be at the hearing; Sulkowicz had chosen her as her one “supporter.” But her friend was kicked out of that role for talking about the case, according to Sulkowicz, in violation of the university’s confidentiality policy. As punishment, her friend was also put on probation and made to write two reflection papers: one from the perspective of Sulkowicz and another from the accused."
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF HER FRIEND’S RAPIST
- Two other women at Columbia have accused this guy of sexual assault/rape. But he’s been found not responsible in all instances, and is still on campus
- When she went to the police, one officer said: “”You invited him into your room. That’s not the legal definition of rape.”
- Another officer told her friends, who came with her: ““For every single rape I’ve had, I’ve had 20 that are total bull——,” he added. “It’s also my type of job to get to the truth. If that means being harsh about it, that’s what I do.”
I want to set literally everything on fire.
There’s a deep irony here, which is that a lot of the people that are being handed to these angry young men as hate objects were themselves nerdy outcasts when they were young, but they matured a little and pulled it together and now have great jobs in the industry and active social and romantic lives. And so it would happen to a lot of the young men who are raging and angry now, as they age and chill out and learn how to groom themselves and get along with women better. But that won’t happen for these young men if they get caught up in the cult of online misogyny and spend their energies that would otherwise go to maturing and mellowing out towards becoming ever more repulsive to women.
Because of this, I worry that this cult of misogyny is going to turn into a self-perpetuating thing: It preys on young men who are going through an adolescent social reject phase, telling them that it’s not just a phase but in fact an oppression delivered on them by sexy young feminists who are out to get them. That, in turn, causes these young men to become mean and pompous and hateful to women, making it even harder for them to meet women and start a healthy dating life of their own. They then blame feminism even harder for their own failures, becoming more wrapped up in online misogyny. They might start to recruit younger men, the way they were recruited.
All of which is why I’m glad to see a lot of grown men in geek circles getting involved. It helps send the message that it doesn’t have to be this way. Beyond that, however, I’m not sure what else to do."
i wish that when people talked about wanting books to be accessible you could be more sure that they meant “i want access to books” rather than “i believe that understanding a book is the point of reading it and i feel entitled to that understanding of all books”