Social Justice Absurdity Thread

[52xMax]

Funny that Taylor Swift was mentioned, because Nicki Minaj is going on the same kind of tantrum Kanye goes on every time he thinks he's not getting the attention he deserves, which in his mind is all the attention all the goddamned time.



Wow, this reference is so dated.

[DomaDoma]

Yeah, when it comes to top-40 pop, three or four years ago does, officially, count as "dated". I do resent it when people apply that same logic to a good story or a substantive political issue, but there are some cases in which the mayfly attention span is totally justifiable.

So, when 2014: Year of the Butts turns into a "wait, you're still referring to that?" a couple of years down the line, here's hoping Nicki Minaj will learn to get over herself.

[Cujos&Bits]

...

[DomaDoma]

I did kind of wonder if this was trial transcripts from the guy who shot women for not sleeping with him (have the vague impression the guy's name was also Eliott), in which case I had no idea what impact hurtful emails would have on anything.

[Revolving Royal]

In the Anaconda video Nikki looks into the camera and seethes, "Fuck skinny bitches". That part always makes me stratch my head, I feel no righteous anger at your attack or triumph in sticking it to the man. Your are skinny, and you can't use a certain body type to whine about being held down by society WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE IT!

[sunglasses]

She is specifically referring to women with no ass, is my understanding.

Also, enjoy:



Also, her actual song/video Anaconda is atrocious. I cannot think of it deserving of an award.

[Revolving Royal]

I have my suspicians that Anaconda would never have been in the running because they couldn't show it on tv. They can't have a show about music videos without showing all the choices. The video being an affront to one's eyes notwithstanding.

[sunglasses]

I have my suspicians that Anaconda would never have been in the running because they couldn't show it on tv. They can't have a show about music videos without showing all the choices. The video being an affront to one's eyes ears notwithstanding.

FTFY

[TwoSheds]

I have my suspicians that Anaconda would never have been in the running because they couldn't show it on tv. They can't have a show about music videos without showing all the choices. The video being an affront to one's eyes notwithstanding.

I admit, I enjoyed certain... aspects... of that video. Though the song mostly just makes me want to go listen to Sir Mix-a-Lot.

[Askias]

We could all probably be arrested by it just for things posted on this board.

So there's no way I'm reading through the 72 page court document, and the article itself didn't state WHAT he specifically tweeted that she found offensive (it CAN'T be that "the lady snarks too much" comment...just that, can it?). Anyone know what the offending tweet in question actually was?

The hypocrisy of that lady is sweet; the story in summary: a guy (guy 1) and 2 women don't like a guy (guy 2) for a shitty Sarkeesian bashing (literally) flash game he made. They plan to harass guy 2, but then guy 1 decided online harassment wasn't the way to get their point across. Now the women are in court against guy 1 for "harassing" them online.

EDIT: Here's a better article on it that contains a link to the full twitter chat: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150 ... ment.shtml

I read the tweets, articles, and the document.

Let’s start with the circumstances before the case. A man named Bendilin Spurr created a face-punch game about oh-do-I-need-to-tell-you. Which is being a complete asshole, but he’s not party in this case, nor has he been involved in it. Nor has she. Spurr had 11 followers on twitter and had no fame to speak of. He was a programmer with apparent issues and a few too many free hours. I wouldn’t want to have coffee with him.

Stephanie Guthrie got the ball rolling. She rhetorically asked ‘’shall I stick the internet on him?’’. She had no apparent involvement, but she was a twitter feminist (take this word with as much grains of salt as you will). She subsequently tried to spread the message far and wide, because when a nobody makes a game you hate, the most obvious solution is to spread it as much as possible. And an internet mob is always a perfectly valid weapon to strike with.

Gregory Elliot knew Guthrie, apparently both online and off. As far as I can tell, there wasn’t much explicit vitriol between the two, but they disliked each other. He disagreed with her plan and let that known in a respectful manner. Unfortunately the tweets by Guthrie were removed.

Elliot: @amirightfolks He's got 11 followers. Why bring attention to the guy? Media attention will only add to more "virtual face punching".

Elliot: @amirightfolks There are monsters everywhere, women and men. I think attention will fuel the misogyny. If this guy goes viral, poorly played

Guthrie responded, I can’t see how. They start arguing. Other people join in. It’s twitter. That’s what it does. Guthrie defended herself by saying:

Guthrie: @greg_a_elliott Because I think the Sault Ste Marie community should be aware there is a monster in their midst.’.

Elliot: Guy makes a facepunch game, which offended you, and you want him *destroyed*. Wrong. @amirightfolks @emmamwoolley @metricjulie @sysrequest

Guthrie: @emmamwoolley @sysrequest @greg_a_elliott @metricjulie Nor I. I want his hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience.

Elliot’s half of the conversation is here. He does not defend the game at any moment (in fact he proposes to modify the game to put a picture of the mother of the designer in it, to show what he’s doing). He does speak out against calling a hate mob on him, and says that one project, depraved as it is, shouldn’t be cause for an internet death sentence. As well as reminding that harassment doesn’t solve harassment. While Elliot doesn’t appear to be a great guy given other tweets and statements that have nothing to do with this case (but could have been catalyst for Guthrie to attack him), what he says is mostly valid, and certainly not illegal.

As it’s Twitter, the argument devolved as the participants became angier. They started sending insults, but at no point did either party issue a threat of any kind. The worst it gets to is that Elliot called her a ‘bitch’, and given Guthrie cleaned up all her tweets I can’t see what her depth point was.

Guthrie: RT @canadiancynic Apparently, one @greg_a_elliott, Toronto artist with 4 sons, is totally creeping out women on Twitter. I'm sure his sons are proud of him.

Somewhere in all of this, Heather Reilly got involved. I got find no documentation of her tweets and don’t know what she said.

Now here’s where the events detailed in the case start, and it’s not pretty. Guthrie and Reilly blocked Elliot. All 3 parties, however, kept placing insults at each other and replies. None end up looking good, of course, but I want to point out the hypocrisy here. Guthrie blocks an user, then continually tweets insults and borderline slander about the user, then sues the user when he replies. I will get back to this when we get to the case.

Now, the case. The aforementioned situation went on for several months. As I said, many insults were tweeted, but no threats were made. Then Guthrie and Reilly sued Elliot for harassment. For the charge of harassment, the victim must ‘’have a reason to reasonably fear for their safety’’. I have read 300 goddamn tweets and can’t find a single one. Most of the reasons Guthrie cited were tweets made a 3rd parties. You know, the kind she was actively encouraging in the first place and openly said she had no responsibility for what the internet did to Spurr because of her comments, despite her attack being a lot more vicious and rallying than Elliot’s. Also, her ‘harassment’ by Elliot himself consists of unwanted tweets.

8. By tweeting to, and about, Mr. Elliott – but yet at the same time demanding that Mr. Elliott not respond to her – it appears as though Ms. Guthrie had expected that the Twitter Rules would apply to everyone except her.
9. Ms. Guthrie confirmed that, as far as she was aware, Mr. Elliott never sent her a tweet that was libelous, threatening, or sexual in nature.5 10. Ms. Guthrie also confirmed that, aside from her business dinner on April 18, 2012, she never saw him again.6
[…]
11. Ms. Reilly, too, confirmed that Mr. Elliott never sent her a tweet that was sexual in nature, and she had never seen Mr. Elliott in person until she saw him in Court during the trial.7

Elliot’s tweets did mention the two after he’d been blocked, but he only directed a single tweet at Reilly. And may I say for a damn good reason?

30. Using PC Dayler’s definition of how Twitter users tend to communicate with one another, Mr. Elliott did not direct a single tweet at Ms. Guthrie after September 9, 2012. Regarding Ms. Reilly, Mr. Elliott directed only one tweet to @ladysnarksalot after September 1, 2012, and, on that occasion, only after Ms. Reilly disseminated on Twitter the scandalous tweet suggesting that Mr. Elliott was a pedophile.

I am going out on a limb here and saying false pedophilia charges may be responded to, blocked or not. Also, when you’ve spread a rumor by a false account saying someone raped a 13-year old, you’re not allowed to complain about a less than amicable tone in response. At this particular point, I’m becoming surprised Elliot uttered no threads of any kind, but he still didn’t. Not that Reilly had any moral ground to begin with:

93. On the same date, August 9, 2012, Ms. Reilly is involved in a conversation regarding Mr. Elliott wherein the parties – at the beginning of the conversation – are using coded language to describe who they are speaking about. At the end of the tweet chain, however, @neville_park tweets:
@aureliaCotta @LadySnarksalot @junctionette greg_a_elliott. ‘Cause I name and shame that way.85
Rather than condemning the public shaming of a person Ms. Reilly has been communicating with for approximately ten days, Ms. Reilly responds:
@neville_park and that’s one of the reasons I like you! #namingandshaming

Hypocrisy score: off the charts. Now, to single out Gurthie, because I’m getting increased annoyed with these two. She had the following to say during the cross-examination regarding her actions towards Splurr:

Q. You were trying to ruin Bendilin Spurr’s life, correct?
A. I was trying to let as many people as possible know that this was something Bendilin Spurr had done. And if they believed it was wrong, and if they believed it was disgusting, and if they took action that subsequently ruined Bendilin Spurr’s life, then he was the one who ruined it and not me, Mr. Murphy.
Q. Right. So ...
A. I was a messenger.
[…]
Q. So you being the messenger of a message that ruins Bendilin Spurr’s life is okay with you, yes or no?
A. Yes.

43. Being defined as a “monster” in one’s community can obviously have dangerous repercussions. Indeed, during her cross-examination, Ms. Guthrie confirmed that she is fully in favour of online vigilantism if the circumstances warrant [43], even if this means putting the target of the vigilantism in physical danger.

Towards Elliot, she mocked him even after she told him to stop talking to her, and talked positively about a fake account set up to ‘parody’ him in the way that vile Twitter parodies usually go. And guess who else contributed to the ‘’Elliot is a pedophile because a fake account says so’’ thing? Yeah, Gurthie. And it’s worse in her case:

Q. Okay. But you understood that on or about November 12th, Mr. Elliott was being accused on Twitter of being a pedophile, right?
A. Sure.
Q. Right. And again, you didn’t feel it was your job to tell Detective Bangild that it was, actually, an adult?
A. The young woman said that she was 13, so that was what people believed. She later said that she was not 13.
Q. Right.
A. But initially she said that she was.
Q. But by the time you met Detective Bangild, you already testified to this, you were aware that she was either 18 or 19, agree?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. Good. So not really trying to help out Mr. Elliott when you’re not mentioning the fact it’s actually an adult, right?
A. My position wasn’t really that I wanted ... I was not trying to help Mr. Elliott.
Q. Right.
A. He was stalking me. So no, I wasn’t trying to help me. I wasn’t trying to harm him unduly, but I was not trying to help him and I was not trying to ... yeah.
Q. Right. In your view handing tweets alleging Mr. Elliott’s a pedophile without correcting the officers receiving them, is not trying to harm Mr. Elliott, right?
A. Wasn’t trying to harm him, no.

Let me summarize that for you while I try to hold back my swearing words: she knew the pedophilia accusation was false, but she ‘wasn’t trying to help him’ so she didn’t tell the police about it. I don’t care the guy is a Men’s Rights activist, I wouldn’t fucking care if he hypothetically was calling for the legalization of rape and murder from the goddamn rooftops, you can’t do that and say you’ve never intended to harm him [for the record, he at no point called for the legalization of rape and murder, from rooftops or from the ground]. In later parts of the case [numbers 162-181] it’s detailed she actively pushed the idea into the spotlight. She also took anonymous death threats she received and presented them to Twitter as if they were from Elliot [194-198]. Puts the ''He's not entitled to defend himself to me'' in a rather painful light, doesn't it? She said that.

Here’s my analysis: everybody involved here is an asshole, but there is ‘normal asshole’ like Elliot and whatever the hell these other two are. Sorry for the long post, but this was a new grade of terrible.

[Crimson847]

Guthrie: @emmamwoolley @sysrequest @greg_a_elliott @metricjulie Nor I. I want his hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience.

She should know better than most people that hatred does impact one's "real life experience". No lynch mob necessary. Shit, where does she think Spurr's rage comes from? Sarkeesian? Unless she burned down his house and killed his dog, not bloody likely.


Also, I like that the other person goes by the handle "LadySnarksaLot".


PS: Askias, why do you keep doing this to yourself?

[sunglasses]

Askias is the hero that we need.

A real swell guy

OurHero.jpg (168.82 KiB) Viewed 316 times

A real team player. Getting right into the dark underbelly of numerous pages of documentation to sift thru the debri and find us facts.

Then again...

2012-02-24-Hes-Our-Hero.jpg (263.46 KiB) Viewed 316 times

[Askias]

Also, I like that the other person goes by the handle "LadySnarksaLot".

The handle is also what Elliot was refering to with his 'methinks the lady snarketh too much.', probably.

PS: Askias, why do you keep doing this to yourself?

It's not that hard, I slightly exeggerate because I get to do that here. I am a law student, this is barely different than my homework and here I get to call the people involved assholes. Plus, reading up on news stories gets me some fun stuff too. There's currently an article of mine pending moderation about fun legal stories.

And if I don't do it... then who will?

[BROWNRECLUSE]

2012-02-24-Hes-Our-Hero.jpg

This would have solved so many problems for the Planeteers.

Brilliant.

[Windy]

Let me summarize that for you while I try to hold back my swearing words: she knew the pedophilia accusation was false, but she ‘wasn’t trying to help him’ so she didn’t tell the police about it.

And yet Elliott's the one on trial for harassment here.