Nice to see that campaign funded. I wish I wasn't late to the party so I could contribute.

> the screenshots from the "game" someone made

One person. They're obviously troubled. Are we really going to let the actions of one person change the frame of the whole discussion?

A game allowing you to beat up a woman is, I hope, repulsive to any HN reader. But its existence, especially when it's so easy these days, means nothing in and of itself. You could probably feed in any picture you like, man or woman. It's not a weighty factor in a discussion.

> One person.

Did you see the other stuff on that page? There are a lot of violent and nasty things being directed at her, by (very likely) more than just one person.

> A game allowing you to beat up a woman is, I hope, repulsive to any HN reader. But its existence, especially when it's so easy these days, means nothing in and of itself.

I think it means a whole hell of a lot to a person who was targeted by it.

The purpose of the discussion, in my view, is not to pass judgement on whether the gaming community is good or bad, but to highlight the way that women are actually being treated, so that anyone with a sense of decency can be very clear that this behavior is not tolerated and shun/shame anyone who acts in this way. But I think that explaining it away as just the actions of one troubled person runs counter to this goal. Condemning it doesn't mean you're condemning yourself or your community, just the people who act in this way.

The game was made by one person, yes. But it's a little misleading to emphasize that this was "one person" when they were representative of the massive amounts of anti-feminist sentiment that was sent her way. If you look through the random sampling of comments her video garnered, it's hard to claim that the video game "changed the frame of the discussion" that was already well underway.

You aren't seeing a random sampling though, she deletes any comments that are critical of her work or her funding method. She only leaves comments that are supportive, and ones that are abusive trolling.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

edit: papsosouid was unwilling to provide evidence. You can skip this subtree and not miss anything.

Not really, just first hand experience having her remove my post. You could consider the fact that there are no polite yet critical comments to her as evidence, but that could also be explained by there being absolutely no people who disagree with her and are polite.

That's not evidence. For all I know you posted a hateful screed and it deserved to be deleted.

I know it is not evidence. Which is why I said "not really". You are welcome to believe that there are no people in the world who disagree with her and are polite if you think that is a more likely explanation for the complete lack of polite criticism on channels she controls even though such polite criticism clearly does exist on channels she doesn't control. You are also welcome to believe that I posted a "hateful screed" and it was deleted, despite the obvious fact that she doesn't delete those, they are all still there to view right now, and she revels in them and uses them for publicity and sympathy.

"You are welcome to believe that there are no people in the world who disagree with her and are polite"

I did not say this.

"You are also welcome to believe that I posted a "hateful screed" and it was deleted"

I did not say this.

I asked for evidence. You're trying to divert attention from your failure to back a claim up.

I have tried to be polite, but you are being deliberately obtuse. Which part of "not really" is difficult to understand? I did not claim to have evidence, quite the contrary I told you clearly I do not have evidence. And I know you didn't say those things, but you would have to believe those things in order to explain the state of every communication channel she controls. Look up "implication" in the dictionary.

I am not trying to back up a claim for you. I do not care what you believe, you are not required to be rational. Believe whatever you like. But do try to at least be constructive if you wish to converse. Deliberately ignoring the words of the person you are responding to, and responding to the opposite of what they said is not productive.

Or I can share my personal experiences here on a forum for discussing our opinions. If I feel that I need your approval to speak in the future I'll be sure to ask.

You could simply show us what you wrote. More important than mere opinion on this forum is an actual contribution to the to the overall discussion. A claim without support is not a significant contribution.

Do you save a copy of every comment you write anywhere in case it is rejected by the moderator and then someone randomly insists you must be a liar? I'm not sure if that is common, but it hasn't been a habit of mine. And what exactly would that accomplish? Would you actually believe me that my post was not approved, or would you and the other troll insist that I am just making it all up? I don't have proof remember?

This entire thread of "prove the sky is blue" has not been a contribution to the discussion, your post included. So, why continue it? I simply pointed out that looking at the comments that were allowed through does not necessarily reflect on what comments were posted. This is incredibly obvious, and it is rather sad that "durrr prove it" is the level of hypocritical non-discourse here.

Anyone (yourself included) can look at how there is rational, polite criticism of her work on independent channels like twitter. And anyone (yourself included still) can look at how there is no such criticism on channels she controls. So painting the response to her work as being only trolling bullshit by pointing only at the channels that have been wiped of other responses is dishonest.

You could have said "I have no examples and didn't think to keep a copy of mine." Everyone would have realized you were basing your claim of censorship on circumstantial evidence and a lone anecdote. This whole subthread could have been avoided.