SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brianna Wu, head of the independent gaming studio Giant Spacekat, was the target of a series of tweets containing death threats on Friday; one published her home address (since redacted). The poster's Twitter account has been disabled.
Wu responded on Friday night with the tweet:
Brianna Wu @Spacekatgal
The police just came by. Husband and I are going somewhere safe.
Remember, #gamergate isn't about attacking women.
GamerGate supporters denounced the threats and "doxxing" against Wu and disavowed the poster. However, several suspected that the tweets were a false flag created by anti-GamerGate forces:
Sun Knight @SunKnightO
@Sen_Armstrong @Spacekatgal @chatterwhiteman It's clearly either a troll or false flag shame that people actually think its legit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:23PM
Prove the threats were real, otherwise they were not.
Burden of proof is on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:26PM
> Prove the threats were real, otherwise they were not.
Why should there be any doubt?
Do I also need to prove that they weren't written by the flying spaghetti monster?
The threats certainly exist and they are in line with so much of the talk out of the group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:33PM
By their very nature, one must assume all death threats are real - if you incorrectly assume they are not, you die. There is no need to "prove" that somebody intends to carry out a death threat; they're illegal and must all be assumed as serious, joking or not.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @08:51AM
Oh, that's curious: Burden of proof meets precautionary principle. And even if the precautionary principle takes precedent, does it affect the burden of proof when it is referenced?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 13 2014, @03:27PM
Legal vs. personal response. The threat doesn't have to hold up in a court of law for you, the threatened, to respond cautiously to it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @11:37PM
Actually, no, it's not. The positive claim had been made that "Anita Sarkeesian supposedly faked death threats". The AC you responded to did not make the claim that they were real, although he did express some inclination in that direction. AC simply asked for some evidence of your positive claim. So, the one making the positive claim that the threats are fake (or defending it) needs to produce evidence to back up that claim. This is basic logic 101. The logical fallacy you are committing is called "shifting the burden of proof". To read up on this and other fallacies (I think you have committed at least a few others in this discussion), consult this wiki page [wikipedia.org].
Why, oh why, do people become unhinged and jettison basic logic when discussing this issue?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:24AM
Because there's no substance to it, its just an excuse to justify abusive attacking. Once you realize that, it becomes obvious why there's no logic involved.