daily pastebin goal
63%
SHARE
TWEET

Backup of RPGSite thread posts

a guest Mar 10th, 2015 484 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. All of the posts below are pasted directly from this thread here on RPG net. Because this thread is long (32 pages!) I’m only pasting posts by Zak S pertaining to me (wundergeek): http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30942
  2.  
  3. This has been lightly formatted to increase readability, however nothing is changed from its original context, save that some posts are elided (again due to extreme length) to omit portions that I felt were not pertinent. Individual post links are provided for each post, if you wish to see a post in its original context.
  4.  
  5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6.  
  7. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?s=3e8fe3b9889433bba54a1012108ee96f&p=795987&postcount=39
  8.  
  9. -Wundergeek, the author linked in the OP publicly made false claims about harassment, said she thought a fetishy pin-up artist might have questionable attitude toward consent based solely on his drawings, said ""harem anime is pathetic and disgusting. Fetish anime ditto. Hentai anime ditto", and says egregiously homophobic, slut-shaming and sexphobic things pretty much constantly.
  10.  
  11. -If you want to play the game: borrow a copy so no money goes to Wundergeek or anyone who supports her.
  12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  13.  
  14. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796232&postcount=69
  15.  
  16. But the conversations should be:
  17.  
  18. "Please make art I like, too" (or, better yet "Here's the art I made")
  19. not
  20. "Stop making the art that brings women in who aren't like me"
  21. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  22.  
  23. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796393&postcount=80
  24.  
  25. To be clear: in any way supporting a product made by Wundergeek or people who are still supporting her is pretty fucked up considering what she's done and the attacks she's made. That includes giving money to people who employ them.
  26.  
  27. It's where the money goes that matters. If bigots make money: that's bad. If their friends make money: bad. If a company that chose to employ them makes money: bad.
  28. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  29.  
  30.  
  31. [this is about where JHKim starts arguing with Zak]
  32.  
  33. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  34.  
  35. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796498&postcount=88
  36.  
  37. Of course I do:
  38.  
  39. *Kinkshaming:
  40. "…harem anime is disgusting. Fetish anime ditto. Hentai anime ditto."
  41. http://www.donotlink.com/cdn8
  42.  
  43. *Suggesting an artist "has questionable ideas about consent" because of how they draw.
  44.  
  45. http://www.donotlink.com/cdnc
  46.  
  47. Also contains this extremely disturbing exchange:
  48. "Zak: "You said: "Do I want Hyun Tae Kim to stop making art now and forever? No "But you say you're "against" it. What then are you suggesting he himself actually do? Or that other people do about it?Are you just saying he should keep making it and people should just keep complaining about it until he's unpopular?"
  49.  
  50. Another interlocutor: ""I won't presume to speak for Wundergeek, but here's my own thoughts on the question of how to deal with people who like this stuff.It's really an issue of context, in my mind. Under some contexts, what they're doing is clearly unproblematic (eg. the BDSM subculture, which from my understanding is very concerned about issues of consent and meta-consent despite the lack of consent being a turn-on), and under some contexts, it clearly is (eg. the jerk who really doesn't care whether partners are hurt or not, as long as there aren't legal repercussions).It's really impossible to say which group the people who like HTK's artwork fall under, so we can only roll our eyes at their bad taste.HTK himself, on the other hand, is much easier to condemn, because his choice to aim his artwork at an audience composed largely of young males whose lust for compromised female bodies is not anchored by a strong foundation of respect for women's meta-level wishes implies that he doesn't see a need for context in the first place.What should be done about it seems to follow naturally from the idea of context — kick it out of the mainstream, where it's likely to be misinterpreted, and allow it to be provided in spaces where the necessary context is known and agreed upon. That's probably still not ideal for its fans, but the level of harm that could be done by it seems smaller than the level of harm done by the perpetuation of consent brinksmanship."
  51.  
  52. Wundergeek: "Yes. That"
  53.  
  54. *Homophobic opinions that only make sense if lesbian and bi women and women who just like chainmail bikinis just don't exist:
  55.  
  56. http://www.donotlink.com/cdnd
  57.  
  58. *For just bonus Max Nordau insanity, assuming sexy zombie art exists because people are secretly necrophiliacs:
  59.  
  60. http://www.donotlink.com/cdng
  61.  
  62. People around Anna (even ones who will say they strenuously object to the attacks she makes) continue to support her rather than calling her on her shit: because they're scared of confrontation and because they're trying to encourage her to make games instead of obsess over other folks' stuff. But she needs to get help, not just constant random reification of whatever aggressive anti-sex delusion she's pushing that day. It's not ok--like if I was Hyun Tae Kim I'd be seriously wondering what the fuck world I'm living in where it's 2014 and I'm facing an attack on my art straight out of 1890.
  63. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  64.  
  65. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796509&postcount=91
  66. No, it is not. Here's why:
  67. http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com...n-history.html
  68.  
  69.  
  70. Quote:
  71. As I remember, the +1ed post in question was indeed irresponsible bullshit, but she isn't making such a false claim here.  
  72.  
  73. She was one of the people who +1ed the false post and by claiming the controversy was "manufactured" she is doubling down on the false claim rather than going "Ok, I supported a lie and I don't like that Zak called me on it"
  74.  
  75. Various dickhead game designers attacked another dickhead game designer by lying about rapeand she joined in and never apologized. That is not ok.
  76.  
  77.  
  78. Quote:
  79. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  80. they're exchanging insults and accusations - like Zak's claim that she says egregiously homophobic things,
  81.  
  82. This is true, and I backed it up with a link, it's sitting in front of you on your computer as we speak.
  83.  
  84.  
  85. Quote:
  86. and her implied claim that he tolerates misogynists among his supporters.  
  87.  
  88. This is untrue and she has no evidence to support it.
  89.  
  90. So: you're drawing a false equivalence, jhkim.
  91.  
  92.  
  93. Quote:
  94. Wundergeek is openly anti-porn  
  95.  
  96. That isn't an ok position. That's like being anti-pictures-of-two-guys-kissing: it's a thing only bigots are.
  97.  
  98. Being against the way the porn industry operates is fine.
  99.  
  100. Not wanting to look at erotic imagery is fine.
  101.  
  102. Thinking there should be more non-erotic imagery made and more art directors should hire diverse people is fine.
  103.  
  104. But being ideologically against erotic imagery itself and the people who make it is Max Nordau territory. It's coding wanting to look at sexualized women as a "male" activity--which ten minutes outside will tell you is not a healthy or realistic assumption and one that erases LGBT experience.
  105.  
  106. She attributes specific crimes and psychological problems to people based on the pictures she likes or makes. That's really not ok.
  107.  
  108. And no matter what you think of Anna's position, her endorsing the attacks on me and the women in my group and claiming she was harassed by us is straight-up falsehood with no possible defense.
  109.  
  110. Like: you need to address that, JHKim--she's allowed to find something offensive, she's not allowed to make shit up and attack other women with no accountability
  111. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  112.  
  113.  
  114. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796644&postcount=94
  115. She says it right before she goes into the description of me (and 2 other guys)
  116.  
  117. "Instead, I’d like to focus on something more specific: nerd famous men (yes, men) who use their nerd fame to incite their audience to harass people (usually women) they don’t like."
  118.  
  119. Then she goes on to talk about me on the same page right after saying that.
  120.  
  121. That is straight up accusing me of doing a thing I did not do.
  122.  
  123. Can you not read JHKim?
  124.  
  125.  
  126. Quote:
  127. She describes specific behavior by you that is as far as I know factual - your posting of her name with commentary over the +1, and more broadly that you have posted attacks on her attempting to convince people that she is a shrill feminazi that shouldn’t ever be listened to. As far as I know, that is essentially correct.  
  128.  
  129. Yes but she is also claiming the thing she plussed wasn't a lie and it is.
  130.  
  131. Why am I having to repeat this twice? Why are you dodging this?
  132.  
  133. Let's just start with that, before moving on to all the other things you dodged.
  134.  
  135. (And, of course, I would never call anyone a "feminazi"--that's not a real thing.)
  136.  
  137. Here is a direct quote--she calls the rape lie about JDickhead"a manufactured controversy (that he helped to manufacture)…" that is a straight-up lie.
  138.  
  139. Address that, JHKim and please stop dodging it.
  140. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  141.  
  142. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796677&postcount=98
  143. I'm saying: since she's a liar and a bigot, supporting her in any way instantaneously makes you a shitty person that nobody else should ever deal with. Just like supporting a known homophobe would make you a shitty person. Whether you want to be a shitty person is your business, not mine.
  144.  
  145. Quote:
  146. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  147. Even if I grant that simply being mentioned on the same page as that sentence is a direct accusation against you, that sentence does not claim that the "nerd famous men" harassed anyone. It is saying that certain followers of theirs harass people that they target.
  148.  
  149. Incorrect. It says something much worse: it says the people named intentionally incite harassment. (Read the fucking entry). Also, as Yabaziou pointed out, she called me a harasser on twitter after reading this thread.
  150.  
  151. I have neither harassed her nor intentionally incited anyone to do it and have, in fact, said the opposite: ask for evidence of her claims and don't buy her stuff, that's it, don't harass her . So she is lying. So address that JHKim.
  152.  
  153.  
  154. Quote:
  155. But you can't read whatever you like into the generalities, because she is specific about what she accuses you of - that you posted her real name with commentary in a list of people in the RPG industry who shouldn't be trusted, and that in general you post attacks against her accusing her of things like homophobia, unacceptable anti-porn ideology, and so forth. As far as I can see, that is exactly what you are doing in this thread.  
  156.  
  157. Calling that "harassment" or "incitement" is a lie. Her real name is public and publicly attached to her projects and it's the one she +1ed the false post under.
  158.  
  159. I want people to talk about a thing they disagree about and point out bad behavior. That is not harassment.
  160.  
  161. That's exactly what everyone else--including her, does on the internet all the time. The only difference is I can provide evidence of her bad behavior when asked and she can't.
  162.  
  163. So address that JHKim.
  164. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  165.  
  166.  
  167. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796804&postcount=108
  168.  
  169. Quote:
  170. Saying that it is part of a "manufactured controversy" isn't necessarily denying that any lies were told on either side, or that any particular lie was told. As for James Desborough, I think that is roughly correct. He put up his "In Defense of Rape" post which was deliberately controversial. This being the Internet, this resulted in a shitstorm that included a little bit of reasoned debate and a lot of bullshit from both sides that went on for months. Some people might reasonably call this a "manufactured controversy".  
  171.  
  172. You are completely fudging the important fact here:
  173.  
  174. During all this Ben Lehman wrote a post falsely accusing JDickhead of making rape threats then Wundergeek supported it.
  175.  
  176. That is a huge detail you completely left out.
  177.  
  178. Why did you leave about the public and false accusation of a felony? I can only speculate
  179.  
  180. * Because many of the people who supported it were your friends?
  181.  
  182. * Because JDickhead isn't you so you have no empathy for how fucked up and (in many states) illegal that is?
  183.  
  184. * Because JDickhead is a dickhead so you are pretending it's ok?
  185.  
  186. Here's what good people said after that incident, after realizing that the rape threat allegations were false:
  187.  
  188. "
  189. Thanks for this. It's easy to throw a +1 down on a friend's post reflexively and assume due diligence is the default. Sometimes, especially when it comes to accusations this serious, it's important to remember that extreme claims require extreme evidence.
  190.  
  191. Thanks, +JS, for going the extra mile to prove the innocence of someone regardless of your personal feelings toward them. That's true justice. I'm sorry for what it cost you.
  192.  
  193. +JD, I don't know you, or anything about you, and I was wrong to assume claims made about you were true even though they came from a trusted source. You have my apology.
  194.  
  195. +BL, I haven't known you to be the kind of person who would make spurious claims, and I don't think you did it with malice, just for the record.
  196.  
  197. +Zak, thanks for bringing this to my attention and for supporting, as you accurately put it, Lawful Good endeavors.?
  198. "
  199.  
  200. and
  201.  
  202. "
  203. You are correct, an apology is in order. I did not do the due diligence and let my personal feelings color my objectivity. My apologies.
  204. "
  205.  
  206. and
  207.  
  208. "
  209. Whoops. I forgot about my snap judgement plus 1 and even followed Jon's investigation post/comments. Removing the plus now - my apologies.?
  210. "
  211.  
  212. and
  213.  
  214. "uh, I have to admit, given light to the situation, I don't know why I plus 1'd it other than 'ok, you voice your opinion. Good for you.'
  215.  
  216. Considering a plus 1 on that specific post as an endorsement to a false allegation is wrong. I removed it. I should have dug deeper before jumping to conclusions. I've followed JD for a bit now and offer my apologies to him directly.
  217.  
  218. Wundergeek never did that.
  219.  
  220. Wundergeek did this thing that was wrong (+1ing the accusation of rape threats) and then never apologized and then did what you are doing now: pretending lying about rape is some "manufactured controversy".
  221.  
  222. Whether she said about it in a given blog post is immaterial, what's important is she did a terrible thing, never apologized, and instead attacked me for pointing it out.
  223.  
  224. So address that, JHKim, instead of dodging it a fourth time.
  225.  
  226. And, while we're at it, let's look at the most obvious evidence of shit-headdery: she retweeted the (known to be all false allegations) hit piece article about me.
  227.  
  228. There's no possible good motive for that and nobody who did it without apologizing can claim to be an even vaguely decent person.
  229.  
  230. So address that while you're at it, JHKim
  231.  
  232. And, yeah Yabaziou--you fucking call people by whatever pronoun they like and if you're not sure, don't use any, just use their name.
  233. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  234.  
  235.  
  236. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796917&postcount=113
  237. Quote:
  238. Originally Posted by TristramEvans View Post
  239. I mean, taking that sort of hard line would mean I'd have to...
  240.  
  241. You seem to be talking a lot about emotions and what I allegedly want you to feel and what you thnk I feel and that's not the subject here--it's practicality. Supporting Wundergeek makes her more likely to do more shitty things to people and that would be bad, so in order to prevent that bad outcome: do not support her.
  242.  
  243. You can consume things without materially improving the lives of the authors. In the case of dead authors: easily. In the case of living ones: simply by borrowing. Then you've got the thing without making the world worse. Good outcome.
  244.  
  245. At this stage in their career--promoting amateur RPG authors within the community helps them materially and in a real way. In the case of people willing to lie and dick people over: make sure none of your money lands on their desk and none of your reshares put their work in front of new sets of eyes. Then you haven't made the world worse. Your feelings do not come into it and are none of my concern--not sure why you'd even bring it up.
  246. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  247.  
  248. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=796995&postcount=118
  249. (Pointing out now I'm not reading anything in this thread unless it mentions me specifically lest I be accused of "fomenting" whatever random RPGsite stuff people post while i work and/or sleep.)
  250.  
  251. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  252.  
  253.  
  254. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797312&postcount=137
  255.  
  256. …therefore she lied. And so did you, just now Shlominus when you said "there are screenshots of zak telling people to "engage" others online, and that's pretty good support of her claims." because it isn't at all.
  257.  
  258. If engaging people about their beliefs is "harassment" then all productive discussion in the history of time is "harassment" and all journalism is "harassment" and all fact-checking (the most important act of engagement) is "harassment" and you are harassing all the people you are talking to on this forum right now.
  259.  
  260. So stop lying--and apologize.
  261. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  262.  
  263.  
  264. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797322&postcount=141
  265.  
  266. ACTUALLY IT'S SUPER EASY!
  267.  
  268. She claims:
  269.  
  270. 1. I am a "harasser" (her twitter)
  271.  
  272. 2. She does not claim to have private communications from me
  273.  
  274. 3. None of my public communications with her have been harassment
  275.  
  276. ALSO ANOTHER WAY TO PROVE SHE'S A LIAR:
  277.  
  278. She retweeted the FailForward article and claimed to agree with it.
  279.  
  280. Here is me disproving the claims in it:
  281.  
  282. http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com...tally-not.html
  283.  
  284. Easy lies to erase are claims I am trying to keep everyone who isn't cishet and white out of RPGs, since all these people who are neither have started playing RPGs because I asked them to play. In fact--that's most of the people in my game group and lots of my defenders on-line.
  285.  
  286. So: she supported an article now known to be totally false. She is a liar.
  287.  
  288.  
  289. So: you are wrong and should now apologize.
  290.  
  291.  
  292. Quote:
  293. several people have said that they have been harassed by people they associate with you. i know of at least 4. it's certainly possible that they are all lying. i certainly won't claim this cannot be the case. i just think it's highly doubtful.  
  294.  
  295. This is really easy to address:
  296.  
  297. -There are people who believe irrational things they can't defend (like Wundergeek thinks HTK's drawing style is "evidence" he might have a problem with consent)
  298.  
  299. -These people are often friends. They found each other on the internet because they believe these same dumb things.
  300.  
  301. -I constantly call for discussion and fact-checking and debunking of false claims
  302.  
  303. -These people have hit on a common tactic: claiming that engagement with people who disagree with you is harassment.
  304.  
  305. Here's one of them saying that:
  306. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l-OIUUr01E..._headshot.tiff
  307.  
  308. So, that's why they claim it.
  309.  
  310.  
  311. So: you are wrong and should now apologize.
  312.  
  313.  
  314.  
  315. Quote:
  316. this carries more weight. there are screenshots of you telling people to "engage" someone online. here it is:
  317. http://imgur.com/QOaqru4,9AYuDLq#0  
  318.  
  319. You just now agreed that "Confronting people about the beliefs they put out into public themselves is not harassment."
  320.  
  321.  
  322.  
  323. Quote:
  324. while i am very critical of how you behave online i didn't think you'd be involved in anything like that. those screenshots changed that.  
  325.  
  326. Then you should have come to me immediately and asked the questions you are asking now at that time.
  327.  
  328. Anything less is totally irresponsible.
  329.  
  330.  
  331. Quote:
  332. are they fake?  
  333.  
  334. Of course not.
  335.  
  336. Why would I ever NOT tell people to engage and fact-check false claims made against me? It's not a secret that I don't want to be libeled. You want me to go around doing both my day jobs plus taking care of a sick person plus then on top of that debunk every single false claim myself despite the fact I have friends willing to help?
  337.  
  338. Let's do this right here:
  339.  
  340. TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE INTERNET
  341. If someone lies about me, please do get in contact with that person and fact-check them. Ask them for evidence and, if their claim is public, provide links proving the claims false on the same page as the false claim. That is all. p.s. don't harass them--that would accomplish nothing. Duh.
  342.  
  343.  
  344. Quote:
  345. how many people were you adressing? was this private or in your public circles? (i don't know much about google+, so that question might not make much sense)  
  346.  
  347. This was to about 1100 people--my whole RPG circle.
  348.  
  349. Anyone can get into that circle by simply asking to be added to it though it is technically private because otherwise I'd be spamming my porn fans with RPG news and vice versa.
  350.  
  351.  
  352. Quote:
  353. what did you mean by "destroy" this seems quite vague,  
  354.  
  355. Since the false charges began when 5e was announced, I posted links to every major share of the false claim anyone sent me.
  356.  
  357. If you would like to check this I can add you to my RPG circle and you can check.
  358.  
  359. When I saw the Metafilter post "Destroy" expressed, for me, 2 ideas:
  360.  
  361. -frustration that a relatively large news outlet had shared the false claim without fact-checking, especially since everybody in my circles had been seeing those claims for days or weeks by then. Like "Again? Seriously?"
  362.  
  363. -people in my circles should destroy the false claim (which, if you check the thread, they did--using facts)
  364.  
  365. p.s. Even assuming it did mean "Destroy the lives of the people responsible for this being on Metafilter" nobody did that. Instead people following me did exactly the right thing--they went on Metafilter and challenged the claims and provided links.
  366.  
  367. p.p.s. one of the people who wrote one of the OTHER links in the Metafilter OP (one of the "good" social justice people) is a big Vornheim fan and we get along.
  368.  
  369.  
  370. Quote:
  371. how could you be sure people wouldn't take that the wrong way?  
  372.  
  373. 1. I explicitly said on more than one occasion before that that harassment is bad and does not serve my purpose and that only debunking the false claims helps me, not hurting people.
  374.  
  375. EXAMPLE: https://plus.google.com/112262093672...ts/j2uACZas8Z7
  376.  
  377. It is peoples' shitty ideas that need to be addressed--so since harassing one out of communication only emboldens their friends and martyrs them, it's not a tactic that helps in any way.
  378.  
  379. 2. People take everything the wrong way on the internet, that's life. However, if I am to blame for not taking some necessary precautions than you and others like you are far more to blame because I got death threats and can prove it and unlike me you have never addressed those death threats I got and neither has Wundergeek. EXAMPLE:
  380. http://oblivionnecroninja.tumblr.com...ng-harrassment
  381.  
  382. So people could be reading you RIGHT NOW Shlomi and deciding to threaten me based on your assertions and you haven't said anything to dissuade them.
  383.  
  384. If you claim being popular means I must take more precautions than you, then RPG people like GeekyLyndsay Peters and General Ironicus need to be taken to task over the death threats I received. go get in touch with them right now--they have lots of twitter followers.
  385.  
  386.  
  387. Quote:
  388. has this been a singular incident or is that a regular thing?  
  389.  
  390. I have been instructing people to engage RPG people who lie on the internet and ask them questions and debunk false claims since my blog started in 2009 or whatever it was. It is no secret, it is a matter of principle.
  391.  
  392. I do it more often on G+ than on my blog now because then my blog isn't just endless posts of RPG inside-baseball. However, again--if you want to see what I post in G+, COME ON IN.
  393.  
  394.  
  395. Quote:
  396. can you vouch for the people you address?  
  397.  
  398. I can tell you everything I know about named people. If someone told me they harassed someone or did anything dishonest I'd immediately eject them from my circles and tell everyone to stay away from them.
  399.  
  400. This is not to say nobody who reads me is a secret psychopath. But, again, if I am responsible for secret psychopaths, Wundergeek and you are responsible for the secret psychopaths sending me death threats.
  401.  
  402.  
  403. Quote:
  404. do you think it's possible someone acted in a way you might not have intended that was inappropriate?  
  405.  
  406. Sure, people are stupid.
  407.  
  408.  
  409. Quote:
  410. if that happened, would you consider it fair to hold you responsible, if only partially?  
  411.  
  412. No. For reasons named above. Though if you have a counter-argument you should make it.
  413.  
  414.  
  415. Quote:
  416. has there ever been a similar discussion concerning something wundergeek said?  
  417.  
  418. All the time. She is a known RPG Lunatic. Again: join my circles to see. I never simply said "destroy" though. Usually like "Facepalm" or something.
  419.  
  420.  
  421. Quote:
  422. please don't ignore my questions again, i would rather think of you as someone who acts like a fuck when people disagree with him than as someone who organises harassment of critics.  
  423.  
  424. I don't ignore questions, you are a liar.
  425.  
  426. I act like a responsible person when people lie: I call them liars. It is the only responsible thing to do.
  427.  
  428.  
  429. Quote:
  430. if you don't see the screenhsot as indication that there might be some credibility to her claim that's your choice. i still do.  
  431.  
  432. You are wrong.
  433.  
  434. And lying.
  435.  
  436. Also:
  437.  
  438. Although calling someone who is a bigoted a bigot does not constitute harassment, publicly lying about them does constitute harassment. So you are harassing me as we speak
  439. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  440.  
  441.  
  442. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797328&postcount=144
  443. Quote:
  444. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  445. you know very well that that's not what i am saying. i am saying that the screenshots lend some credibility to several people claiming zak's followers harassed them.
  446.  
  447. i put engaged in quotation marks for a reason. telling people to "destroy" something is a weird way to make them talk to people.
  448.  
  449. Is that the best you have?
  450.  
  451. Please engage the fact Wundergeek is lying and you now know that.
  452.  
  453. Type something like "Wow, Zak, Wundergeek really is lying, I am sorry I doubted you. I am a bad person for not immediately contacting you with questions when I began to believes these assholes and their bullshit"
  454. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  455.  
  456.  
  457. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797336&postcount=148
  458. Quote:
  459. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  460. in a recent video that you are most likely aware of
  461.  
  462. I don't know anything about any video. Please don't link to it, since whatever it is, it probably constitutes harassment and by spreading it, you'll be harassing both me and my terminally ill lgbt handicapped girlfriend.
  463.  
  464.  
  465. Quote:
  466. it is claimed that a follower (or followers, i am not sure) of yours contacted somebody's children. did that happen?  
  467.  
  468. I don't know. This is the second time I've heard a claim like that, here was my initial response:
  469.  
  470. https://plus.google.com/u/0/11035228...ts/iEhnXey6HCn
  471.  
  472.  
  473. Quote:
  474. Zak Smith
  475. Shared privately - Aug 3, 2014
  476.  
  477. I just heard some people might've threatened Filamena Young and David Hill's kids. That sucks. Their kids are not responsible for their parents being jerks and violence is not the solution to people with dumb ideas. Whoever did that sucks. Pass it on.
  478. Scrap Princess originally shared:
  479.  
  480. Also anyone sending threats is a shit in the pool of human discourse. I think we can all agree on that??
  481.  
  482. 7 comments
  483.  
  484. SOMEBODY Aug 3, 2014+5
  485.  
  486.  
  487. What in the hell is wrong with people??
  488.  
  489. SOMEBODY Aug 3, 2014
  490.  
  491. Unfortunately we live in a world where people are no longer held accountable for their words. Social media has perpetuated this to a level that is both sickening and obscene for those of us old enough to remember a time when you had to back up anything you said or did with your fists.
  492. I know that sounds like macho-broski-BS, and I can assure you it isn't intended as such, but it is an observation I have formed through experience both online and in the real world. (having worked numerous violent jobs to pay the bills)
  493. It is an unfortunate sign of our times that people can go around making trolling threats to children with nothing to fear.
  494. Thank you +Zak Smith for calling them out on their behavior. This is exactly why I support you and +Mandy Morbid in this current online dispute. You both take responsibility for your words, good or bad. You own them. It is a rare quality these days.?
  495.  
  496. SOMEBODY Aug 3, 2014+4
  497.  
  498. I don't want to deflect or minimize the issue of threats against people and their family in general, even veiled threats, but I do want to make an observation. If anybody thinks this is an inappropriate place for it, I can delete it.
  499.  
  500. Observation
  501. In my limited recent review of all the linked vitriolic forum exchanges involving Zak when he was able to post, I don't recall seeing a single person side with Zak and lash out with ugly vindictive at those arguing with Zak. I did see quite a bit of that aimed at Zak and anybody who would step up with him (rare as it is in the samples I have reviewed).
  502.  
  503. More recent posts where Zak can not even reply directly, I see some seriously ugly vendictive and unwholesome language aimed at Zak, and any attempt at having a rational discussion with them about the merits of their feelz meets with ugly responses and blocking, which strikes me as defensive and emotionally charged behavior in the face of a steady and passionless request for evidence.
  504.  
  505. Further, examining many of these forums, the nature of the language and level of anger expressed suggest people capable of making anonymous threats (and we have seen a recent example of such a threat). Curiously, the first thing I saw one of the Outrage Brigade jump on is that the threat was probably one of Zak's invisible minions attempting to discredit them.... and another suggestion it was the person threatened who was the actual perpetrator of the threat.
  506.  
  507. This is not a novel response, it has been suggested that the Outrage Brigade's alleged threats were doctored by their alleged victims, or were delivered (under guise of authenticity) by one of their own to gin up their less passionate base. A key difference is the there is only one threat which any evidence has been submitted publicly, and it was against a supporter of Zak.
  508.  
  509. Also, the more noteworthy point, is that I have not seen anybody supporting Zak who is passionate enough to actually bother making a threat, short of maybe Zak, who has demonstrated consistent integrity regarding such behavior, and is not the Master Internet Sleuth required to track down such information unless it's left 'out in the open'. I have not seen anybody speak up on Zak's behalf with anger. At most, annoyance and the dodgy way requests for information are quibbled and equivocated away presuming bad faith on the investigator, but not anger, certainly not enough to bother tracking somebody's address or phone number down, and certainly not enough to commit a crime, threatening a person or their family.
  510.  
  511. Some select and often anonymous members of online communities and the Outrage Brigade by proxy are the only people I see who still engage in ugly, sexist, and ableist slurs and misrepresentations of Zak, Mandy, his friends, his supporters, and the people at WotC who have displayed integrity by not knee-jerking and erasing his name and bellowing auto-apologia to make it go away.
  512.  
  513. Only those people demonstrate the sort of ugly character it would take to threaten a family.?
  514.  
  515. Zak SmithAug 3, 2014+3
  516.  
  517. I think the people who do things like this are probably sociopaths who present as quiet and normal, so I dunno if that means anything
  518.  
  519. SOMEBODY Aug 3, 2014
  520.  
  521. That may well be,?
  522.  
  523. SOMEBODYAug 3, 2014+2
  524.  
  525. If someone's kids have been threatened, it is beyond the pale. Its not something I'd ever want associated with me or my side and that person would in no way represent me.
  526.  
  527. BUT, the problem is that the Outrage Brigade LIE. They are known liars. It is very evident that in their eyes, there's absolutely no problem with making up just about anything about your opponents to discredit them, because truth doesn't really matter and what matters is that their side is the 'socially conscious elite' and therefore can do no wrong in their pusuit of "justice". They've shown over and over again that they have absolutely no compunction with making up lies, and repeating the same lies even in the face of direct evidence of fabrication (to the contrary, they'll just try to censor the evidence).
  528.  
  529. So really, IF someone threatened one of the Outrage Brigade's kids, it's horrible and I absolutely condemn it. But I have absolutely no way of knowing if it's true. They've been making up lies about me from the moment this all started, so really I can't believe anything that comes out of their side anymore; not without blatant supporting evidence, at least.?
  530.  
  531. SOMEBODY Aug 3, 2014
  532. Because it applies here:
  533. https://plus.google.com/+NateMcD/posts/8dep9rSNpks?  
  534.  
  535. Quote:
  536. if it did, was the person responsible dealt with as you indicated? is it true that you told people to stop harassing the kids, but not the father?  
  537.  
  538. My response it above.
  539.  
  540. Nobody should ever harass David Hill or Filamena. People should always debunk their bullshit when they lie in public and/or ask them questions when they make claims against Mandy or me.
  541.  
  542. That is: what you are doing now? Asking me fair questions to establish my honesty? That is what people should do to David and Filamena too.
  543.  
  544. I make claims against them--and Wundergeek too. My claims should be questioned--it is proper and fair. I can, unlike them, provide answers.
  545.  
  546.  
  547. Quote:
  548. while i might be wrong you did ignore several of my quetstions when we spoke last time and therefore i am not a liar at all.  
  549.  
  550. You definitely lied when you said there was evidence against me.
  551.  
  552. If you see a question I didn't answer you need to link to that now.
  553.  
  554. Either way: you may ask them now if you think I missed something. They will be answered
  555. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  556.  
  557.  
  558. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797341&postcount=150
  559.  
  560. Quote:
  561. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  562. i might have made a mistake when i used the term evidence. what i meant to say is "indiz" in german. this translates as "clue, evidence, indication, sign, arbitrary indication, circumstantial evidence", according to dictionary.cc. i guess if evidence can only be understood as "beweis", which i would translate as proof, then i made a mistake. i should have used indication.
  563.  
  564. Simply say "It isn't evidence at all and anyone who thought I meant that was wrong--sorry I brought it up, I am going back and editing my damaging public statement now, please forgive me" and we're good.
  565.  
  566.  
  567. Quote:
  568. i feel like you are avoiding giving a direct answer to my questions.  
  569.  
  570. Then your feeling is wrong because I directly answered all of them.
  571.  
  572. If you dispute that, provide a quote.
  573.  
  574.  
  575.  
  576. Quote:
  577. do you know who threatened the kids?  
  578.  
  579. No.
  580.  
  581. And August 3rd was the first I heard about anyone thinking someone connected to me might have threatened someone's kids--and nobody ever gave me a name of this threatener.
  582.  
  583.  
  584. Quote:
  585. david (might as well use his name now that it's out in the open who we are talking about) claims you do and told them to stop. is this true?  
  586.  
  587. He could be referring to the quote above, which was made to everybody in my circles. It is the only statement I am aware of ever having made on the subject.
  588.  
  589.  
  590. Quote:
  591. i am not sure if i can believe his claim (it's quite serious), but i doubt he would make it in such a way if it wasn't true.  
  592.  
  593. Maybe he's referring to my public statement above. Maybe he is making shit up. I don't know.
  594.  
  595. Whether he is inherently honest or not, this is David Hill's history regarding me:
  596.  
  597. 1st -I start out unaware of who he or his wife are.
  598.  
  599. 2nd- His wife falsely claims the women in my group appearing in Maxim somehow hurts women.
  600.  
  601. ( http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30262 )
  602.  
  603. 3rd- I tell her she is wrong, demand proof, and tell her to take a hike. Thereafter provide her when someone asks for an example of someone with a conservative attitude toward sex in RPGs is requested.
  604.  
  605. 4th- David is mad at me forever.
  606.  
  607. So while he may be a generally honest person, his view may be distorted. He has accused Mandy of being a fake feminist (link available on request) and having "stockholm syndrome" for agreeing with me and said this
  608. http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com...ling-your.html
  609. was an attempt to "bribe women into talking to me". (link avail on request)
  610.  
  611. Which is, objectively, a lie, since it is none of those things.
  612.  
  613. So I would trust David Hill about as far as you could throw him on the subject of "People Who Pissed Him Off By Publicly Defending Their Girlfriend Against His Lying Wife"
  614.  
  615. He also, unlike me, refuses to answer questions about things he says or provide links or quotes.
  616.  
  617. So when he claims I said something to his threatener we have no idea where he got this idea. If he was telling the truth--why wouldn't he provide a link or a quote or a screenshot? Even a partially redacted one?
  618.  
  619.  
  620. Quote:
  621. i'm searching our last conversation for the questions you didn't answer, btw. not to prove you are lying but to prove that i am not. if i can't find any you can be sure i will apologise for making a false claim.  
  622.  
  623. Oh good
  624. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  625.  
  626.  
  627. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797348&postcount=153
  628.  
  629. Quote:
  630. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  631. i think i get the picture now. thanks for clarifying a few things. i'll change "evidence" into "indication". if there is anything else you would like me to take down please tell me.
  632.  
  633. You should remove any indication that Wundergeek is telling the truth. She isn't.
  634.  
  635.  
  636. Quote:
  637. some of david's statements are still not entirely resolved, i don't know if you two are on speaking terms, but you might want to sort that out. i thinks it's a fair assumption that he might have meant the statement you made.  
  638.  
  639. I will talk to him (because I am honest) he refuses to talk to me (because he is dishonest).
  640.  
  641.  
  642. Quote:
  643. as you might remember i don't agree with your assessment of your trouble with filamena,  
  644.  
  645. Yes but you were proven categorically wrong.
  646.  
  647. You said Filamena had not attacked the women in my group.
  648.  
  649. I rewrote Filamena's charge so it referred to you instead of to them:
  650. http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread...=30271&page=38
  651.  
  652. You then said it was an attack on you and then demanded it be taken down.
  653.  
  654. So unless you agree with the insane proposition...
  655.  
  656. "A accusation is an attack when it's against me (shlominus) but the exact same accusation ceases to be an attack when it's against Mandy"
  657.  
  658. ...your assessment is wrong and mine is right and I proved it.
  659.  
  660.  
  661. Quote:
  662. you might not like it, but i also think the same about you.  
  663.  
  664. I have proof, including links and quotes. You do not.
  665.  
  666. So you are wrong and I am right.
  667.  
  668.  
  669. Quote:
  670. do you think a "healthy democratic society" is healthier because of conservative people?  
  671.  
  672. No.
  673.  
  674.  
  675. Quote:
  676. what conservative positions do you think are useful? are there any?  
  677.  
  678. No,none.
  679.  
  680.  
  681. Quote:
  682. i'll try again. please answer my questions and don't question my sanity, ok?  
  683.  
  684. Is that a question? For the record: Yes, I question your sanity.
  685.  
  686.  
  687. Quote:
  688. do you think conservative ideas make a democratic society healthier?  
  689.  
  690. No.
  691.  
  692.  
  693. Quote:
  694. who do you substantively disagree with on major issues (like sexism or democracy), but still consider them to be a useful part of democratic society. i would be happy if you could provide examples  
  695.  
  696. William S Burroughs had some conservative ideas about immigration and labor which were stupid but his books were good.
  697.  
  698.  
  699. Quote:
  700. can you point to any criticism of sexism in gaming that comes from a conservative point of view and is still valid?  
  701.  
  702. No conservative criticism is valid. But it's a distortion to refer to a "criticism of sexism in gaming" because the argument with Filamena concerned not a "criticism of sexism" (sexism is always bad) but the "question of whether something was sexism".
  703.  
  704.  
  705. Quote:
  706. who is "they"? i am sure you can point to examples of this happening. i would like a few quotes of "them" claiming "only men like sexualised images of women".  
  707.  
  708. The context is lost here, but if you google "reaper" and"go make me a sandwich" you'll find a perfect example--already cited in this thread.
  709.  
  710.  
  711. Quote:
  712. claiming that "the intended audience doesn't include women" is very different from "only men like sexualised imagery of women" though, so i don't think you made your point very well.  
  713.  
  714. Quote:
  715. ps: "claiming that "the intended audience doesn't include women" is very different from "only men like sexualised imagery of women" though, ..." care to comment zak?  
  716.  
  717. You are incorrect. Since the "intended audience" for a work always includes any adult who likes it and will pay for it, it makes perfect sense.
  718.  
  719. Liking something=being in its intended audience.
  720.  
  721. So you are wrong again and I am right.
  722.  
  723.  
  724. Quote:
  725. is it possible to consider something problematic and voice that opinion without attacking the people involved?  
  726.  
  727. Yes, here's how you do it: approach the person responsible and ask them questions. Or, if you have no evidence say "This may cause…" rather than "This does cause…" (which, without evidence, is simply lying).
  728.  
  729. You can also attack the person and the work fairly by providing links and evidence for your claim. (Which Filamena did not do.)
  730.  
  731.  
  732. Quote:
  733. i don't think any of those questions were unreasonable.  
  734.  
  735. I may also have considered your questions already answered--I can't remember--anyway, they're answered now.
  736.  
  737. If I didn't answer any of them it was because I needed to establish whether you were sane first.
  738.  
  739. Once you lied and said Filamena didn't attack us, answering your questions is optional because thinking Filamena didn't attack us (when it's documented right there) it means you're a crazy troll with no contact with consensus reality. I am, however, in a generous mood.
  740.  
  741.  
  742. Quote:
  743. if you wish, you could answer them now.  
  744.  
  745. Done.
  746.  
  747. Quote:
  748. even if you would claim they were you will have to admit that i was telling the truth when i said that there were questions you didn't answer. while i have certainly said stuff about you that was quite harsh i doubt i have never told a lie about you.  
  749.  
  750. -Every time you say Filamena didn't attack my group, you are lying.
  751.  
  752. -If you say Wundergeek isn't a liar, you are lying.
  753.  
  754. -If you say David Hill isn't a liar, you are lying.
  755.  
  756. So if you repudiate all those things for starters, then you might not be a liar.
  757.  
  758.  
  759. Quote:
  760. i would like to continue tomorrow (or some other time).  
  761.  
  762. I am always available.
  763.  
  764.  
  765. Quote:
  766. i would like to talk about your claims about wundergeek (i think some (most?) of them are simply not true)  
  767.  
  768.  
  769. Then you are wrong-what I say is true and I have provided evidence and can continue to do so.
  770.  
  771. Since I have provided evidence of every claim and you say you're reading these posts, you are knowingly denying the truth--i.e. lying. In public, about me. So you are harassing me right now.
  772.  
  773.  
  774. Quote:
  775. and maybe about the fact that the way you act towards certain people might foster an atmosphere that could breed harassment,  
  776.  
  777. That is not the charge against me. The charge is "harassment".
  778.  
  779.  
  780. If I am responsible for an "atmosphere" the fact is: the way David, Filamena and Wundergeek have acted toward me has literally and provably led to death threats. You have failed to address that and need to do so.
  781.  
  782. You would also have to address how one could possibly perform the necessary work of pointing out that a bigot is bigoted or that a person is lying without "fostering an atmosphere" if that person refuses to answer questions or address criticism?
  783.  
  784. You have to call out behavior. Period. Some people may overreact--that is also bad behavior. But it's on them
  785. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  786.  
  787.  
  788. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797350&postcount=154
  789.  
  790. "there are screenshots of zak telling people to "engage" others online, and that's pretty good support of her claims. "
  791.  
  792. This is not good support, you need to erase it. This is libel. And since it's false you are harassing me by writing that.
  793. .
  794. "i don't think i have encountered any flaws in her logic."
  795.  
  796. This is a lie. You have encountered many. Alleging I organize harassment is a flaw in her logic.
  797.  
  798. And since it's a lie and you know it supporting her in that is harassment
  799. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  800.  
  801. [Here is the point in the thread where Shlominus gets a slow clap]
  802.  
  803. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  804.  
  805. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797429&postcount=161
  806.  
  807. Quote:
  808. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  809. where do i say wundergeek is telling the truth? i am saying that i believe her when she says she was harassed by followers of you.
  810.  
  811. That's not the only charge against me.
  812.  
  813. The charges she made were:
  814.  
  815. -This was my intent (it's not)
  816.  
  817. -I am a "harasser" (I am not)
  818.  
  819. -I am a "violent misogynist" (I am not)
  820.  
  821. -The failforward article is true (it's not)
  822.  
  823. She says these things--she's a liar.
  824.  
  825. If you say she's not a liar, you are lying and harassing me. If she wasn't--these things would have to be true, which would mean I should be arrested. And I shouldn't.
  826.  
  827. So quit it with the libel, Shlomi.
  828. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  829.  
  830.  
  831. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797486&postcount=165
  832.  
  833. Quote:
  834. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  835. your lies about wundergeek were blatant.
  836.  
  837. You haven't found even one lie and now you are fleeing the argument.
  838.  
  839. You also have ignored all the other bullshit you posted that I just refuted in detail aboutyour claim accusations don't need to be proved.
  840.  
  841. You are a liar and you lost and now you're running away.
  842.  
  843.  
  844. Quote:
  845. people can read your "evidence" of wundergeeks supposed homophobia. they can read what i posted do refute your claim (which was stuff i found googling for 5 minutes). i think anyone will be able to make up their own mind.  
  846.  
  847. Absolutely they can. You have the testimony of Wundergeek saying she isn't homophobic, I have the testimony of LGBT people saying openly that she's promoting a harmful stereotype and explained why and you didn't address it.
  848.  
  849. Everybody can judge.
  850.  
  851.  
  852. Quote:
  853. if what i have said caused any of your friends any distress i wish to apologise, especially to mandy.  
  854.  
  855. You will continue to be causing distress (to, for example, Mandy) until you admit "Yes, Wundergeek is a liar and yes, Mandy, you are right, it isn't good that Wundergeek lied in public about being harassed" until then, your contention that you feel contrition about causing distress (while causing it) are as hollow as Wundergeek's contention that she is an advocate of inclusion (while her rhetoric plainly excludes people) and non-judgmental (while her rhetoric is clearly judgmental).
  856.  
  857. Furthermore, after all you just said, unless you firmly state that you know Wundergeek, David and Filamena are lying your statements here are promoting the harassment (including the death threats) that their claims caused.
  858.  
  859. So flee. You're insane, and anybody reading this can tell that now, since you're too oblivious to the world around you to even be able to grasp the most obvious argument against your facile "proof" ("Wundergeek says she understands other peoples' sexuality so it must be true").
  860. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  861.  
  862.  
  863. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797502&postcount=166
  864. To sum up Shlominus' position:
  865.  
  866. Shlominus admits Filamena Young accused the women in my group of doing something bad and admits she has no proof and admits he has no proof but says it's ok to do that. But don't do it to him because it could affect his job.
  867.  
  868. Shlominus admits David A Hill Jr lied about me and falsely accused me of a crime but thinks that this is no reason not to trust David.
  869.  
  870. Shlominus believes that Wundergeek claiming she is not homophobic proves she has never said anything that promotes homophobic stereotypes.
  871.  
  872. Shlominus claims that supporting harassment against the women in my group "has been fun".
  873. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  874.  
  875.  
  876. [page 17 is where JHKim comes back]
  877.  
  878. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  879.  
  880. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797622&postcount=171
  881. Quote:
  882. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  883. but did not say that you directly harassed or that you were misogynist.
  884.  
  885. 1. (Let's leave aside the fact that she tried to use me as Exhibit A in a post about fomenting misogyny--like ti's in the title--for a moment and skip to the obvious...) She called me her "primary harasser" on twitter after reading this thread--why do you keep ignoring that? This is the 3rd time it's been brought up.
  886.  
  887. https://twitter.com/wundergeek/statu...95512268296193
  888.  
  889. 2. She supported the failforward article and the false accusations--why do you keep ignoring that?
  890.  
  891. It's on her twitter not in the one blog entry you keep consulting like it's the fucking Talmud, but she still did it.
  892.  
  893. She retweeted both this:
  894. https://twitter.com/twoscooters/stat...12399427825664
  895.  
  896. and this (by the author of the failforward article, Tom Hatfield):
  897. https://twitter.com/WordMercenary/st...74610853859328
  898.  
  899. Are these bald fact so obviously damning that it embarrasses you to acknowledge them? Or what, exactly?
  900.  
  901. Do you think nobody notices when they point out 5 or 6 pieces of evidence in between your posts and you just type the same thing you did before as if you can't read?
  902.  
  903. We're noticing, dude.
  904.  
  905. Everyone's noticing.
  906.  
  907. If you need evidence you don't assume I don't have it you just go "Oh Zak, you claimed xxxx, could you please provide a link?"
  908.  
  909.  
  910. Quote:
  911. And though she didn't say it, I'll add that your call for boycott in this thread is another example of you targeting her - that exactly matches how she characterized your behavior in her post.  
  912.  
  913. 3. That's a lie
  914.  
  915. I simply said it's bad to support her. I already explained this, please reread the thread. I am also not encouraging people to harass her--which she claimed. I am encouraging people to ignore or question her bullshit claims.
  916.  
  917. We'll deal with all your other BS once you deal with these 3 simple facts
  918.  
  919.  
  920.  
  921. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797634&postcount=173
  922.  
  923. 1. Let's put it this way, JHKim. Would you agree to this:
  924.  
  925. "If Wundergeek says Zak Smith harassed her, she is lying"
  926.  
  927. ?
  928.  
  929. 2.
  930.  
  931. Quote:
  932. As for re-tweeting the failforward article,  
  933.  
  934. Would you agree to this statement:
  935.  
  936. "If Wundergeek supported the claims in the Failforward article, it was a bad thing to do and she should apologize"
  937.  
  938. ?
  939.  
  940. 3.
  941.  
  942. Quote:
  943. What exactly are you claiming is a lie? My statement that you are targeting her? I stand by that.  
  944.  
  945. It's a lie that I am "behaving like her description of me" and that her blog entry is truthful.
  946.  
  947. Her blog entry claims the JDes controversy is "manufactured" and associates me with intentional harassment and with Elliot Rodger.
  948.  
  949. 4. Would you agree to the following statement
  950.  
  951. "Wundergeek should not have +1ed the false statement against JD and she should apologize"
  952.  
  953. ?
  954.  
  955.  
  956. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  957.  
  958. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797639&postcount=175
  959.  
  960. Quote:
  961. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  962. No. I have no way of knowing if you harassed her or not. If she were to accuse you of harassment, I would have to look into exactly what she claimed and whether or not I consider it to be harassment.
  963.  
  964. 1. Would you agree to this:
  965.  
  966. "If Wundergeek has made claims of harassment against Zak, she should provide evidence"
  967.  
  968. ?
  969.  
  970. 2.
  971.  
  972. Quote:
  973. I don't support the Failforward article, and if she were to claim that it was wholly true, then I would argue against her.  
  974.  
  975. You should ask her then so you know whether to argue against her or not.
  976.  
  977. 3.
  978. Quote:
  979. made serious accusations against her that you have failed to back up.  
  980.  
  981. You are now lying, JHKim. If there is a claim I have not provided evidence to back up on request, you need to quote it now
  982.  
  983. 4.
  984. Quote:
  985. This does not confirm every detail of her blog post,  
  986.  
  987. Any detail wrong=lie.
  988.  
  989. So: she is lying.
  990.  
  991. 5.
  992. Quote:
  993. Trying to force apologies is bullshit, though.  
  994.  
  995. It is ridiculous to suggest I am trying to "force" apologies.
  996.  
  997. A "slippery when wet" sign is not there to force the floor to do something.
  998.  
  999. Basically, the +1 indicates a person can't be trusted, ever, since they're willing to endorse a lie about rape. The apology gets them out of that status, but that's not the main reason for my post--it's to point out dangerous people.
  1000.  
  1001. I don't want people to apologize if they don't want to, I simply am using apology or lack thereof as a means to parse good from evil people.
  1002.  
  1003. Pointing out that the people who have not apologized are evil is not the same as me applying coercive force to make them apologize, which I never did. Suggesting I did that is crazy.
  1004.  
  1005. Since the goal is to find out who is good and who isn't, I wouldn't want an apology from someone who didn't mean it--it would be counterproductive and would mean people who were actually shitheads were getting off by being dishonest.
  1006.  
  1007. 6.
  1008.  
  1009. Quote:
  1010. I would agree that she should not have +1ed the post that included the false statement against JD.  
  1011.  
  1012. Quote:
  1013. Not apologizing is kind of rude, but there is such enormous rudeness in the rest of this debate (especially by you) that I consider it barely worth mentioning.  
  1014.  
  1015. So you're saying
  1016.  
  1017. "being rude"
  1018.  
  1019. is morally equivalent to
  1020.  
  1021. "supporting a false felony accusation in public"
  1022. ?
  1023.  
  1024. Because if an uninformed reader comes upon rudeness they'll think "Oh, this person doesn't like that person, I must be on the Internet". If they come upon Ben's attack on JD they may well think "Oh, this person is a rapist and 80 people at least think this is true".
  1025.  
  1026. Those things are so morally different there's laws about the second one.
  1027.  
  1028. If a person takes action because they are fed a false fact, the person who fed them the false fact is partially to blame. If they take action because someone they know is rude to them, the rude person is in now way culpable.
  1029. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1030.  
  1031.  
  1032. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797647&postcount=177
  1033.  
  1034. 1.
  1035. Quote:
  1036. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  1037. practically everything about that is not true. i didn't admit filamena accused your people. this is what i actually said:
  1038.  
  1039. "what she said can be considered an accusation, that i agree with. it's not an accusation of you or your people, but of the article in question. you can claim she implicitly meant to accuse your people. this could be dabated. i would not agree with that either."
  1040.  
  1041. But, instead of having that debate (which is central to any claim you're telling the truth, and where you'd be proved wrong since we're responsible for the article) you're running away.
  1042.  
  1043.  
  1044. Quote:
  1045. "Shlominus admits David A Hill Jr lied about me and falsely accused me of a crime but thinks that this is no reason not to trust David."
  1046.  
  1047. some improvement, not everything is completely made up. yes, i did indeed say that he lied about something you did (why that would be an admission on m y part is beyond me...). i don't think i ever said that he falsely accused you of a crime.  
  1048.  
  1049. Colluding with someone who harassed his kids would be a crime.
  1050.  
  1051.  
  1052.  
  1053. Quote:
  1054. is one lie reason to never trust anyone ever again? obviously not,  
  1055.  
  1056. Clearly the fact that David's lying about something legally actionable (harassment) is lost on you. But now you know. So don't trust David.
  1057.  
  1058.  
  1059. Quote:
  1060. "Shlominus believes that Wundergeek claiming she is not homophobic proves she has never said anything that promotes homophobic stereotypes."
  1061.  
  1062. claiming she isn't homophobic doesn't prove anything, of course. i don't think that. ...she totally could say something that promotes homophobic steroetypes. i am sure pointing that out to her would be greatly appreciated by her. cause she is, you know... totally not a homophobe and would regret doing that.  
  1063.  
  1064. Then you should point that out to her because she (being a moron) does not respond to any communications from me.
  1065.  
  1066.  
  1067. Quote:
  1068. i started my post with "it's fun to poke at your bullshit"  
  1069.  
  1070. Claiming what I say here is untrue ("bullshit") is harassment. Supporting David, Filamena and Wundergeek is supporting their harassment. These are the activities you grouped under "fun"
  1071.  
  1072.  
  1073. Quote:
  1074. (yeah, i know you don't fully understand the concept of trolling, or what a boycott is. hint: what you just did, that's trolling.)  
  1075.  
  1076. Incorrect.
  1077.  
  1078. Trolling is dishonest. I am being 100% honest and doing the only responsible thing a person could do faced with your actions: I am pointing out to those reading that you support (and apparently enjoy supporting) harassment. People need to know you're willing to do that so they do not trust you or your ideas. Me doing anything less than confronting you on this would be irresponsible because you might do it again in the future when someone else is attacked
  1079. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1080.  
  1081.  
  1082. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797657&postcount=179
  1083.  
  1084. Quote:
  1085. Originally Posted by shlominus View Post
  1086. i didn't claim that david lied about any harassment accusations. i said that he said something i would consider a lie.
  1087.  
  1088. Whatever he lied about, continuing to support him after he lied about me is supporting harassment.
  1089.  
  1090.  
  1091. Quote:
  1092. In Internet slang, a troll (/'tro?l/, /'tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]  
  1093.  
  1094. I have done none of those things.
  1095.  
  1096. I am defending myself from dangerous people (namely you) who support people who are harassing the women in my group and I that might have bad outcomes for us in the future. Your emotions don't concern me--demonstrating that you are lying and fucked up to anyone who might be foolish enough to trust you concerns me.
  1097.  
  1098. That is: you are not the audience for this conversation. You are merely the interlocutor.
  1099.  
  1100. And, if you're having emotions about the things being typed here--you should stop. It's just a game forum.
  1101.  
  1102. Just accept that you should stop defending people who are harassing us and move on. Or don't and keep defending them--but stop having feelings about it. Just state facts and make arguments
  1103. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1104.  
  1105.  
  1106.  
  1107. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797752&postcount=183
  1108.  
  1109. Quote:
  1110. Originally Posted by Ladybird View Post
  1111. ...which is not okay.
  1112.  
  1113. True--but it does highlight how dishonest JHKim, Shlominus, David Hill, Filamena Young and other Wundergeek supporters are being: if Wundergeek, or David receive them, why are they connecting them to me? And why won't they say why?
  1114.  
  1115. And meanwhile when I'm receiving threats directly connected to the article they promoted (like, literally from people who chronically retumbl stuff from a site set up by Schmelz and friends*) they remain silent.
  1116.  
  1117. I have told people explicitly not to harass anyone or issue death threats**. They haven't so far as I know.
  1118. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1119.  
  1120.  
  1121. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797797&postcount=187
  1122.  
  1123. Quote:
  1124. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1125. To review - I spoke out against a boycott of Zak S and Pundit, and against the fail forward article, because it was bullshit
  1126.  
  1127. …and she supported that.
  1128.  
  1129.  
  1130. Quote:
  1131. I also do not support this boycott of Wundergeek's games, because the supposed evidence shown so far is not convincing.  
  1132.  
  1133. she supported something you just said was bullshit.
  1134.  
  1135. Why would you support her in this act of harassment?
  1136. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1137.  
  1138.  
  1139. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797799&postcount=188
  1140.  
  1141. Quote:
  1142. If she considers harem anima pathetic and disgusting, I don’t see how that should influence a boycott of her in the slightest.)  
  1143.  
  1144. It proves she is a fascist.
  1145.  
  1146. If she'd said "film of two men kissing is disgusting" what would you say?
  1147.  
  1148. Because it's the same thing: she's disgusted by (consensual, adult) sexuality that isnt' her own. That isn't ok.
  1149.  
  1150. Quote:
  1151. No. I would say, “If Wundergeek has made claims that Zak harassed her, they should be true.”  
  1152.  
  1153. Why should she not provide evidence?
  1154.  
  1155.  
  1156. Quote:
  1157. To my knowledge, you have not provided any evidence about her calling you a “violent misogynist”,  
  1158.  
  1159. Right here:
  1160. http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.c...eekdom-twlong/
  1161.  
  1162. She featured me front and center in a post titled "Dangerous Hatred: Men Who Foment Misogyny in Geekdom"
  1163.  
  1164. So your splitting a hair real fine there, JHKim.
  1165.  
  1166.  
  1167. Quote:
  1168. You haven’t provided any evidence to back up your homophobia  
  1169.  
  1170. right here
  1171. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.p...&postcount=161
  1172.  
  1173. I explain in detail how her remarks are homophobic. You need to address those remarks and say why you disagree rather than blanket-claiming they do not exist.
  1174.  
  1175. Again
  1176.  
  1177. Do you think we're all so stupid we can't actually see you doing that?
  1178.  
  1179. Go there.
  1180.  
  1181. Read the thing.
  1182.  
  1183. Find the part of my argument you disagree with.
  1184.  
  1185. Quote it.
  1186.  
  1187. Explain why you don't believe it.
  1188.  
  1189.  
  1190. Quote:
  1191. and slut-shaming accusations  
  1192.  
  1193. Right here:
  1194. http://gomakemeasandwich.blogspot.co...fest-even.html
  1195.  
  1196. And already explained in the quote above. Dressing like the real, actual women in my group is "doing it wrong": https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress....m-many-images/
  1197.  
  1198. If you think this is not convincing--make an argument rather than just repeating yourself.
  1199.  
  1200.  
  1201. Quote:
  1202. Your supposed evidence about her calling you a harasser is a single Nov 5th tweet that doesn’t refer to you in any way  
  1203.  
  1204. You should then contact her and then ask if she thinks I am a harasser and publish the answer publicly.
  1205.  
  1206. Don't rest on technicalities: go find out if she is a liar or not rather than assuming I am one.
  1207.  
  1208.  
  1209. Quote:
  1210. Your supposed evidence that she said the failforward article is true is that she re-tweeted it, when re-tweeting generally means “look at this” not “I endorse as true everything said in this”.  
  1211.  
  1212. Even retweeting--spreading it in any way is harassment. Since it's false preading the article causes harm. Why are you letting her off the hook for that and focusing on technicalities?
  1213.  
  1214. Address these things instead of dodging them, JHKim.
  1215.  
  1216. And, in general, why are you assuming she thinks whatever would prove her innocent rather than just asking her?
  1217.  
  1218. Go
  1219.  
  1220. ask
  1221.  
  1222. Wundergeek
  1223.  
  1224. what
  1225.  
  1226. she
  1227.  
  1228. thinks
  1229.  
  1230. of
  1231.  
  1232. the
  1233.  
  1234. Failforward
  1235.  
  1236. article.
  1237.  
  1238. If you don't do that, you're not acting in good faith, you're just trying to "win" the argument by somehow proving that somehow somewhere I made a claim I couldn't prove and am, therefore as bad as all the people who made shit up and you can put your conscience to rest for your continual support of their harassment.
  1239.  
  1240. And you skipped how you just claimed that being rude was morally equivalent to lying about rape threats and committing libel.
  1241.  
  1242. Why did you not respond to that JHKim?
  1243.  
  1244. That seems pretty sleazy, just letting that thread of the conversation drop away as if nobody would notice.
  1245. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1246.  
  1247.  
  1248. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797811&postcount=190
  1249.  
  1250.  
  1251. Oh and here's an extensive false accusation of harassment from her. Mike told me explicitly about this because he was referring to me and I am the only person who did that "asking third parties to come forward" thing.
  1252.  
  1253. Here is the transcript of the conversation with no gaps.
  1254.  
  1255. https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress....auty/#comments
  1256.  
  1257. Quote:
  1258. mikemonaco says:
  1259. July 22, 2014 at 12:00 pm
  1260. I did see your handle mentioned at the blog of one of the guys at the center of the late unpleasantness, but I didn’t see any call to harass you there. There was just a link to a discussion that I stopped reading out of lack of interest in internet drama.  
  1261.  
  1262. Quote:
  1263. wundergeek says:
  1264. July 22, 2014 at 5:46 pm
  1265. The problem is that most of the time, people (men) looking to incite harassment campaigns against people (usually women) they don’t like on the internet don’t need to make an active call for their followers to go harass someone. If their following is significantly larger, all they need to do is post a link to the thing they don’t like and talk about why they don’t like it and the “problem” will resolve itself.
  1266.  
  1267. You can read more about this sort of thing and how it works in a longer post I wrote here: https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress....eekdom-twlong/  
  1268.  
  1269. See: explicit lie. She claims I am "looking to incite harassment campaigns against her"
  1270.  
  1271. Quote:
  1272. mikemonaco says:
  1273. July 29, 2014 at 5:02 pm
  1274. Hmm. As, I believe, Noam Chomsky once said: “We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.” Not having as large or as rabid a following as someone we are not naming, I don’t even think about how-a-misguided-someone-might-respond-to-a-post-on-my-behalf…but with large followings come large responsibilities or however that goes. I’d be curious about how he reacts if someone were to say: “Hey, that thing you said here is causing trolls to harass me.” But come to think of it you just did…and I hear crickets…so fair enough, carry on!
  1275.  
  1276. https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress..../#comment-8483  
  1277.  
  1278. The conversation continues…
  1279. https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress..../#comment-8483
  1280.  
  1281. Quote:
  1282. mikemonaco says:
  1283. August 7, 2014 at 8:31 pm
  1284. I see commenting is turned off on older posts. Please delete my comments on https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress....auty/#comments as without follow-up they no longer represent my opinion. Or add another comment on my behalf that says: “Well looking more deeply I see explicit statements that he wants no-one to harass you or anyone else. He even requested that people come forward with any proof of harassment and give it to third parties.* As this has not happened I doubt that any harassment, actual or imagined, is connected to the guy in question or his supposed lackeys.” But really I’d just like out of this discussion and want my two comments on that page deleted. Thanks!  
  1285.  
  1286. Quote:
  1287. wundergeek says:
  1288. August 8, 2014 at 11:05 am
  1289. I’ve set posts to have comments disabled after 3 weeks because it’s been my experience that that is long enough to let a discussion run its course, and anyone who revives a dead thread after that point is 95% likely to be a troll.
  1290.  
  1291. WRT deleting your comment, I’ve been wrestling with that and I’ve decided that I’m going to leave it as-is. It’s important for people to own their words online. Although, we had what seemed to be a perfectly civil interaction, so I’m not even sure what it is that you are wanting to erase. Civility? Openness to a different perspective? You’re already “out of [the] discussion” because comments are closed and that particular discussion is over.
  1292.  
  1293. WRT “proof” of harassment, I am not obligated to “prove” my personal experience, not even to have it evaluated so that it might be (in)validated by an “objective” third party. The entire idea is nothing more than victim-blaming, because it places the obligation on the harassed person to “prove” that they have been victimized. If you’re not willing to believe me when I talk about my lived experience, how can I reasonably believe that you’re suddenly going to take me seriously if I jump through this extra hoop? Especially when that lived experience dictates that jumping through the hoop is useless, because the goalposts are just going to get moved anyway. “He wasn’t being serious”, “it wasn’t actual harassment“, “that’s just the way he is”, etc etc etc. So if I say “I’ve been victimized” and your response is “prove it”, you’ve already proven to me that you don’t have the basic human empathy for this interaction to be worth my time...  
  1294.  
  1295. etc etc
  1296.  
  1297. So there it is: Wundergeek claiming I am intentionally trying to get people to harass her. She also claims asking for proof is bad.
  1298.  
  1299. She is a liar and you should apologize for helping her.
  1300. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1301.  
  1302.  
  1303.  
  1304. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797834&postcount=193
  1305.  
  1306. Quote:
  1307. Originally Posted by Emperor Norton View Post
  1308. Personal Opinion: Zak is way more tenacious about all this stuff than is strictly necessary from my point of view, but he isn't generally wrong.
  1309.  
  1310. Because I'm not a professional game designer and don't want to be, I'm largely insulated from what these pigfuckers can do to people's lives.
  1311.  
  1312. However: the next person they attack may not be, so I think it's important that everybody know when the community has found someone willing to lie to further their agenda.
  1313.  
  1314.  
  1315. And, to Tristram:
  1316.  
  1317. -I have provided LOTS of proof that isn't links to my blog
  1318.  
  1319. -When I do link to my blog it's either because a) the claim I am refuting is that I said xxxx on the blog and I didn't say that thing, so the proof is there and it makes perfect sense or b)the blog provides both the accusation (with link) and the refutation (with link)
  1320.  
  1321. …so you can shove that right up your ass where it might keep you from talking out of it ever again.
  1322. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1323.  
  1324.  
  1325. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=797906&postcount=201
  1326.  
  1327. JHKim:
  1328.  
  1329. So I haven't made false claims. Just claims that fall, at worst, in the realm of "arguable if you're JHKim and motivated to argue them", like, say:
  1330.  
  1331. Quote:
  1332. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1333. Essentially, you seem to be saying that no one can say anything bad about a sexy outfit, or else they are "slut shaming".
  1334.  
  1335. Absolutely that's what I'm saying--how is it in any universe remotely ok to tell a woman that the miniature she wants to use to represent her character is inappropriate or wrong?
  1336.  
  1337. But let's lay aside the arguable and focus on what we agree on:
  1338.  
  1339. 1. You know Wundergeek promoted Ben Lehman's false claim against JD about rape.
  1340.  
  1341. 2. You know Wundergeek later claimed that I "manufactured" that incident and you know that isn't true--Ben Lehman made an actual bad, false and libellous claim and she actually promoted it.
  1342.  
  1343. 3. You know Wundergeek spread false claims by spreading the Fail Forward article. Literally more people are likely to believe a fake thing because of her.
  1344.  
  1345. 4. You know she falsely claimed it was my intent that she be harrassed (it's quoted in the conversation w/ Mike Monaco).
  1346.  
  1347. Any of those 4 things alone should be enough to exile someone from ever being taken seriously until they admit they were wrong and she did all four of them. Even if you think one or two of them is arguable in some crazy way, she still did more than one inexcusable thing.
  1348.  
  1349. So what's your excuse here? Why are you nitpicking?
  1350.  
  1351. And if your reasoning is "Well it's ok to lie about someone if anyone ever who might have agreed with them was rude to you" then where do you draw the line? You were rude many time--is it ok for anyone who doesn't like you to now spread a rumor you fingered your sister when she was 8? What other crimes or civil wrongs against you do you consider "ok" because you were rude?
  1352. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1353.  
  1354.  
  1355. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798002&postcount=210
  1356.  
  1357. Quote:
  1358. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1359. Are you saying that because she did these things, that therefore it is OK for you accuse her of other things that she didn't do?
  1360.  
  1361. No but I didn't do that, as you helpfully point out:
  1362.  
  1363. Quote:
  1364. Meanwhile, you've personally made a fuck-ton of accusations that are almost entirely unsubstantiated, in my opinion, to call for a boycott of all her games.  
  1365.  
  1366. "Almost" in your case meaning "Substantiated, except for by JHKim, who keeps trying to find technical reasons they aren't true and refuses to ask Wundergeek if they are because he's scared they are and doesn't really care"
  1367.  
  1368.  
  1369. Quote:
  1370. Yes, as far as I know, she +1ed a bad post,  
  1371.  
  1372. Totally unacceptable, borderline criminal (libel).
  1373.  
  1374.  
  1375. Quote:
  1376. and re-tweeted another bad link.  
  1377.  
  1378. Totally unacceptable, borderline criminal (libel).
  1379.  
  1380.  
  1381. Quote:
  1382. I consider it vindictive bullshit to call for a boycott simply for re-tweeted them.  
  1383.  
  1384. Why is that?
  1385.  
  1386. Is libel ok with you? How bad does a person have to be (remember: she endorsed a lie about rape) to be boycotted?
  1387.  
  1388.  
  1389. Every time you:
  1390.  
  1391. 1. Call my accusations unsubstantiated
  1392.  
  1393. 2. Then refuse to contact Wundergeek to substantiate them
  1394.  
  1395. …you are demonstrating bad faith. You don't care what the truth is.
  1396.  
  1397. You can find out if Wundergeek is claiming I harassed her by typing a single sentence and pressing "send".
  1398.  
  1399. And, for what it's worth, she did all of these totally evil things before I ever showed up here on therpgsite and reminded you she was slut-shaming, writes homophobic crap, and accused me of harassment.
  1400.  
  1401. So how does what I do after that affect her already bad and unacceptable behavior?
  1402.  
  1403. Is your argument seriously that even though she did provably, objectively shitty things, the fact that I voiced opinions about her you subjectively disagree with afterward retroactively makes her innocent?
  1404. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1405.  
  1406.  
  1407.  
  1408. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798014&postcount=213
  1409. Quote:
  1410. Originally Posted by Zak S View Post
  1411. Is your argument seriously that even though she did provably, objectively shitty things, the fact that I voiced opinions about her you subjectively disagree with afterward retroactively makes her innocent?  
  1412.  
  1413. Quote:
  1414. Yes, it is.  
  1415.  
  1416. 1. So if I say Stalin ate my dog, you will now say that Stalin is retroactively innocent of killing all the people he killed?
  1417.  
  1418. Is that the logic here?
  1419.  
  1420. 2. Wundergeek being responsible for more people seeing the FailForward article is evil in itself*--whether she claims to believe all or just some of it. Whether she believed the lie isn't important, what's important is she spread it. Willingly putting it in front of anyone's eyes who hasn't already seen it is spreading libel on purpose and damns the person who does it. You aren't addressing that. Why aren't you addressing that, JHKim?
  1421.  
  1422.  
  1423. And, of course:
  1424.  
  1425. 3.
  1426. Quote:
  1427. Any evidence for your accusations should be dated before the time you made your accusation.  
  1428.  
  1429. It's not my fault she, like RPGnet and a bunch of others, erased shit when she realized it was getting embarrassing. What's substantive is whether she spread libel (whether or not she believed it) and you admit that she did that.
  1430.  
  1431.  
  1432.  
  1433.  
  1434. ---
  1435.  
  1436. *Unless it's accompanied by a thorough debunk of all of it. Which it wasn't
  1437. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1438.  
  1439.  
  1440.  
  1441. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798017&postcount=215
  1442.  
  1443. Quote:
  1444. Originally Posted by Emperor Norton View Post
  1445. On the subject of erasure.... I just don't see it as homophobic.
  1446.  
  1447. I'm a bisexual dude. I'm used to erasure. I know how much it sucks. Bisexual dudes generally just don't exist in the minds of most people. Even LGBT people. This is something I live with.
  1448.  
  1449. Its grossly insensitive and to borrow the SJW word "problematic", not homophobic. Now, it would be homophobic if done INTENTIONALLY, but I don't feel that is what happened. I think she just unintentionally was being insensitive, and I feel she should have apologized when it was brought up but that it was also brought up in a manner that understandably made her very defensive.
  1450.  
  1451. That being said, most other things about the crap Wundergeek did, I agree with Zak. She hasn't directly literally said the sentence "Zak is a violent misogynist" but she has hinted at it often enough that I don't think its in question that that is what she thinks.
  1452.  
  1453. That's a rational response, within the bounds of "reasonable people disagreeing".
  1454.  
  1455. JHKim's response:
  1456. (approximately) "She is now innocent and it's ok to support her because after she lied, spread libel and helped harass people, Zak said something I disagreed with" isn't.
  1457. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1458.  
  1459.  
  1460. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798050&postcount=220
  1461.  
  1462. Quote:
  1463. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1464. And if Zak had claimed "She thinks that I'm a violent misogynist", then that would be different.
  1465.  
  1466. What you're saying here is that Zak lied. You agree with me that she never said he was a violent misogynist, and Zak claims she did.
  1467.  
  1468. Now, that said, maybe you can say it doesn't matter. Perhaps you can say that he was justified in his lie because that's what she was thinking or hinting at. However, I don't feel that this is acceptable.
  1469.  
  1470. Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that Wundergeek is innocent of any possible offense - and I apologize for earlier saying "Yes, I am." which in retrospect reads that way. I am saying that it seems that most of the accusations he has made against her in this thread appear to be false - such as her constant homophobia or that she called him a "violent misogynist". If he had come up with a different list of accusations, like "She has hinted that she thinks I am a misogynist" - then I might have a different opinion.
  1471.  
  1472. On an off-topic note, I'm moderately in favor of sexy illustrations. One of my favorite games is Greg Porter's original Macho Women With Guns, for example - here's my page on it.
  1473.  
  1474. http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/machowomenwithguns/
  1475.  
  1476. Just because I disagree with her, though, doesn't mean that I feel it's OK to lie about her.
  1477.  
  1478.  
  1479. You still need to address this:
  1480.  
  1481. She retweeted the Failforward article. More people saw it because of her.
  1482.  
  1483. Why would you continue to support her in any way after that?
  1484.  
  1485. Why do you keep pretending you can't read?
  1486. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1487.  
  1488.  
  1489. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798059&postcount=222
  1490.  
  1491. Quote:
  1492. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1493. I don't think that simply re-tweeting it is borderline criminal and grounds for boycott.
  1494.  
  1495. Why not?
  1496.  
  1497. It contains tons of false claims of serious wrongdoing (libel). She didn't check it--she spread it. (Again: spreading it is the problem, whether she believed all of it isn't important.)
  1498.  
  1499. Only someone totally devoid of all humanity and completely worthless would do that. (Unless it was mistake--at which point if she were not totally devoid of humanity, she'd publicly apologize.)
  1500.  
  1501. The only possible reason I can see for you supporting this is you have so many dumb friends who also did this that it would be socially difficult for you to admit how fucked up it is.
  1502.  
  1503. If that's not the reason, then what is it, JHKim?
  1504. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1505.  
  1506.  
  1507.  
  1508. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798077&postcount=225
  1509.  
  1510. Quote:
  1511. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1512. I think I was pretty clear about the re-tweeting. Re-tweeting does not indicate that someone has researched the link and endorses every statement in it. It indicates "hey, this is interesting".
  1513.  
  1514. Yes KHim, we got that
  1515.  
  1516. That isn't the point. For the 5th time.
  1517.  
  1518. PLEASE
  1519.  
  1520. READ
  1521.  
  1522. THIS:
  1523.  
  1524. I am not saying she believed everything in the article or endorsed everything in it or she researched it I am saying she did a thing that is a thousand times worse: she spread it. The reason she spread it is immaterial.
  1525.  
  1526. That is the unforgivable thing: spreading it so other people can read it. And, in fact, spreading accusations you haven't researched is even worse.
  1527.  
  1528. How can you ever forgive or support someone after that?
  1529.  
  1530. I'll address your questions when you answer that because you have a tendency to hide your pussyfooting around the main point amid all your other bullshit.
  1531.  
  1532. So:
  1533.  
  1534. Only one question. Answer it
  1535. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1536.  
  1537.  
  1538. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798112&postcount=229
  1539.  
  1540. 1.
  1541.  
  1542.  
  1543. Quote:
  1544. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1545. First, I am a strong believer in basic human rights even for those who have committed serious crimes. I am a card-carrying ACLU member and have often donated to the rights of prisoners - even ones who are murderers and rapists, because I believe they still deserve not to be lied about, abused, or otherwise violated. I am also a Christian, and I believe in potential forgiveness for absolutely anything -
  1546.  
  1547. So your interpretation of Christianity is that you forgive people even if they don't admit they did anything wrong.
  1548.  
  1549. Ok, well: My interpretation of the way the online RPG world works is that it's a trolling, lying, mudslinging pearlclutching fucking shitshow that keeps both newbies and professional RPG people away from the conversation because there are no consequences for bad behavior and nobody ever going "Wait my friend is mentally ill and as someone they trust I need to intervene" . So people like Wundergeek keep doing breathtakingly evil, stupid and dishonest things because people like you, basically, let them and there is no point at which you go "This person is crazy, let's make sure they can't hurt anyone else".
  1550.  
  1551. And you and every single one of your friends who doesn't call them on their bullshit as we watch incident after incident after incident are at fault for the way every one of these dust-ups seems to be some insane escalation from the last one.
  1552.  
  1553. Crazy people are going to be crazy--but when their friends and the community around them abdicate responsibility and refuse to point out that they've gone off the deep end or recommend they get help, then you're just enabling. While no Christian, I would respectfully submit that letting your friends violate the 9th Commandment all over anybody they don't like, repeatedly, for years on end with no thought to maybe protecting the victims of that with something other than standing in the corner going "Well I don't approve" isn't exactly Christian, Christian.
  1554.  
  1555. I also suggest that at the pearly gates you will not be judged by how you treated your friends who liked all the same games as you and followed the same passive-aggressive etiquette as you, JHKim, you'll be judged by how you treated the people who were not like you that your friends were repeatedly helping fuck over while you wrung your hands and watched.
  1556.  
  1557. Wundergeek will never listen to anything I say--but if you have even a single person who is friends with her who hasn't told her she desperately needs therapy by now, every fucking problem she causes is on their head. As it is on yours for defending her.
  1558.  
  1559. That's probably the end of that part of the conversation because I'll never talk you out of your interpretation of Christianity and you'll probably never convert me or convince me that evil people aren't harmful.
  1560.  
  1561. 2.
  1562.  
  1563.  
  1564. Quote:
  1565. Did she actually say that you yourself are a "violent misogynist"?  
  1566.  
  1567. I dunno if she said those exact words, I do however maintain that the narrative she presents about me in the "foment misogyny article" makes no sense unless the writer and reader assume TRA is a violent misogynist.
  1568.  
  1569. If you repeat "but Zak isn't a violent misogynist" after every sentence in that post, then you are left with accusations of a guy acting with no motive. I want her to be harassed because… why?
  1570.  
  1571. This part of the conversation is not over if you can think of any other presumed motive she might have for me that I might have overlooked--however it will only mean that I might have overlooked something, not that I lied.
  1572.  
  1573. 3.
  1574.  
  1575.  
  1576. Quote:
  1577. Did she actually say that all of the failforward article was true?  
  1578.  
  1579. I don't know, but she endorsed it and spread it--which is much worse. Details:
  1580.  
  1581. She retweeted it, saying that the name of a harasser she was reticent to mention was contained therein. She later erased this retweet like a lot of people when Mandy reminded everyone that spreading the article was tantamount to harassment, but she still has 2 tweets or retweets reifying at least parts of the article which I have linked to earlier in this thread and you should go track down.
  1582.  
  1583. I'll reiterate--I don't care whether she thinks it was all true--spreading it is a totally unforgivable crime (barring her actually realizing she did something wrong).
  1584.  
  1585. This part of the conversation is likely over unless you doubt the facts Ive laid out here, in which case I can re-direct you to links, quotes etc..
  1586.  
  1587.  
  1588. 4.
  1589.  
  1590. Quote:
  1591. Has she made objectively false claims of harassment?  
  1592.  
  1593. Quote:
  1594. Did she actually say that you yourself harassed her?  
  1595.  
  1596. Yes basically, and if you define "harass" as "try to get people to harass" then yes unequivocally and absolutely:
  1597.  
  1598. She claims, both in the "foment misogyny" article, in the previous linked Mike Monaco conversation (which you keep ignoring, for some reason) that it is my intent she be harassed.
  1599.  
  1600. She also referred to Some Mysterious Person as "her primary harasser" on twitter soon after this conversation started on therpgsite in a way that you can go check on twitter but which basically very likely refers to me, because of timing.
  1601.  
  1602. Now both her identification of me (to Mike Monaco) and (more vaguely) on twitter hinge as well as mine hinge on her claiming it is my intent she be harassed even if I am not the person actually contacting her and that this intent makes me a "harasser".
  1603.  
  1604. I'll note that YET ANOTHER objectively false claim she made is that I did nothing to check misogyny or harassment.
  1605.  
  1606. I don't know what you'll do with this part of the conversation because I've presented these facts several times and you keep ignoring them.
  1607.  
  1608. 5.
  1609.  
  1610. Quote:
  1611. Does she constantly say homophobic statements?  
  1612.  
  1613. Yes.
  1614.  
  1615. Absolutely and we already went over this.
  1616.  
  1617. I laid out an example on a previous page.
  1618.  
  1619. A._You (unknown gender and orientation) claim that kind of speech is not homophobic
  1620.  
  1621. B._I (straight male) claim it is
  1622.  
  1623. C._Norton (bisexual male) says it is not homophobic but is insenstive
  1624.  
  1625. D._The women I've asked about this (bisexual females) say her rhetoric is unequivocally homophobic (on basically every post where she talks about scantily-clad women, which is a great many of them) whether or not she herself wants it to be (a detail you, again, keep pretending doesn't exist). She does this through a rhetoric which (like so many RPG morons of your acquaintance so often do) fails to acknowledge the existence of people with tastes unlike her own and grants to her own taste an unwarranted moral dimension.
  1626.  
  1627. While you may not be inclined to grant Group 4 more moral authority than anybody else so far asked, I defer to their judgment since they're the affected group.
  1628.  
  1629. While you may not agree with that judgment or with my feeling I should cede the decision to them, you can't claim I'm lying. I'm asking people in the actual affected group if this rhetoric promotes homophobic stereotypes and they are saying yes. They may be wrong, in their judgment of the larger sociological effect of her words but I am not lying if I trust them.
  1630.  
  1631. This part of the conversation is likely therefore over, because you can't possibly claim I'm lying after that.
  1632.  
  1633.  
  1634. 6.
  1635.  
  1636. General note: This conversation doesn't really matter because you believe in zero consequences for bad behavior--so no matter how many things I show Wundergeek doing wrong you will simply keep saying it's ok to support her because your idea of Christianity means you have to let crazy people do bad things forever and you should never do anything to stop it.
  1637.  
  1638. So I suggest we stop now. Your position is clear, as is mine.The facts are on the table--I clearly didn't lie and the only argument that I did is based on you making a lot of assumptions that you've already made clear here and anybody interested can read the links and decide if they believe you or me about the interpretation of Wundergeek's inane and insane rhetoric
  1639. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1640.  
  1641.  
  1642.  
  1643. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798163&postcount=232
  1644. Quote:
  1645. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1646. And while I’ll admit there are other times when I’ve been passive-aggressive,
  1647.  
  1648. Then this invalidates you completely forever. You've impeded progress on purpose.
  1649.  
  1650.  
  1651. Quote:
  1652. in this thread I’ve been pretty much constantly saying that you’re behaving like an asshole and calling you on your bullshit.  
  1653.  
  1654. There is zero bullshit. Each time you say there is, you are lying and creating more of a problem.
  1655.  
  1656. The only motivation I can see is you're trying to emotionally avoid the pretty obvious conclusion that Wundergeek and your friends have done some pretty fucked up shit and you've done nothing about it, so you're lashing out at me.
  1657.  
  1658.  
  1659. Quote:
  1660. As a reminder, you specifically stated The charges she made were: - I am a "violent misogynist". (with the quotes). If you overlooked something such that this isn't true, it is still a lie.  
  1661.  
  1662. No, that would simply be a mistake. A lie is an intentional falsehood.
  1663.  
  1664. Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
  1665.  
  1666. -dictionary.reference.com (first google hit for "lie")
  1667.  
  1668. Let's be clear: at no point do I ever have any intent to deceive. My position is that linking directly to what Wundergeek says and juxtaposing that directly with the truth proves what I've been saying.
  1669.  
  1670. Which is why I keep referring you over there.
  1671.  
  1672. If I were intending to deceive, I would conceal my sources--like Wundergeek does, and I would not answer your questions about my reasoning--as Wundergeek does.
  1673.  
  1674. You can say that upon reviewing my claims you think I've misinterpreted her evil behavior as being other evil behavior.
  1675.  
  1676. You cannot say that I am lying--that is: making false statements with intent to deceive. I have been entirely transparent at every juncture.
  1677.  
  1678.  
  1679. Quote:
  1680. As for your motivation - it isn’t stated in her article, but it seems to me that there are various possibilities. For example, someone could be desperate for attention and doesn’t mind if that attention includes some misogynists  
  1681.  
  1682. That's so silly I hadn't thought of it--since I never posted about Wundergeek for ages and drew Wundergeek's ire when someone else brought her up on a random thread on a random board.
  1683.  
  1684. (First blood, right here: http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/16258/carcosa )
  1685.  
  1686. ..the idea that a porn actor with art in the MOMA who gets way more "attention" for nearly everything he's ever done in or out of games than for defending James Raggi and his girlfriend by pointing out Wundergeek is a rancid bigot on Story-Games did it for "attention" (or subsequently defended himself from the attacks from her this brought on "for attention") makes zero sense and suggests Wundergeek is way more narcissistic than I'd imagined.
  1687.  
  1688. I do forget that basic-ass bloggers with no lives think "page views" translate into some form of currency as yet unknown to humans. Like as if I get more "page views" suddenly you get a free toaster or some shit. Here's news: if we sold every single print copy of Vornheim (my only profit-making RPG venture when the charges were leveled) instantly it'd result in a profit for me equal to 1/5th what I make selling one painting (and Vornheim took twice as long to make as a painting). You can contact my gallery to confirm that. If I wanted "page views" for the hell of it I'd just post more naked pictures on my blog, or wait for Charlotte Stokely to retweet that we ate chinese food, or talk to Marilyn Manson about D&D some more.
  1689.  
  1690.  
  1691. Though thanks for the new theory. It hadn't occurred to me that evenWundergeek was that delusional. It is as insulting as calling me a "violent misogynist" and so I am not inclined to split that hair.
  1692.  
  1693.  
  1694. Quote:
  1695. Or someone could be self-serving and wanting to score points among a segment of gamers by backing attacks on SJW’s, and accepts help from harassers.  
  1696.  
  1697. Points? What does that mean? This sounds like "attention" again. Either way: I hadn't thought of this new and insulting possibility.
  1698.  
  1699.  
  1700. Quote:
  1701. Then you lied. Maybe you told yourself "Well, I think she did a bad thing, so it doesn't matter if I say the actual bad thing she did or some other thing that is a lie." However, it is still a lie.  
  1702.  
  1703. If you are saying that retweeting the article and posting in favor of it 3 times is not supporting it and you'll accept nothing less than her actually typing "I 100% support every charge in this article" yet you won't even ask her if that's the case you are looking for a hair to split. And 100% wrong.
  1704.  
  1705. If she forwarded it and believed it: that is evil.
  1706.  
  1707. If she forwarded it and did not believe it: that is a possibility I had not considered (so I can't be lying, just hadn't thought of it) and that is even more evil.
  1708.  
  1709. Again: she forwarded it, this is an inexcusable crime. I have done her no wrong if I accidentally and in my ignorance accused her of a lesser crime--actually endorsing what she believed, rather than lazily reposting something she didn't even believe just to make life worse for me.
  1710.  
  1711.  
  1712.  
  1713. Quote:
  1714. I also don't accept what you say about your intent or belief to be absolute truth.  
  1715.  
  1716. Then this makes you a bad person because on the internet what you do is assume good faith and judge people on their statements unless you can prove otherwise.
  1717.  
  1718. What is it that you do not believe about my intent, Christian? Why don't you tell all of us?
  1719.  
  1720.  
  1721. Quote:
  1722. OK. So suppose I ask a few women if your rhetoric is misogynist, and they say yes. They are the affected group in this case. Does that mean that it's not a lie if I call you a misogynist?  
  1723.  
  1724. They're entitled to their opinion.
  1725.  
  1726. However I've noted that nobody in all these five months has been able to find even a single passage of mine to quote that can be called "misogynist". Attacks On Zak are notably light on quotations or links in this regard--whereas finding passages I can read of Wundergeek's which erase anything but the cishet experience of art and which people call homophobic is by no means hard.
  1727.  
  1728. Also: I'd willingly put it to a vote. If I gave Wundergeek's stuff to every lesbian and bi woman on the planet, and they voted, I'd accept their verdict. As I don't have access to that, I am deferring to people I trust. Whatever that is, it is not a lie--and you are a fucked up person for suggesting it is.
  1729.  
  1730. What exactly am I supposed to do here JHKim? I read something and think it's homophobic, people affected that I trust think it to and I'm supposed to do what, not say anything until I've consulted JHKim on his opinion first? I honestly don't see any other course of action you're giving me here.
  1731.  
  1732.  
  1733. Quote:
  1734. I have said nothing of the sort, or given any reason for you to think so. It is precisely because I believe that there should be consequences for bad behavior that I am holding you accountable for yours, as well as other people responsible for theirs.  
  1735.  
  1736. Then why didn't you take Wundergeek and everyone else responsible for this bullshit MONTHS AGO, JHKim? And why do you say her retweeting the Failforward article is not a reason to boycott her?
  1737.  
  1738. You just gave a big long speech about the ACLU and rapists and God to that effect and you can't simultaneously claim you believe in consequences and then say the worst things she did should have no consequences. You are talking out of your ass.
  1739.  
  1740. So far as I can tell this is what's happening:
  1741.  
  1742. -Wundergeek does inexcusable things.
  1743.  
  1744. -You do fuck-all for months and months about this
  1745.  
  1746. -I point them out.
  1747.  
  1748. -You try to find some hairs to split in me pointing them out to somehow justify you having done nothing.
  1749.  
  1750. What exactly could Wundergeek possibly do to provoke you to do anything about it? Because you seem dead set on punishing me for the crime of "reporting my (and many other peoples') honest interpretation of what she said" (it is not exactly like I'm the only person who reads her shit and walks away thinking what I think) and letting her go scott-free for aiding libel and harassment.
  1751.  
  1752. At the end of this the worst case scenario for me is:
  1753.  
  1754. JHKim admits:
  1755.  
  1756. 1. Wundergeek has endorsed a libellous claim about JD and rape.
  1757.  
  1758. 2. Wundergeek has lied about Zak.
  1759.  
  1760. 3. Wundergeek endorsed and spread libel about Zak.
  1761.  
  1762. Zak admits:
  1763.  
  1764. 4. He misinterpreted her evil and dumb behavior as being other evil and dumb behavior and typed that. In truth:
  1765. -She doesn't claim he's a violent misogynist, just an attention-seeking misogynist!
  1766. -She doesn't believe every word of the libel she spread, she spread shit she didn't even believe!
  1767. -She doesn't write homophobic things, just things that are ignorant and insensitive and wrong and which promote stereotypes about LGBT people that we can't call "homophobic" for some obscure reason!
  1768.  
  1769. What's the point, here, JHKim? What happens if you even get all the way to (4)? Is something supposed to happen then? Is everyone supposed to suddenly revise our impressions of Wundergeek upward?
  1770.  
  1771. And what do you want me to do?
  1772.  
  1773. When I say nothing, you do nothing.
  1774.  
  1775. When I pointed out people are lying and harassing us (as I have been since this consultant thing started) you still do nothing
  1776.  
  1777. Then I say what I believe to be true on theRPGsite this week, then you agree with the most egregious charges, but you attack me instead of her on a bunch of minor ones.
  1778.  
  1779. WTF? It looks like instead of looking at the situation and trying to redress the wrong you just sat on it for months until you had an excuse to attack me.
  1780.  
  1781. Apparently whatever I did, it was the only way to draw your attention to the massive problem your friends are causing or get you to do anything about it. And what you decided to do about it was: yell at me for bringing it up.
  1782.  
  1783. I'm being taken to task for a bunch of arguables while you're advocating no consequences at all for Wundergeek who objectively and inarguably did totally fucked up things long before I showed up to talk about them here.
  1784.  
  1785. Why aren't you talking to her? Even in the worst case scenario, whatever I did was a drop in the bucket compared to all the shit Wundergeek pulled which you totally aren't calling her on
  1786. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1787.  
  1788.  
  1789. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798171&postcount=234
  1790.  
  1791. Quote:
  1792. Originally Posted by Will View Post
  1793. I also think 'she forwarded something is an inexcusable crime' is laugh-out-loud stupid.
  1794.  
  1795. Almost nobody vets every article they forwarded thoroughly. How many times have you pointed friends at Snopes about stupid shit they've forward on FB or whatever?
  1796.  
  1797. Edit: Though I'll add that once someone points out you forwarded something malevolently untrue, you ARE an awful person if you refuse to acknowledge or apologize for it.
  1798.  
  1799. The part I put in bold is the relevant part there.
  1800.  
  1801. Forwarding the FailForward article is an inexcusable crime. Unless you apologize.
  1802.  
  1803. She never has.
  1804.  
  1805. Since I've said this a bunch of times, your comment is redundant, Will.
  1806. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1807.  
  1808.  
  1809. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798190&postcount=239
  1810.  
  1811. Quote:
  1812. Originally Posted by Will View Post
  1813. In this case someone has a difference of opinion with Zak about what is true and what isn't.
  1814.  
  1815. That person then says Zak is lying.
  1816.  
  1817. Is Zak lying? It depends on what you think the truth is, but the correct answer isn't 'it can't be a lie because I was not intending to deceive or mislead.'
  1818.  
  1819. We just did this:
  1820.  
  1821. "Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
  1822.  
  1823. -dictionary.reference.com (first google hit for "lie")"
  1824.  
  1825.  
  1826. To prove something is a lie you need to prove intent. Just like murder.
  1827.  
  1828. To prove something is not true you don't have to prove intent. You just ask Wundergeek what she thinks and you'll instantly know whether it's true or not.
  1829.  
  1830. If I intended to deceive, I would not recommend this course of action--it might embarrass me.
  1831.  
  1832. Since he intends to deceive, JHKim refuses to take this course of action--it will embarrass him.
  1833. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1834.  
  1835.  
  1836. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798197&postcount=243
  1837.  
  1838. Quote:
  1839. Originally Posted by Will View Post
  1840. Zak, words have more than one definition. Try reading a bit further down.
  1841.  
  1842. I think you have a reasonably good argument, but you SERIOUSLY undercut yourself with hamhanded internet semantic debates.
  1843.  
  1844. Stop being a condescending dick.
  1845.  
  1846. If JHKim wants to have a conversation about lies, we need a definition of lies.
  1847.  
  1848. I posted the definition I am using. It isn't a "semantic debate" to state honestly what I think a word means--it is an often necessary component of debates about guilt and innocence. And while you, no doubt, have some notion of a "goal" I am moving toward that might be "undercut" by this debate, rest assured that whatever that imagined goal is, you imagined it without checking with me first.
  1849.  
  1850. If JHKim is using a definition other than the one I posted, JHkim can say that and then the entire conversation can be re-evaluated based on whatever our different definitions of "lie" are. In fact, if he is that only helps both our cases and we should be happy--because then we simply have a misunderstanding based on the fact that we are operating from different definitions of a word we have both been using.
  1851.  
  1852. Because if we are operating from 2 different definitions, then the entire conversation changes.
  1853.  
  1854. If he isn't, then we can avoid that long detour in the conversation.
  1855.  
  1856. You randomly snarking that maybe his definition is different doesn't help the process of anyone learning anything here.
  1857. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1858.  
  1859.  
  1860. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798393&postcount=266
  1861.  
  1862. Quote:
  1863. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1864. In general, I agree. I normally use "lying" only to indicate intentional falsehoods. However, within this thread, Zak has pretty much immediately declared that someone is lying if they disagree with him.
  1865.  
  1866. That is 100% a lie.
  1867.  
  1868. Proof that you are lying:
  1869.  
  1870. On the same page as your comment there is this exchange:
  1871. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.p...&postcount=251
  1872. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.p...&postcount=252
  1873.  
  1874. …where Armchair Gamer disagrees with me and I do not call him a liar. There are other incidents as well I could cite--you ignored them and instead very literally lied.
  1875.  
  1876. We know your falsehood was intentional because you don't have me blocked (you respond to my posts):
  1877.  
  1878. -if you read my comment to Armchair and still said that then you willingly directly contradicted the truth in order to attack me
  1879.  
  1880. -if you skipped over any of my comments in this thread before making your statement than you weren't fact-checking yourself before making an insulting accusation.
  1881.  
  1882. To quote you:
  1883.  
  1884.  
  1885. Quote:
  1886. If someone keeps jumping into accusations - of homophobia, of lying, etc. - without good grounds, then they're being irresponsible  
  1887.  
  1888. Pretty bald-faced lie there then, JHKim, pretty irresponsible.
  1889.  
  1890. Now you may want to say in your defense that "pretty much" is a pair of weasel words designed to get you out of any wrongdoing.
  1891.  
  1892. Ok then: you weaseled your way out of that one, Christian. But at least we all know that you weren't actually claiming that I did the thing it looks very like you were falsely claiming I did.
  1893.  
  1894.  
  1895. A claim that I often call people who disagree with me liars is uncontested. There are good reasons:
  1896.  
  1897. -People in RPG conversations often lie.
  1898. -I am most interested in conversations that I think matter.
  1899. -Lying matters.
  1900. -I am therefore more likely to appear in a conversation that concerns truth and lies and more likely to be interested in addressing the lies rather than taste differences or ideas for a GURPS campaign--(I have a blog for that kind of thing).
  1901. -I am, unlike many people who are as loud as me in the RPG community, not full-time employed in RPGs and don't want to be, so I have a freedom to be blunt that they do not.
  1902. -Therefore if what you pay attention to is theRPGsite, you will see me, very often, talking about what is and is not true.
  1903.  
  1904.  
  1905. Quote:
  1906. In general, while intentions matter, I don't think either intentions or apologies are the most important issue. What matters most is the pattern of behavior.  
  1907.  
  1908. Well that makes it all much more vague doesn't it? I just caught you lying and you never caught me lying but now it's suddenly all subjective and you want to make an argument about "patterns".
  1909.  
  1910. This, incidentally, was the same fucking thing that happened all summer every time we caught some conservative gamer making a false accusation--we'd prove it wrong then they'd say "Well look at the pattern of behavior".
  1911.  
  1912. With that "logic", Christian, you can "prove" any fucking thing you want--because the internet is full of morons and you can find me embarrassing a lot of them over the years.
  1913.  
  1914.  
  1915. Quote:
  1916. Even if someone genuinely believes that someone else is homophobic, for example, they are still responsible if that accusation is false. If someone keeps jumping into accusations - of homophobia, of lying, etc. - without good grounds, then they're being irresponsible.  
  1917.  
  1918. Certainly, but, as we discussed, I had very good grounds.
  1919.  
  1920. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.p...&postcount=229
  1921. Which you failed to effectively contest:
  1922. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.p...&postcount=232
  1923.  
  1924. Let's really not talk about your pattern of behavior JHKim. Because if I broke off from what I did here: proving you unequivocally lied and then went instead to the patterns I subjectively see then we'd all have to ask you whether you've grilled and attacked Wundergeek (the person who you admit actually did all the provably and objectively bad things, remember?) the way you're grilling me, who you have no beef with beyond but some weaksauce vagaries.
  1925.  
  1926. But you know what?
  1927.  
  1928. When the pearlclutchers move into the realm of making criminal accusations and libel, they leave your vague RPGnet-mod-esque world of "patterns" ("You're arguing in bad faith!""What then do I actually believe that I am concealing?""Uh….well it's a pattern...") they see in the clouds and move into the something very like the legal sphere...
  1929.  
  1930. And in that sphere you have to prove actual incidents happened, not that you sat on a mountaintop contemplating someone's aura until you decided you don't like them.
  1931.  
  1932. Here you draw sharp lines: Is capable of this. Isn't capable of that. Would do this. Would never do that.
  1933.  
  1934. Now if you want to go "Ok, I , JHKim, am gonna say in my private judgment that I think Zak has some pattern going on but I'm gonna keep my mouth shut about shit I can't prove." fine.
  1935.  
  1936. But I hold you to the same standard I hold myself to:
  1937.  
  1938. If you want to call me a liar where anyone can read it, you will have to prove it every single time, because I have not lied at all on this and I have answered questions about my statements-- and whether you agree with my actions or not I can say I have held myself to that standard of behavior while the people attacking me never have--maybe we're no better than them but we don't torture.
  1939.  
  1940. There's a line I drew a long time ago and I am staying on this side of it.
  1941.  
  1942. You may not like me, Armchair Gamer may not like me, any other random doofus on this site may not like me, but you can sure as shit trust me, because when I say a thing I will back it up to hell and back, little Christian
  1943. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1944.  
  1945.  
  1946. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798401&postcount=270
  1947.  
  1948. Quote:
  1949. Originally Posted by Emperor Norton View Post
  1950. Yeah, I felt that was a bit zealous and over the top. It read like a bizarro world in which Jack Chick has the opposite moral compass, but the same methods.
  1951.  
  1952. Yeah that's maybe because you weren't sitting in a hospital room this August watching Mandy hooked up to a heart monitor and watching her heart rate spike and the monitor begin to crazily beep as every new accusation of your (and her) alleged hate crimes rolled in day after day after day linking Wundergeek as "evidence" on more and more sites in bigger and bigger media wondering when it was all going to end, all because, you made people mad by talking about playing the games you like (which everybody else does) and defended your fellow artists' reputations (which I don't think I have any choice but to do or else I really am a coward and a hypocrite and no more use to the RPG community than all the freelancers who keep their mouths shut because they're scared to lose work--RPG people have given us a big platform, if I don't call out fucked-up bullshit when I see it, I'm taking and not giving back).
  1953.  
  1954. And remember this: unlike a lot of folks this could've happened to--they can't hurt me that much because RPGs aren't even my job.
  1955.  
  1956. People who make it dangerous to talk about games on-line are, in my opinion, taking a big fucking shit in the middle of the awesome, should-be-utopian exchange of ideas that is the internet and ruining it for everybody. Once you take a game disagreement from "I disagree and call you names" to "I accuse you of legally actionable bullshit where everyone can see it" you have just crossed a line that makes democracy and the exchange of ideas harder and worse and that is no minor thing. IMHO. I have like 15-20 people in my game group, a handful of whom are very experienced GMs and I am pretty much the only one who goes online to talk games (I suspect some people reading this are in the same boat). This is because of the tone and standards set by dorks like Wundergeek. People would rather avoid the whole conversation than get into an environment where people will smear you for giggles.
  1957.  
  1958. We'll see how it feels if it ever happens to you.
  1959.  
  1960. I'm not calling you a liar though, you are entitled to your opinion
  1961. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1962.  
  1963.  
  1964. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798517&postcount=278
  1965.  
  1966. Quote:
  1967. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  1968. Fair enough. Zak, I apologize for saying that you pretty much call anyone a liar who disagrees with you.
  1969.  
  1970. Alright! Baby steps.
  1971.  
  1972.  
  1973. Quote:
  1974. I do think you are very quickly jump into insults,  
  1975.  
  1976. Yes I am. It keeps the trolls away.
  1977.  
  1978.  
  1979. Quote:
  1980. including cries of "liar"  
  1981.  
  1982. I call people who lie "liars". It's one of my little quirks.
  1983.  
  1984.  
  1985. Quote:
  1986.  
  1987. You're still a giant raving asshole and shithead, though. :-)  
  1988.  
  1989. So far your evidence for that amounts to:
  1990.  
  1991. "When people libeled him and the women in his game group, he pointed it out. And he won't put up with me doing it either."
  1992.  
  1993. So forgive me, anonymous Christian internet troll, if I don't think St Peter will take that charge too seriously.
  1994. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1995.  
  1996.  
  1997. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798657&postcount=289
  1998.  
  1999. Quote:
  2000. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  2001. From my side, I don't have a problem complaining about an anti-porn / sex-negative feminist stance, but I think using "homophobic" to label that is both deceptive and incorrect.
  2002.  
  2003. My point is:
  2004.  
  2005. Neither you nor I nor Krueger have as much authority to decide this as actual women actually affected by Wundergeek's rhetoric.
  2006.  
  2007. So while you can make your argument (and I can make a counter-argument) you cannot call me a liar for hearing, believing, and then saying, out loud, what actual smart women who actually have a problem with what Wundergeek says have claimed as their interpretation.
  2008.  
  2009. So if you say it isn't homophobic
  2010. And Norton says it is insensitive
  2011. And somebody else here says it is homophobic
  2012. And I say it is homophobic
  2013. And it is open to interpretation
  2014. And lesbian and/or bi people I know and trust say it is
  2015. And I report what I and they believe is the case
  2016.  
  2017. Then you cannot say I am trying to deceive people by reporting what I and other people see as a homophobic comment.
  2018.  
  2019. You can go to any of them and argue your case (which you are doing now) but you cannot do the dipshit thing you did: call me a liar.
  2020.  
  2021. Now if I ran away in the middle of making that case, and didn't answer your objections, you might be justified in assuming I had no case and the people I trust are merely local lunatics. But I am right here answering and prepared to answer every single question you ask and so you are not justified in assuming that.
  2022.  
  2023. So let's remember the actual topic of discussion here: whether I was attempting to deceive people by calling Wundergeek "homophobic". Not how many dudes on a forum think it's homophobic or isn't. I was clearly not lying.
  2024.  
  2025. It would be pretty much impossible to prove what I said here is an attempt to deceive anyone.
  2026.  
  2027. So you should apologize, Christian
  2028. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2029.  
  2030.  
  2031. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=798674&postcount=291
  2032.  
  2033. (...and, p.s.. whether Wundergeek and JHKim's delusional friends shared the libel article or not is also a binary fact)
  2034.  
  2035.  
  2036.  
  2037. Quote:
  2038. Originally Posted by jhkim View Post
  2039. When I asked him about it, he said that he didn't know if she had actually said that - but that the only way he could make sense of her blog post was if he assumed that the motive was misogyny.
  2040.  
  2041. Yep.
  2042.  
  2043. And that makes sense.
  2044.  
  2045. Whether she "called me a violent misogynist" or "accused me of being a violent misogynist" is:
  2046.  
  2047. -a tiny hair to split
  2048. and
  2049. -neither answer makes her less of a piece of shit
  2050. so
  2051. -me saying one when (after careful research) you're inclined to believe the other isn't exactly an example of me committing a great wrong against her.
  2052.  
  2053. ….so we are all sitting here wondering, Christian, just exactly why you're so invested in victim-blaming and so uninvested in doing anything about the problem your friends caused.
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
 
Top