Trolls being trolled

[badgerbag]

Looks like now what's happened is, someone from SA re-posted zathlazip/hypersurfaces/Rachel Moss's original post over on a sort of SA-meta-wank forum. They used her photo to make a new account, so that it looks as if she just reposted it herself.

So, this community of jokers is turning the misogynist firehose right back onto zathlazip. They're calling her names, evaluating whether or not they'd "do her", and mocking her for whining and trying to get the post taken down.

Looks like she did try and succeed in getting the post with its pages & pages of racist, sexist comments removed.

((edited: I found this post from an anonymous commenter on SA, who posted this exact text with the last names blanked out. I did not post it, but later, the person who did told me who they were.))

Rachel ____,

Taking secret photos of people at WisCon and posting harassment on Something Awful is more damaging than you realize. You did not post personal information, but forum goons are already starting to stalk people. You are hurting peoples' academic lives and real-world careers.

I'll refer you to your school's policies on sexual harassment:
http://www.oed.wisc.edu/sexualharassment/

If your post on Something Awful is still up on Wednesday, I'll contact Dr. _____ of the Department of Environmental Chemistry and Technology, explain the problem, and ask him to ask you to take it down.

I hope you put this to rest before it gets out of control.

See how her "friends" on SA mock her,

got an e-mail from someone at the con threating to report her writings to her college... She immediately caved and started crying asking the mods to delete the thread.

Normally this would get you made fun of by goons -- but since this is a girl the White Knight Action Patrol immediately swooped into action and deleted all traces of the thread from the Goldmine.

I'm surprised that SA took it down. They make a lot of money off popular posts like that one.

Most of that thread is more fat-person-hating and woman hating and photos from the con re-posted, with comments on our fuckability and ugliness. we are all ugly, fat lesbians. Yup, all of us. Just fyi.

One comment did kind of make me laugh about the clothing swap, they bet you could make a few hundred sweaters off the cat hair on those clothes. YEAH CRAZY CAT LADIES OF THE UNIVERSE UNITE!!

Then another bit cracked me up, under a photo of me and the birds of prey last year, some dude commented, "Is that cripple under the impression that a Wonder Woman T-shirt constitutes a Wonder Woman costume" Hallo... dumbass... I was ORACLE.

Other comments on photos of me,

"The irony of a super femnazi bitch wearing a Wonder Woman shirt is just too much for me to handle"

"So what's Wonder Cripple's superpower? Being able to walk?"


Actually, yes. Hahahah! It's a miracle, I can walk!

Anyway.

I'd like to go back to thinking about all the awesomeness at the con, and tonight will post some book lists and some more panel transcripts.






This is pretty sad. What a childish, hateful, stupid thing to do.

Comments

[tekanji.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for whumpdotcom, but you should realize that by participating in the forums -- any part of them -- you're giving your implicit approval of all the sexist, racist, homophobic, ablist (etc, etc, etc) shit that the SA team and their goons do.

You're supporting them, not only by helping to make their community popular, but also by giving them money.

I'm not going to tell you to delete your account, that's your choice, but it does no one any good for you to imply that you aren't part of the problem since you simply avoid the blatantly bigoted forums.

Re: We are bigger!

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

Ehh... is that like saying being on LJ is giving implicit approval of all the shit that LJ and everyone on it does? I've heard that argument, but I don't buy it.

Re: We are bigger!

[tekanji.livejournal.com]

I know things sort of got resolved via your conversation with whumpdotcom, but I'd still like to clarify my position a bit. I should have differentiated support versus approval.

To be long-winded about it:

I would say that to engage in a community whose popularity/power relies on the participation of its members is to support and enable that community in what it does (good and bad). As is giving money to that community.

You are right, though, that the "implicit approval" argument isn't as cut and dry as I portrayed it to be. I still hold that if you merely participate in a community and never challenge the objectionable things that it does, then you are giving implicit approval. However, there are also times when you can express explicit disapproval of said actions or -- like bork pointed out -- when part of your participation in the community involves trying to consciousness raise about said problematic issues.

I hope that makes a bit more sense than my original position. o.o;

Re: We are bigger!

[bork.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it does - thanks.

[bork.livejournal.com]

Then I am part of the problem.

I feel that I do more good there by actually talking about issues like racism, than I would by avoiding them completely. I believe in dialogue. Sorry you got hurt, Liz, but I am not shunning an entire community because of a minority's actions.

And, I can spy for Liz!

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

Okay, I was operating under the impression that SA was nothing but a hate site.

I have a preexisting loathing of SA because some of the goons have it in for part of my company's customer base, and they make life more difficult than it should be for our operations and support people.

[bork.livejournal.com]

OK, now I get where you're coming from.

I had actually never heard of them until a couple of years ago, by some fluke of Internet communities. (None of my friends were Goons, etc.)

SA has some extremely immature members who take things way too far a lot of the time. They 'ruin' it for the rest of us. For the record, SA bans people across the board for racism, and they have had active discussions on what to do about the mysogyny (sp?) and homophobia on the site - so they know it exists, and they're trying to work on it. It may not seem like it, but that's going on.

But not a hate site, like Stormfront.org and the like.

I'm not sure what your customer's base is; what's going on there?

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

I work at Linden Lab. The goons have it in for the furries on Second Life. I was hoping 4chan/SA jihad against the Scientologists would keep them distracted from hating on other folks...

[bork.livejournal.com]

Ah. Oh yeah. That.

Sorry that's still going on.

[(Anonymous)]

Why would you be sorry that in some obscure corner of the internet, a bunch of borderline pedophile furries are being mocked for being vile internet trash?

[tekanji.livejournal.com]

You do have a point about the consciousness raising. I clarified my stance here (http://badgerbag.livejournal.com/118394.html?thread=605050#t605050) if you're interested.

I do disagree with you about SA's problem users being in the minority, though. It's a matter that can't really be resolved without taking statistics from all the users*, but even with the sheer volume of SA's users there are too many goons who actively cause problems (not just say stupid shit in the forums) for me to believe they constitute a minority. There's a reason why many sites have gone down after being highlighted as an Awful Site of the Day, and it's not because most of SA's users are simply looking at a site and keeping their mocking to the forums.

* Actually, a simple set of stats could probably be made by searching through all the posts made in the last month for words like "bitch", "slut", "nigger", "cripple", etc. and comparing the users who have used those words against the total population who have been active in the past month. It wouldn't be totally accurate -- since you can exhibit bigoted behaviours without ever using a bigoted slur -- but I would be interested to see what the results were.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

So the solution is censorship?

[tekanji.livejournal.com]

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. *eyeroll*

Do you honestly believe that me calling out what I felt was a hypocritical position (which has now been clarified on both ends) and saying that it's a person's choice whether or not to take that stance honestly constitutes "censorship"?