Harassment campaign against MtG cosplayer forces her to leave community(Harasser banned from WoTC)

Clay · Dec 8, 2017

Border said:
Is the use of "@" really the difference between harassment and just calling someone out? That seems like a pretty thin line to be honest. I presume he can't even use the @ for his favorite targets, since blocking someone prevents you from @'ing them, doesn't it?

I mean, the people following his various crusades will inevitably know who he's talking about whether or not he uses proper Twitter syntax. Most of the time they probably are just watching his videos rather than following his Tweets, so it's not like they really need to be specifically directed to a particular Twitter handle.

I approve of his banning, but it's unclear to me at what point you have to hold a media personality responsible for the actions of their followers. If someone sincerely asks that you stop laying into them over petty shit then you almost certainly should.

Jeremy is claiming this the @ differentiates whether his bullying is targeted or not. Or at least I think that's what he's arguing, like I said he reads his own tweets where he names people and in the same breath says they're not targeted.

I agree that that's insane, he's being purposefully dense and anyone who somehow buys that argument is stupid. I don't see why he bothers with statements like that, the people who are behind are behind him, and people who aren't won't be swayed by his whining nonsense.

And people who harass others with full knowledge that their fan base will carry things farther even if they don't overtly request them to should absolutely be responsible for the fallout.

Border · Dec 8, 2017

Clay said:
And people who harass others with full knowledge that their fan base will carry things farther even if they don't overtly request them to should absolutely be responsible for the fallout.

Would you hold someone in the mass media to the same standard, though? If John Oliver runs a scathing editorial about a heretofore unknown corporate executive whose company is doing scummy things, is Oliver to blame if that person gets death threats or lowblow insults on social media? What if an otherwise anonymous Twitter userposts something offensive and that gets spotlighted by a blog or news site with hundreds of thousands of users?

I think the situation here is not exactly the same as those examples, but I am not sure where exactly people want to draw the line.

sabrina · Dec 8, 2017

Border said:
Would you hold someone in the mass media to the same standard, though? If John Oliver runs a scathing editorial about a heretofore unknown corporate executive whose company is doing scummy things, is Oliver to blame if that person gets death threats or lowblow insults on social media? What if an otherwise anonymous Twitter userposts something offensive and that gets spotlighted by a blog or news site with hundreds of thousands of users?

I think the situation here is not exactly the same as those examples, but I am not sure where exactly people want to draw the line.

If Oliver found out that his audience was harassing him, it would behoove him to discourage and disassociate from that harassment, and later remind people in future stories that he's not calling people to harassment brigades.

IcedBlackCoffee · Dec 8, 2017

Cybit said:
That's a terrible justification and you know it. There's no excuse. Boogie gives plenty of legitimate ammo with his words and actions. We can just stick to that.

If all I said is "lol Boogie is fat" I would understand your point but that's not what I said at all. Read what I have said to get a better understanding.

And my point is that so long as we continue to treat people like Boogie with kid gloves, they will keep up with their bullshit. If you ever want Boogie to drop his "I'm in the middle" bullshit, then it will require saying things to him that actually sting him.

Zvonimir Boban · Dec 8, 2017

Justin said:
Yeah but have you ever thought that maybe.., just maybe, it's all WOTCs fault for pushing their progressive agenda on the player base???

I LEAN LEFT. THAT'S FINE.

I can't...what the fuck can you say in response?

Clay · Dec 8, 2017

Border said:
Would you hold someone in the mass media to the same standard, though? If John Oliver runs a scathing editorial about a heretofore unknown corporate executive whose company is doing scummy things, is Oliver to blame if that person gets death threats or lowblow insults on social media? What if an otherwise anonymous Twitter userposts something offensive and that gets spotlighted by a blog or news site with hundreds of thousands of users?

I think the situation here is not exactly the same as those examples, but I am not sure where exactly people want to draw the line.

Why is "posts something offensive" underlined?

The line seems pretty clear. Harassing people publicly with the understanding that your fans will take things farther is unacceptable. If you willingly troll people in a public space, you may have to deal with consequences. Telling the truth about public figures is an important job. What is confusing?

Where do you personally draw the line?

dennett316 · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
Is the use of "@" really the difference between harassment and just calling someone out? That seems like a pretty thin line to be honest. I presume he can't even use the @ for his favorite targets, since blocking someone prevents you from @'ing them, doesn't it?

I mean, the people following his various crusades will inevitably know who he's talking about whether or not he uses proper Twitter syntax. Most of the time they probably are just watching his videos rather than following his Tweets, so it's not like they really need to be specifically directed to a particular Twitter handle.

I approve of his banning, but it's unclear to me at what point you have to hold a media personality responsible for the actions of their followers. If someone sincerely asks that you stop laying into them over petty shit then you almost certainly should.

Repeatedly going after a target who has done nothing to deserve such scorn is a good indicator of responsibility...he's creating a crusade by doing that. In some cases, like the recent Alex Mauer situation that saw a YouTuber called Sid Alpha post a number of videos on her, there was a newsworthy reason for doing so each time. She was pulling some shady shit over music she created for a game.
A few of his followers took it upon themselves to be abusive towards her, particularly the fact she's a trans woman. Sid Alpha told his audience in no uncertain terms that doing that shit was unacceptable, that he was disappointed in them, and that he'd be moderating comments from that point on. Sid did all the right things to try to mitigate the situation.
Jim Sterling did the same when the Digital Homicide shit really started to kick off. Posted a video telling his followers not to send death threats and the like. It's the internet, people need very little excuse to go over the top, but attempts to mitigate the abuse help.
In the case of UnsleevedMedia, it sounds like he didn't do the same. Just kept going after her while she did her best to ignore his BS.

Morrigan · Dec 9, 2017

IcedBlackCoffee said:
If all I said is "lol Boogie is fat" I would understand your point but that's not what I said at all. Read what I have said to get a better understanding.

And my point is that so long as we continue to treat people like Boogie with kid gloves, they will keep up with their bullshit. If you ever want Boogie to drop his "I'm in the middle" bullshit, then it will require saying things to him that actually sting him.

Look, you can rationalize it all you want, but you can mock, deride, criticize, etc. Boogie for plenty of good reasons that don't involve his appearance, so, just don't, not here at least.

Hat22 · Dec 9, 2017

IcedBlackCoffee said:
If all I said is "lol Boogie is fat" I would understand your point but that's not what I said at all. Read what I have said to get a better understanding.

And my point is that so long as we continue to treat people like Boogie with kid gloves, they will keep up with their bullshit. If you ever want Boogie to drop his "I'm in the middle" bullshit, then it will require saying things to him that actually sting him.

He gets hate from both the left and right. I'm sure he gets plenty of hate that targets his appearance already. Probably got a lot of it before he ever got political.

Squarehard · Dec 9, 2017

IcedBlackCoffee said:
If all I said is "lol Boogie is fat" I would understand your point but that's not what I said at all. Read what I have said to get a better understanding.

And my point is that so long as we continue to treat people like Boogie with kid gloves, they will keep up with their bullshit. If you ever want Boogie to drop his "I'm in the middle" bullshit, then it will require saying things to him that actually sting him.

I guess I'm still a bit unclear on your point.

So how would you define something that actually stings him that isn't related to his appearance?

Border · Dec 9, 2017

Clay said:
Why is "posts something offensive" underlined?

It's a hyperlink to a story about someone who had pretty much no social media reach, but still had the harassment hammer brought down on her by the Twitterverse and various blogs. She made a stupid and tasteless and deplorable joke, but at the same time I think there remains a question of when and how it becomes acceptable for someone else to expose that and fuck up their lives.

Telling the truth about public figures is an important job. What is confusing?

The line between a public figure and a private citizen has been pretty permanently blurred because of the pseudo-celebrity status that platforms like YouTube and Twitter create. So that's what obviously causes confusion. Celebrities and major political figures should probably expect to receive hate and criticism at any time from any angle. But how big or important does someone have to be before they just have to learn to take it? Is it acceptable to crusade against someone with 100K subscribers? 1 million subscribers? 10 million subscribers?

Border · Dec 9, 2017

dennett316 said:
Repeatedly going after a target who has done nothing to deserve such scorn is a good indicator of responsibility...he's creating a crusade by doing that. In some cases, like the recent Alex Mauer situation that saw a YouTuber called Sid Alpha post a number of videos on her, there was a newsworthy reason for doing so each time. She was pulling some shady shit over music she created for a game.
A few of his followers took it upon themselves to be abusive towards her, particularly the fact she's a trans woman. Sid Alpha told his audience in no uncertain terms that doing that shit was unacceptable, that he was disappointed in them, and that he'd be moderating comments from that point on. Sid did all the right things to try to mitigate the situation.

I think that is a pretty fair line to draw. If someone is receiving unwarranted abuse and that person asks you to call off the wolves, then you probably should make a statement that tells your followers to stop being assholes. Whether or not you should stop publicly criticizing them is probably another really sticky issue though.

Hero · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
I think that is a pretty fair line to draw. If someone is receiving unwarranted abuse and that person asks you to call off the wolves, then you probably should make a statement that tells your followers to stop being assholes. Whether or not you should stop publicly criticizing them is probably another really sticky issue though.

I don't think someone on the receiving end of harassment should have to ask for someone to call off their followers. Do you disagree with that?

Clay · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
It's a hyperlink to a story about someone who had pretty much no social media reach, but still had the harassment hammer brought down on her by the Twitterverse and various blogs. She made a stupid and tasteless and deplorable joke, but at the same time I think there remains a question of when and how it becomes acceptable for someone else to expose that and fuck up their lives.

The line between a public figure and a private citizen has been pretty permanently blurred because of the pseudo-celebrity status that platforms like YouTube and Twitter create. So that's what obviously causes confusion. Celebrities and major political figures should probably expect to receive hate and criticism at any time from any angle. But how big or important does someone have to be before they just have to learn to take it? Is it acceptable to crusade against someone with 100K subscribers? 1 million subscribers? 10 million subscribers?

Didn't realize it was a link, I didn't realize they were formatted that way.

YouTube and Twitter are public spaces. Regardless of whether or not it's fair, saying incendiary things in a public space is going to attract attention. If you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, you shouldn't be talking shit.

A common argument from Jeremy and people defending him is that the people he harasses can just get off the internet and away from the bullying. But the same is true for Jeremy and people like him. If they want to say mean things about people they're free to do so in private. The second you start inferring that people are sex predators, or taking innocent inquiries about political groups out of proportion, or any of the other ridiculous stuff Jeremy has done to hurt people on a public forum, you deal with the feedback from the public.

And Jeremy, Boogie, and the other people saying WOTC made a mistake are conveniently leaving out the opinion of that public. I barely know Jeremy, I've seen probably fifteen minutes total of his content and hadn't heard of him before all this blew up. After seeing what he's about I'm glad I don't have to be around him at event. Clearly many others feel the same.

Border said:
Whether or not you should stop publicly criticizing them is probably another really sticky issue though.

What are you referring to when you say "criticizing"? Posting a thumbnail of someone with the title "Over 100 victims" isn't criticism. Telling someone "I wouldn't rape you" isn't criticism. Jeremy likes to call his harassment criticism, but it's a very obvious mischaracterization.

Cantaim · Dec 9, 2017

In the end I hope Christine Sprankle can come back to Magic if she wants without the threat of being harassed again or ever (this goes for everyone in the community really). Always hate it when people can't do what they love because of the hate being directed at them.

Border · Dec 9, 2017

Hero said:
I don't think someone on the receiving end of harassment should have to ask for someone to call off their followers. Do you disagree with that?

I don't think you can really expect someone to be constantly policing their followers, so you kinda have to rely on someone else to tell you if they are behaving poorly.

Clay said:
YouTube and Twitter are public spaces. Regardless of whether or not it's fair, saying incendiary things in a public space is going to attract attention. If you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, you shouldn't be talking shit.

That's kind of what Jeremy would say, though. "You chose to be on Twitter, you chose to be on YouTube......you're in a public space, and if you can't handle the consequences then get the fuck out." At some point you stop being a private citizen when you share yourself on social media.....it's just a matter of when that actually happens.

Hero · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
I don't think you can really expect someone to be constantly policing their followers, so you kinda have to rely on someone else to tell you if they are behaving poorly.
.

You realize Jeremy would almost always include his victim's full name and/or twitter handle to direct his fanbase to them, right? It's fairly obvious that he knew quite well what he was doing and I don't buy for a second that he didn't. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for.

Border · Dec 9, 2017

Hero said:
You realize Jeremy would almost always include his victim's full name and/or twitter handle to direct his fanbase to them, right? It's fairly obvious that he knew quite well what he was doing and I don't buy for a second that he didn't. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for.

If those are the circumstances then ask about those specific circumstances. Don't ask a general question and then apply the answer to a specific situation.

I've said that I don't think it really matters whether someone is named specifically or has their Twitter handle linked. His followers are smart enough to target people without being directed to a handle or email address. I'm not sure why that's really a point of contention. Either you hold him culpable for the actions of his followers or you don't......the specificity he uses to target people is not relevant IMO.

Clay · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
That's kind of what Jeremy would say, though. "You chose to be on Twitter, you chose to be on YouTube......you're in a public space, and if you can't handle the consequences then get the fuck out." At some point you stop being a private citizen when you share yourself on social media.....it's just a matter of when that actually happens.

Literally the instant you step into the public space. Twitter, YouTube, FaceBook, these are public spaces.

If you go to a public park and start taking a dump on a walking path and screaming epithets at people, you're going to be removed. It doesn't matter how long you've been there, or how famous you are, or whatever other variables you could come up with. Digital spaces are the same. You are responsible for your own conduct in a public space.

I already stated your first sentence here, you're restating what I've already said without adding anything. I'm not sure what your point is, but to reiterate mine, Jeremy has been forcibly made to "get the fuck out" since he makes other uncomfortable and WOTC has decided his removal is a net gain to the community since he seems deadset on targeting every public personality associated with the game. Now he can either lean in to his childish victimization schtick, or follow his own advice and pursue happiness outside of forums where he is clearly not welcome.

Border said:
If those are the circumstances then ask about those specific circumstances. Don't ask a general question and then apply the answer to a specific situation.
I've said that I don't think it really matters whether someone is named specifically or has their Twitter handle linked. His followers are smart enough to target people without being directed to a handle or email address. I'm not sure why that's really a point of contention. Either you hold him culpable for the actions of his followers or you don't......the specificity he uses to target people is not relevant IMO.

The point is he's targeting specific people. Not sure why you're focused on the difference between saying "Wedge" vs. @TheManaSource. The important distinction here is making general criticisms (i.e. "I worry that some content creators fail to be critical of WOTC when appropriate because of the relationship they have with the company", or whatever his grievances with other YouTubers are) vs. "Brian advocates political violence."

Like you say, it doesn't matter if he uses a name or @TolarianCommunityCollege. He is naming people and knows his followers will harass them. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

quincognito · Dec 9, 2017

Cybit said:
Maybe because I'm big into sports and academia that is involved with this, but the destructive brigade thing definitely happened in crazy sports fandom and academia long before GG ever showed up.

The idea that the stuff you're referencing now is anything like the targeted forms of destructive, politicized harassment used by the current global youth right wing is completely absurd.

Border said:
What if an otherwise anonymous Twitter userposts something offensive and that gets spotlighted by a blog or news site with hundreds of thousands of users?

I don't think what this situation really calls for is overwrought handwringing about whether the internet Nazi who's been driving waves of harassment against numerous people for years is maybe just poor and understood. If you actually think Justine Sacco got a raw deal and aren't just dragging her name out for cheap rhetorical points it's honestly beyond insulting to compare her to this jackass.

Hero · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
If those are the circumstances then ask about those specific circumstances. Don't ask a general question and then apply the answer to a specific situation.

I've said that I don't think it really matters whether someone is named specifically or has their Twitter handle linked. His followers are smart enough to target people without being directed to a handle or email address. I'm not sure why that's really a point of contention. Either you hold him culpable for the actions of his followers or you don't......the specificity he uses to target people is not relevant IMO.

In a vacuum it shouldn't matter if their twitter handle is linked, but doing so makes it incredibly easy for his followers to harass them since all the effort it takes is a single click for them to spew their vitriol.

To your other point,just because someone chooses to be on social media doesn't give people the freedom to target them as part of a hate mob. It's really black and white here.

Deleted member 1041 · Dec 9, 2017

L Thammy said:
Not a big Warhammer 40K fan, but I think there's something to what you're thinking.

But there's some irony here - probably not something perceived by any fascist who would identify with the Space Marines, but from outside. The Space Marines are popular, but they aren't really the good guys by any stretch. They're xenophobic religious fanatics, their leader is a vegetable who can only watch to watch his empire go against what he stands for, they're probably going to lose in the long run anyway, etc.

Basically the whole gimmick of Warhammer 40K is that absolutely everything is fucked, there's no hope for the future, and all the factions are awful in their own way. Besides being humans, the only thing that makes the Space Marines count as the good guys is that they're defending themselves against worse evils.

pretty much. The closest you have to 'good guys' are the tau but even they have their fucked up caste system and I'm pretty sure they enslave other races they deem lesser. Or something.

basically everyone is an asshole.

Mondy · Dec 9, 2017

Gotta laugh at these alt right dipshits who go around labeling everyone they hate cucks and snowflakes and when they actually suffer consequences for doing so...Proceed to act like cucks and snowflakes.

Hero · Dec 9, 2017

Mondy said:
Gotta laugh at these alt right dipshits who go around labeling everyone they hate cucks and snowflakes and when they actually suffer consequences for doing so...Proceed to act like cucks and snowflakes.

It does seem entirely like clockwork each time one of these guys suffers consequences for their actions.

Erik Twice · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
Would you hold someone in the mass media to the same standard, though? If John Oliver runs a scathing editorial about a heretofore unknown corporate executive whose company is doing scummy things, is Oliver to blame if that person gets death threats or lowblow insults on social media? What if an otherwise anonymous Twitter userposts something offensive and that gets spotlighted by a blog or news site with hundreds of thousands of users?

I think the situation here is not exactly the same as those examples, but I am not sure where exactly people want to draw the line.

If you are a professional, you are ethically required to keep two things in mind: The journalistic value of your information and the impact it has on the people you are reporting on. Exposing people to harrassment is indeed something you are responsible of as a journalist and should be weighted heavily.

From the SPJ Code of Ethics:

Journalists should:

– Balance the public's need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

Justine Sacco's tweet had no journalistic value and harmed the target massively.

Gawker, by the way, purporsely harrassed her, it was not a mistake. Sam Bidde promoted a Twitter hashtag campaign against her admitted he did it for clicks and because "it's easy and thrilling to hate a stranger online"

Given this is a company that published a video of a woman being raped and mocked her afterwards, regularly outed gay people, made up accussations of rape against a gay man for fun, this shouldn't be surprising. They are serial harrassers and Sacco's incident was just another day for them.

Very much like the piece of shit this thread is about.

BreezyLimbo said:
pretty much. The closest you have to 'good guys' are the tau but even they have their fucked up caste system and I'm pretty sure they enslave other races they deem lesser. Or something.

basically everyone is an asshole.

They are the closest to good guys because they give others a choice between joining them and dying. Others just kill you. So yeah XD

Hat22 · Dec 9, 2017

Is it really that hard? If you're against harassment, be against harassment.

You can't declare that you're against harassment and then just pick and choose who can and cannot be harassed.

quincognito said:
The idea that the stuff you're referencing now is anything like the targeted forms of destructive, politicized harassment used by the current global youth right wing is completely absurd.

Is it really fair to limit this one group of people? Hate mobs of every stripe have formed over the last few years.

SomethingAwful is exactly as advertised and oddly enough, extremely progressive.

EmJayJay · Dec 9, 2017

The Kree said:
You really think they're out of touch? I think they're pretending to be.

L Thammy said:
Personally, I think there's more value in keeping people who ask for information informed than assuming the worst. You can only pretend to be ignorant until an explanation is given, and you show your hand if you try to make it into an argument. After the explanation is given, then there's no more need for that level of benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, if we don't inform people, I assure you that Gamergate has an image macro or something on hand to present their narrative.

I was only aware about boogie's comments regarding the JonTron incident but I didn't know he was stealth GG-supporter. So always bring person's history up since that can be extremly enlightening in these controversial issues so people can see if the person is actually reasonable or just downplaying the circumstance. Its the same for the Net Neutrality thing the US is having. There was already history of abuse by the telecompanies which the government shut down.
PS: I think the multi-quote is broken or I just can't seem to know how to use it.

FeistyBoots · Dec 9, 2017

Border said:
Would you hold someone in the mass media to the same standard, though? If John Oliver runs a scathing editorial about a heretofore unknown corporate executive whose company is doing scummy things, is Oliver to blame if that person gets death threats or lowblow insults on social media? What if an otherwise anonymous Twitter userposts something offensive and that gets spotlighted by a blog or news site with hundreds of thousands of users?

I think the situation here is not exactly the same as those examples, but I am not sure where exactly people want to draw the line.

Did you just equate reporting on facts with harassment?

Cybit · Dec 9, 2017

EDIT: Not worth it.

Basically, I'm leery of ends justify the means arguments. Also, as a minority who grew up in a rural area - those kinds of hate mobs have always existed, they just were not visible to anyone outside that community. Hell, Geno Smith's dad got death threats for his son starting over Eli. Athletes have always had this going on - see Muhammad Ali and Tommie Harris.

quincognito · Dec 9, 2017

Since the last time I posted in this thread, three different women I follow on twitter locked their accounts or publicly stepped back due to ongoing harassment related to this exact situation. :/

Hat22 said:
Is it really fair to limit this one group of people?

Yes. The debate about "public shaming" or whatever is its own thing but it doesn't have anything to do with this. There is a specific throughline of active right-wing online hate groups that don't have any direct analog to any other current phenomenon.

Cybit said:
Also, as a minority who grew up in a rural area - those kinds of hate mobs have always existed, they just were not visible to anyone outside that community.

You keep acting like acknowledging the unique evolution of online right-wing groups in the last five years is the same as downplaying historical mob racism or whatever. I know that racist hate groups are not a new thing. The point relevant to this discussion is that GG was where people who had been dedicated to horrific right-wing ideology developed a new and very effective form of disruptive, coordinated harassment that helped them build a broader online movement, and ever since that template has been copied by every other tin-pot internet nazi or fashy sympathizer.

jackal27 · Dec 9, 2017

I just still can't believe this is happening. Even more so though, I still can't believe people are still making excuses for online harassment. It is never, ever appropriate.

Polaroid_64 · Dec 9, 2017

Lol at people considering the alt right as some sort of protected group.

They embrace hate. Stop worrying about them.

Messofanego · Dec 9, 2017

LL_Decitrig said:
I had to read up on this a bit, so now I know 40k refers to Warhammer 40,000, a SF variant of the fantasy wargame Warhammer (which even I had vague memories from the 1980s when Games Workshop stores started to blossom in British towns). A brief Google search on the username ArchWarHammer suggests that, though he may well be a popular figure in the 40k community, he is outspoken in his fascism, or at least, his water-carrying for fascism.

Then I looked a bit closer at 40k. To me it looks like a blatant satire of a fascistic space empire, and not one I feel especially attracted to as a place in which I might spend time even in fantasy. Could it be that it's the kind of place that would disproportionately attract people sympathetic to the extreme right?

Forgive me if this is all terribly wrong, I've only had a few hours to do some research. But is it really so surprising that when thousands of gamers willingly immerse themselves in an authoritarian, xenophobic fantasy world, at least some of those players might actually be the sort to take such ideas seriously?

L Thammy said:
Not a big Warhammer 40K fan, but I think there's something to what you're thinking.

But there's some irony here - probably not something perceived by any fascist who would identify with the Space Marines, but from outside. The Space Marines are popular, but they aren't really the good guys by any stretch. They're xenophobic religious fanatics, their leader is a vegetable who can only watch to watch his empire go against what he stands for, they're probably going to lose in the long run anyway, etc.

Basically the whole gimmick of Warhammer 40K is that absolutely everything is fucked, there's no hope for the future, and all the factions are awful in their own way. Besides being humans, the only thing that makes the Space Marines count as the good guys is that they're defending themselves against worse evils.

People unironically identifying with fascistic empires certainly has far right appeal just like with The Punisher and Judge Dredd.

Deleted member 7082 · Dec 9, 2017

All I want to say is, within the actual 40k community, from the writers to the players, the identification with fascism is definitely ironic. The closest example like this, and another very British work, is the Dredd/2000 A.D. universe.

L Thammy · Dec 9, 2017

Messofanego said:
People unironically identifying with fascistic empires certainly has far right appeal just like with The Punisher and Judge Dredd.

Not disagreeing at all; I wasn't the one who pasted Trump's head on the God Emperor of Mankind. I've seen it spread before, which is why I'm familiar that some Trumpsters are fond of the comparison. The most popular faction in 40K is the Imperium, who are based off of crusaders and fascists, so it isn't surprising that they appeal to the Deus Vult crowd. But I think it's absurd when you look at it from outside of their cognitive dissonance. That's how the God Emperor of Mankind looks in the backstory of 40K's setting, he isn't so impressive in the "present":

Sblargh · Dec 9, 2017

A lot of antifascist things end up being appropriated, at least the images without context, by the fascists it was attempting to satirize.
It's not uncommon. The phenomena might be the entire story of 4chan.
People are mocking dumb racists by pretending to be one. Dumb racist see and agree. And now you lost control of what is satire and what isn't.
And then when you see your joke "this is so stupid, I doubt people believe this for real" is being shared by, yes, people who are so stupid that are believing in it for real.

Slayven · Dec 9, 2017

" I lean left" is the new "I am not racist but"

L Thammy · Dec 9, 2017

Slayven said:
" I lean left" is the new "I am not racist but"

What's the old "this is why Trump won"?

Slayven · Dec 9, 2017

L Thammy said:
What's the old "this is why Trump won"?

anything involving the phrase "real america"

Prophaniti · Dec 9, 2017

I can't believe a thread about Christine has gone on for 11 pages. Ive known her for years. Weird.

Deleted member 7082 · Dec 9, 2017

Prophaniti said:
I can't believe a thread about Christine has gone on for 11 pages.

Thanks for checking in.

Prophaniti · Dec 9, 2017

Megatherium said:
Thanks for checking in.

You're quite welcome

aerie · Dec 9, 2017

Prophaniti said:
I can't believe a thread about Christine has gone on for 11 pages.

Why are you surprised a thread about online harassment would warrant such discussion ?

Prophaniti · Dec 9, 2017

The Woods said:
Why are you surprised a thread about online harassment would warrant such discussion ?

Cause I've known her for years. Should have included that in the original post. Would have made more sense

aerie · Dec 9, 2017

Prophaniti said:
Cause I've known her for years. Should have included that in the original post. Would have made more sense

Ahh, you'll have to extend our sympathy to her over all this, if able. I ran some smaller MTG tournaments for the better part of a decade and any harassment towards any player or member of the community would've been met rather strictly, this has all been rather unfortunate and ugly. Its a shame there is push back against Wizards for setting a good precedent against such bullying.

iSnack 2.0 · Dec 9, 2017

Chikor said:
8:35 lmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao

But really, he seems a bit unhinged.

God damn. Folks I present to you the definition of basement dweller. Him saying shit like "I'm not going to let them bully me out of the game" like dude. What? Do you hear yourself?

RationalGinger · Dec 9, 2017

iSnack 2.0 said:
God damn. Folks I present to you the definition of basement dweller. Him saying shit like "I'm not going to let them bully me out of the game" like dude. What? Do you hear yourself?

He's another deluded fool who thinks having a YouTube channel gives him license to do what he wants. Like all bullies, once confronted, he plays the victim. As others have stated, he's clearly upset by this; alternating between denial - thinking he can get the ban overturned, and a false rage on behalf of his "fans." Those same fans are going to drop him rather quickly when he becomes unable to produce the content they've become accustomed to.

This is a "man", and I use that term very loosely, who allowed his ego and less positive traits to become more dominant as his seeming fame grew. Like all insecure manchilds, he couldn't stand that someone else was making money off the hobby he had built his channel on. Her being a female, and in all fairness a fairly attractive one, just exasperated the issue for him.

People like this exist in all fandoms - they use their hobbies as a way to escape reality; not because they are anti-social, but because their behavior is not tolerated in public. On the internet, among people who share their hobby, they can feel secure, free from the judgments of others. Some, like Jeremy, find they can build a sort of life off the hobby. Rather than using it for constructive purposes however, he used his position to feed his worst impulses and insecurities.

He is a small, small man, and the sooner he is forgotten the better.

Deleted member 7082 · Dec 9, 2017

The craziest part has been him alternating between asking his followers to send polite emails of protest about the decision to Wizards, and declaring he is going to release some motherload of "dirt" about the personal lives of various Wizards employees as revenge. Like are you trying to get back into MtG or not?

Actually in multiple instances he has asked them to "be polite" if they contact parties about then ban, because he KNOWS what they like to do to his targets, but still denies he could have any foresight or knowledge of the harrassment he was calling down back when he was attacking people. He was never cautioning them to be polite before his ass was on the line, and was even offering reward for people to troll targets in person at their panels.

Prophaniti · Dec 9, 2017

The Woods said:
Ahh, you'll have to extend our sympathy to her over all this, if able. I ran some smaller MTG tournaments for the better part of a decade and any harassment towards any player or member of the community would've been met rather strictly, this has all been rather unfortunate and ugly. Its a shame there is push back against Wizards for setting a good precedent against such bullying.

Ill pass it along. The whole things crazy.

Transhuman · Dec 10, 2017

Morrigan said:
Look, you can rationalize it all you want, but you can mock, deride, criticize, etc. Boogie for plenty of good reasons that don't involve his appearance, so, just don't, not here at least.

Well it's great to see a mod encouraging bullying.

Harassment campaign against MtG cosplayer forces her to leave community(Harasser banned from WoTC)

Spear of the Metal Church

One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer

Spacenoid

Never read a comic in his life

Spacenoid

Never read a comic in his life

wonky

wonky