Huffington Post reports Violentacrez fired due to Gawker's doxxing.

[–]oneiorosgrip 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrPeon 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrPeon 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrPeon 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrPeon 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

What I saw really didn't violate any law. It was candid pictures of people in public places. I saw comments in other areas about the sub having "upskirt" shots, but I didn't see upskirt shots among the photos in the replacement sub, and had that been a frequently posted subject, there would have been some. What I did see were a lot of shots from behind in which the face was not identifiable, a lot of shots from a distance, some shots in which the head was cut off (making it obvious that the body was the subject of the image) and a few front shots showing faces. None of the images showed any of the subjects in any way other than the way they presented themselves to the general public anyway.

With the sub down and the evidence gone, I'm left to believe that SRS, Jezebel, and eventually Adrian Chen all freaked out over nothing. Had I found myself in that thread shot the way the other images were shot (aside from figuring the photographer needed glasses) I'd have shrugged it off and moved on. Had I found one of my kids in that thread shot like the other images, I'd have told them not to worry about it. It's a picture... of how you looked... when you went out in public. Unless you went out in public with the expectation that nobody would see you there you have no business complaining. Really.

Beyond that, we have the story of the sub's existence, the rumors about what was in it, and the story of the femosphere going apeshit over it... but I haven't heard anything about complaints from any of the girls pictured. Were there? Because that also makes a difference as to whether any level of enforcement is likely. Without a "victim" complaint, something like this is unlikely to be prosecuted even if shooting photos of people in public places were illegal.

[–]crackinthewall 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackinthewall 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Creepshot images I saw varied from shots from behind without identifying features shown to head-to-toe front views with identifiable faces showing. There were some sexualized titles, and some flattering titles. The sub was far from innocent, but at the same time, I did not see anything that caused it to deserve the vitriol and censure it received, or at least not any more than Tubecrush did.

What I find most hypocritical comes from comparing the rush to condemn over such mundane images as were shown on /r/creepshots, while the same group remains completely silent over sites like Out My Boyfriend - the ultimate revenge site (NSFW, and I'm not providing a link) which hosts nude photos which might be taken with consent, but which are definitely not uploaded with the consent or even knowledge of the subjects.

Maybe reddit only gets outraged over violation of the privacy of females.

[–]crackinthewall 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Look, I'm not going to say it wasn't a shitty thing to do. That said, I am going to say that I think you're over-reacting.

To begin with, the individual's response to that kind of exposure is in part exaggerated by a perspective-related distortion; that being, taking greater notice of her own photo than of any of the hundreds of others linked on the site. To the individual, her own image will be the only image that matters, and whatever the number of users, that is the number of individuals she'll think of as being focused (no pun intended) on her photo, a likely overestimation by far, but a natural perception because she is focused on it. The same would go for anyone close to her.

There is also the fact that the image isn't created by peeking into the privacy of her bedroom, or her living room, or even her front yard. These are photos of people in public places. Aside from the upskirt and downblouse photos which both of us have mentioned are few, these are images of people as they presented themselves to the general public, not people who are relaxing in a private environment. If they've presented a sexualized appearance, that is what they're showing people of themselves whether they're photographed or not. Having a wider audience does not change the nature of noticing one's appearance.

For that matter, noticing the appearance of an individual who has presented herself in a manner designed to appear attractive is not creepy. Looking at photos of that individual is not "creeping on" the photo subject. The viewer is not even directly interacting with the subject - just looking at a picture.

Vigilante vengeance is not an act of righteousness. It's act of lashing out in anger, not an achievement of justice, and its effects can be more far-reaching than the vigilante might consider.

Even if you think costing someone his job or relationships is justified (and I disagree with you on that) What if you got the supporting wage-earner of a family fired? Would his kids deserve to lose their financial stability because you disapproved of their father's actions? Would his landlord deserve the drop in income that would inevitably follow his loss of income? You say people are responsible for their actions... Creepshots didn't actually damage anybody... but doxing violentacrez did. This is not a case of an eye for an eye. This is more the case of a jugular vein for looking at you sideways. That is not social justice - it's bullying in response to butthurt over something which is no worse than simply being objectionable. If you really believe people are responsible for their actions, you must also recognize your own responsibility for yours.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that we should give people a pass on shitty behavior because "think of the wife and kids." One of the consequences of being a complete asshole is that your family might suffer. That applies to all legal-but-objectionable behavior, not just this particular example. People who break social rules reap social penalties.

Some people don't care about having strangers post pictures of them without their knowledge, some people really loathe it, and I think both reactions are reasonable. Violentacrez posted thousands and thousands of creepshots. He made himself very conspicuous. Frankly, I think he's the one acting all butthurt about being identified. How could he not have seen this coming? He really thought that all the um, "material" he curated wasn't going to eventually attract public notice and public outrage?

That said, the Gawker journalist put him at a lot of risk by revealing his identity to the world at large. I don't agree with how it was handled. There are too many actual vigilantes in the world - as opposed to people like me who just want to be able to hold the person who hurt them accountable for their actions.

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that we should give people a pass on shitty behavior because "think of the wife and kids."

That's still expressing the tolerance of vigilante behavior. I think you should be equally uncomfortable with the notion that public attacks on an individual are justified because we simply don't approve what he did. People use that same attitude to beat people to death over "alternative" sexuality and gender identity.

The response was disproportionate to the behavior. Arguing against the overreaction which occurred here is not "giving a pass" any more than arguing against the inciting of a lynch mob to hang an accused - or even guilty - rapist would be "giving a pass." Vigilante vengeance is wrong regardless of whether or not we like the targeted individual or the chance of his actions netting without our assistance consequences which we approve.

Was violentacrez an asshole?

Damned right he was, but so is about half of the internet, many far worse, none of whom are being subjected to this level of scrutiny or attack.

Did violentacrez act alone?

No. Violentacrez was not the publisher of every picture on /r/creepshots... nor was /r/creepshots either the only or the worst site for hosting this type of image... but Vioentacrez is alone among all of the various individuals who could be equally judged in being punished by a private citizen... for actions which are being exaggerated and exploited for outrage purposes.

There are other sites dedicated to this same activity... both in respect to women, and to men. If you think /r/creepshots was something to rage over, you should see a site (not linking, and NSFW) called "Out My Boyfriend - the ultimate revenge site." It's a site which provides a forum for angry women to post nude photos of their ex-boyfriends - images taken with an expectation of privacy. (Foolish and naive, yes... but not unreasonable.) There is an equivalent for men to do the same with ex-girlfriends. Yet Gawker's writers went after one mod from a sub that hosts clothed images of people in public places. This indicates to me that the outrage over violentacrez's behavior is more personally motivated than rooted in outrage on behalf of any "victims."

Can you point me to even a single instance where any individual - anyone at all has cited damages from being personally featured on /r/creepshots? Did these anonymous photos lead anyone to the doorsteps of these girls? Did anyone who did not previously know where they were find one of them and harm her? Did any of them lose their sole source of income?

You have every right to disapprove the actions of others. You have every right to state an opinion. You are not justified in making yourself judge and jury over another man's life. You talk about accountability, yet in reality what you are advocating is exactly the mindset which has led to the encroachment of legislative control over men's due process rights - the ideas that attention equals assault, that disapproval can assign guilt, that emotion determines damage, and that outrage justifies action. It's the mindset upon which lynch mobs feed, and the scene that unfolded here is very much like one in that dozens of people called for the hanging, but after it was committed by the few at the head of the mob, most of those involved decried it as too much.

Is accountability relative, then? Are those who called for violentacrez's blood not accountable for the results of their actions, just because they weren't the guy who tied the noose? Should everyone who encouraged Gawker's writers with vehement condemnation of this arguably mediocre internet troll be doxed to even things out? Or do we have the common sense, and common decency to recognize that what was done to violentacrez was wrong, without having to call that acknowledgement a pass or falsely call refusal to go along with the lynch mob "giving a pass?"

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I don't in any way condone death threats against anybody for any reason. And while I don't think it should be illegal for journalists to publish the identities of people who make themselves notorious on the Internet, nor do I think it's a good idea - because it invites vigilante action. With an audience as wide as Gawker's, there is bound to be one psycho who thinks that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for being a creep online. I am not OK with that, at all.

What I was saying was that if I, personally, were victimized by somebody putting up pictures of me on the internet in what I judged to be a sexual context, then I, personally, would feel justified in identifying and confronting the person who did it, and in making their actions known to their real-life associates - who could then make their own judgement call about whether or not the behavior merited a social penalty such as getting fired or dumped.

The internet is not pretend. You are responsible for what you say and do. And if violentacrez gets hurt, Adrian Chen is largely responsible for pointing the mob in his direction.

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With an audience as wide as Gawker's, there is bound to be one psycho who thinks that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for being a creep online.

This - it's not the only reason why the violation of violentacrez's privacy is wrong, but it's one of the most obvious. That said, I would like to point out again the gaping difference between the real damage done to VA and the imaginary damage done to the subjects of the photos on his subs. None of the girls on those subs were personally identified in those photos. The shots did not result in any loss of income, personal safety, or reputation. The absolute worst thing that happened is that people looked at them. Not a real problem.

Losing one's job and reputation is a real problem, especially in today's economy. What you are arguing, in effect, is that it is acceptable for you to inflict poverty and homelessness upon an individual in retaliation for making it easier for his subreddit members to anonymously look at anonymous people.

That is what I am calling a disproportionate reaction. It is not justified.

[–]typhonblue 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Heartnotes 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I won't call you crazy, but I will say you focused on the side issue and ignored the main point of the post, that being that Chen did exactly what he condemned in the past - made himself judge, jury, and executioner simply because he did not like the man whose anonymity he assassinated.

Supporters of the doxing of violentacres draw a false equivalency between posting a fleeting image of an individual, and taking your entire readership to his doorstep... between something which is merely an uncomfortable circumstance, and real world damages like losing one's job and everything one's income supports, and seeing one's family harmed by the fallout. Folks who rallied behind Chen's action act as though he hunted down and punished someone who did real harm, rather than the reality: Chen took vigilante revenge on a disliked person at the highly disproportionate expense of the subject and his family.

The article's discussion of Chen's previous article is not equating the two doxed individuals, but noting that when Chen chose to do this, he was fully aware of not only the damage he'd do to violentacrez, but to anyone close to him.

In other words, Chen didn't just set out to take down a hated internet troll. Chen knowingly and viciously attacked a disabled person just for being associated with someone Chen did not like.

And if you look at that part of the picture, that is the equivalency drawn in the post - not that violentacrez is equal to a little girl, but that Chen attacking his wife by doxing him with the full knowledge that he was threatening violentacrez's job is the same as 4Chan's /b/ board attacking miss Slaughter for being associated with an emo singer against whom they had a grudge.

This is a clear example of the wrongness of vigilantism. Justice is not done in this way. Righteousness is not upheld by applying damage that is far beyond the "crime" for which punishment has been dealt, or for applying punishment that will extend beyond the party who has been judged guilty, to uninvolved individuals who may not even have known what he did.

Further, this is yet another example of feminism throwing women who get in their way under the bus. Chen's objection to violentacrez - like everyone else's objection - was based in the sex of the individuals considered victims of his trolling. No one has made an equal effort to take down the moderators of sites which do exactly the same (and worse) with regard to men that creepshots did with regard to women. In fact, these sites barely get any mention outside /r/mensrights. Yet Chen and his cheerleaders were willing to pull the rug out from under violentacrez's wife right along with him, merely because of her association with him.

Defender of the helpless. Right.
Avenger of the maligned. Sure.
Impoverisher and uprooter of the disabled... check. How noble and altruistic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait on a second. Are you saying that in addition to outing VA, that it was Chen's aim to cause harm to VA's wife?

I definitely don't think that is the case.

Chen provided the public with the details, and let the public do the rest. Albeit he did paint VA in a highly negative light and provided none of the counter-arguments I've seen floating around reddit. However the thing I can't get my mind around is had VA been an anonymous publisher who simply provided a magazine to be filled with pictures that sexualise minors, of any gender (i.e. including males) he would similarly lose his job. The only difference is this occurred on the internet and now everyone's having a dummy spit because 'we could be next'...

If justice is to be meted out according to a system by a court of law (which is what you imply should be done) then there is the necessity for that court to know who the accused is. The flip side is that the accused has a right to a free and unprejudiced trial, however the chances of this are questionable at best for many high profile accused persons, especially where they admit to the allegedly criminal conduct.

The first question then becomes: was VA's behaviour criminal?

If yes, the second question is: was VA's behaviour so reprehensible or undesirable that it justifies criminal proceedings? If yes, then charge him and let the courts sort it out.

However we do not live in a society where criminality is the zero sum game for moral reprehension. If I, for example, was to make comments that were severely insulting, I most likely have committed no crime. But people would shun and ostracise me.

Therefore a third question is (which applies whether the answer to question 1 is yes or no): was VA's conduct morally reprehensible? [in my opinion the facilitation of quasi-child pornography is]

If yes, then it may have been in the public interest, given the ubiquity of VA on reddit (i.e. controlling a significant segment of a popular internet site frequented by many different demographics) for his name to be placed on the public register. I still can't make up my mind if the way in which it was done was correct...

[–]oneiorosgrip 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's say, just for a moment, that I have a gun. Let's say it's one that shoots with such force that if I point it at an individual and pull the trigger, the bullet is guaranteed to go straight through and hit whatever is on the other side. I decide that VA has done something so bad that I'm justified in shooting him. I know, because he has told me, that his wife is behind him.

If I shoot him anyway, even though he is my target, I've deliberately shot her too. So yes, It was absolutely Chen's aim to cause harm to VA's wife, because he knew this shit was going to hurt her, and he did it anyway. He knew because VA told him, "If you do this, I'll lose my job" and mentioned his wife and his mortgage. Further, he knew because he's written about the terrible effects doxing can have on a family before. Chen is the writer who broke the 4Chan/Jessi Slaughter trolling story.

As to your second point, Chen didn't "let the public do the rest." He printed a biased, slanted, exaggerated and partly fictional story designed to smear and demonize VA and manipulate the reader's emotions, then associated that with VA's real name. I visited the creepshots sub. It was not what Chen made it out to be. If Chen lied about that, I'm inclined to believe that everything he wrote was exaggerated or outright fabricated in order to hit his target harder.

As to your point regarding the difference and/or relationship between VA's behavior and criminal conduct and how it affects social recourse:
Vigilante vengeance, which was and is the fuel for the support of Chen's post, is not a substitute for the criminal justice system or the civil court system. It is irrelevant whether you approve VA's behavior or not. It is not the private citizen's right to arbitrarily hand out whatever punishment he feels like handing out just because he's offended by someone else's actions. The fact is that Chen did something he knew ahead of time would do terrible damage to VA's life, and the lives of anyone who depended on him, and with all of the spin and psychobabble cut out, the real claim is that he felt justified in doing that because people were offended. That's a bullshit excuse for taking out one's aggressions on a target.

The bare-bones, stripped down reality of this story is that VA's "crime" was looking at people in public places, and helping others to stay within the boundaries of the law while looking at people in public places, and in retaliation for that, Chen knowingly and willfully set into motion the mechanics of the process to remove VA's supporting income and consign him - and anyone dependent upon him - to poverty. Chen inflicted poverty, ostensibly as punishment for looking at people, a vast overreaction.

The consistent effort by reddit's oversensitive feminist population to use misleading terms like "sexualized" and "quazi-porn" to steer opinion by falsely denigrating the content of VA's subs is not an effort to protect anyone from harm. It's dishonest, creepy, and controlling, but not protective. That kind of wordplay depends upon people who read or hear it taking it at face value and never checking into the reality themselves, leaving the reader/listener with a distorted understanding of the topic. After seeing terms like that, before creepshots was deleted, I went to see what the outrage was about, and whether it was merited.

What I saw there was a far cry from the described "sexualized photos of minors" and "quazi-porn." The sub was full of candid shots of clothed, ordinary females doing ordinary things in public. The images had nothing sexual or pornographic about them. Whoever first started using those terms to describe those images either has no idea what sex and porn really are, is an unusual individual who is sexually stimulated by mundane images, or was deliberately misleading people for the purpose of demonizing VA. I consider the third possibility to be the most likely, but obviously you can make up your own mind about that.

If you click through the links at Gawker.com, you'll find that the site has a habit of publishing exactly the type of photos Chen claimed VA was hosting - upskirt shots, candid nudes, and recently a surreptitiously shot video of a private moment inside a private residence, filmed without the knowledge or consent of the subjects. The contradiction there makes it further apparent to me that the incident was not an altruistic attempt to take down a morally reprehensible individual. There was no righteous indignation behind Chen's writing. He is no knight in shining armor, swooping down to slay the evil captor-of-damsels'-images. He's a tabloid-tale, hyperbole-slinging yellow "journalist," writing from the perspective of a site that does shit like that which he is accused, all the time.

Chen's motive for his attack on VA was not the protection of the young and innocent. It was not for the satisfaction of the moral outrage of the public. He was aware of that outrage - Jezebel, another Gawker blog, had been instrumental in inciting that outrage and stirring it up. That outrage was gold to Chen - it meant that if he rode that wave, he could spread his own name across the 'net in a positive light, and garner a huge pay-off in page views. This story was not a cause to Chen. It was cannon fodder. Chen exploited the mob-mentality of much of the feminist and female populations of reddit, and the demonization of violentacrez, for page views.

[–]buylocal745 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ghebert001 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiteTiger 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marshal631 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NiteTiger 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's one, though it's not the more concise synopsis I read this morning. Still digging through the history to find that. If I find it I'll stick it up here, but this one shows that doxxing was used and defended by MRAs.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/exposing-feminisms-rotten-core/

Some quotes:

Various pro-male partisans conducted a search of the public record, and discovered that “Vliet Tiptree” was in fact Pamela O’Shaughnessy, a prominent California lawyer and bestselling novelist who has been published by Simon & Schuster and reviewed by the New York Times. Yes — a person living a double life; a public figure with a valuable reputation to lose!

...

Briefly then, the enterprising Agent Orange accessed a members-only discussion forum attached to the Radfem Hub website. (Yes, this is a war, and in war, espionnage happens. Deal!)

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points 13 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xenoith 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xenoith 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Lowtax's greedy, lazy ass let the feminists become moderators so he could get a money supply from cheap bannings. Over time the community was filtered out by Lowtax's thug-moderators so that the extremel leftists remained, everyone else sane left SA.

I actually emailed Lowtax once telling him exactly what he was, and how it was going to kill something awful in the end. While he liked to submit hate mail for others to mock, he bitched out on my email after responding once because he knew I was completely right. But the damage was done. He never posted my email publicly, despite responding to it initially.

Lowtax has two failed marriages, and is a pathetic human being in real life. He describes himself as "conservative" but he's honestly apolitical with slight left-leaning views, and is generally just a whiny shithead who has failed in life but got lucky with his website, which is no longer important except to a socially-akward feminist feel-good mafia. He made decent cash back in the day but his own personal failings have caught up to him within the last few years and now he is alone, irrelevant, and will never touch another woman unless he pays for it.

He still masturbates to womens' feet, I imagine.

[–]Xenoith 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xenoith 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bantam83 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]l0c0dantes 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bantam83 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antdude 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NiteTiger 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I understand your sentiment, but I have to say -

Just because some folks are complete assholes, doesn't give everyone the right to be a complete asshole (something our politicians seem to have missed).

Taking the high road, and being the gentleman, those are the very things that define character. I'm not particularly worried about doxxing, because what, someone is going to show up and accuse me of being pro-cannabis, pro-liberty, and pro-equality?

Yeah, I try not to sink to levels, and I may have made an off-color joke here or there, but I'm not too concerned about your average person, because I'm not a complete asshole to everyone I disagree with.

Being a gentleman is underrated, in my opinion. It should be a quality we admire instead of one we ridicule.

Sure, being the asshole can get immediate results, but I prefer lasting change. That only happens with respect, and respect, while it must be earned, is like money - you have to give it to get it.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NiteTiger 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NiteTiger 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NiteTiger2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roger1988 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]manicmalice 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]manicmalice 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

VA wasn't breaking any of the rules on Reddit. He was doing controversial things that pissed some people off but he wasn't doing anything that was against the rules or illegal.

SRS and Adrian Chen targeted him with a smear campaign that led him to lose his job and will follow him in real life for years by making him sound like a pedophile.

SRS then said Men's Right's is next in their side bar. Reddit's admins have given that kind of behavior a big thumbs up by not doing anything.

Does this have a familiar pattern? We say things that are controversial and piss people off like men have right's issues and feminism isn't about equality. /MR isn't breaking any of Reddit's rules. /MR isn't doing anything illegal.

/MR is in the exact same boat as VA was. Doing something unpopular though not breaking any rules or laws. Reddit has aparently given SRS free reign to run smear campaigns on anyone who posts here and fuck up their real lives just because they don't like what's being said.

[–]killyourego 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]sltkr 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]crazyex 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rationalization 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]stln00b 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]stln00b1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stln00b2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lilstumpz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stln00b1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lilstumpz 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lilstumpz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rationalization 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tenshik 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrPeon -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

VA wasn't breaking any of the rules on Reddit. He was doing controversial things that pissed some people off but he wasn't doing anything that was against the rules or illegal.

He was doing things that should be against the rules. None of this would have happened had the admins used good judgement and disallowed subreddits like creepshots and jailbait.

SRS and Adrian Chen targeted him with a smear campaign that led him to lose his job and will follow him in real life for years by making him sound like a pedophile.

Part of that he brought upon himself. He used poor judgement by becoming a mod of a subreddit named creepshots, among other things. Also he linked his online identify and his real world identity, enabling Chen to "out" him.

/MR is in the exact same boat as VA was. Doing something unpopular though not breaking any rules or laws.

No, there is a very important distinction. MR is not dedicated to creepy stuff.

[+]QuestionC 13 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes actually. Even if SRS reforms it would at least send the message that intimidation and harassment is not allowed.

SRS kind of flaunts the fact that they're out to manipulate reddit, specifically the voting system. The fact that they get away with it is an endorsement of this behavior by the administrators, which in turn encourages the escalation of this behavior. The fact that we're dealing with intimidation and harassment of users is very much the fault and responsibility of the admins.

Incidentally, I feel like the way people talk about creepshots is pretty unfair. From the dozen or so pictures I saw it really was just an honest to god candid photography page. I don't doubt that there was stuff like panty-shots which crossed the line, but it's hardly as bad as people characterize it. Reasonable people can disagree over whether candid photography is moral. I don't think that doxxing for the purpose of intimidation or harassment is such a grey area however.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]QuestionC 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bomber166 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Codeshark 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gingor 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Codeshark 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]productionx 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Necessary-Pea-66791 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Final_DarkMage 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PandaSandwich 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Necessary-Pea-66791 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedditorCalledQuest -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackmanplayt1 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]married_woman_plus_k -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lyonette 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]littlethistle 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeverFinishAnyMaille 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]crackinthewall 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nathandrakesdick 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PandaSandwich 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fatkid1371 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xenoith 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANEPICLIE 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]coldacid 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ANEPICLIE 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ma99ie 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Manzboobz 13 years ago [recovered] (44 children) | Copy Link

Why is r/mensrights making this a men's rights issue?

[–]ErasmusMRA 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GunOfSod 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lyonette 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GunOfSod 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lyonette 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]killyourego -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbeard 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lulfas 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_weed_wizard 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_weed_wizard 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_weed_wizard 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_weed_wizard 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]a_weed_wizard0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]killyourego1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Theageofplague 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GunOfSod 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GunOfSod 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a77887 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If you do not realize that by having an attachment to this subreddit you are putting yourself at risk of the condemnation of an enormous portion of society, then I strongly suggest you sit down and think hard about the risks you are taking.

You may not personally feel that it would be just for anyone here to be fired or damaged for their contributions or involvement with this subreddit, but your personal sense of justice is meaningless. The fact is that some people would lose their jobs depending on the disposition of their superiors. If they are involved in politics--including inter-office politics--this could be utterly damning to a career.

I posit that this subreddit would not exist without the assumption of anonymity. It will survive the harsh revelation that we do not have it, but it would never have made it through infancy if this protection was not perceived to exist. I expect to lose subscribers as a result of this event, and I suspect that further exodus will be incited when SRS begins threatening the remainder of us.

There are people who would physically hurt you and the people you care about, just for subscribing here, because they are so rabidly indoctrinated against the ideas that are presented here. You need to understand that fact if you're going to make an adult decision about being a subscriber.

As sad as it is, this is "socially frowned upon". Just by being here you put yourself in the crosshairs of a group of sociopaths so doped up on their own sense of superiority that they'd turn your life to ribbons just because it feels good to do so.

[–]killyourego 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Dear Mr. Ego's Boss,

I would like to bring to your attention and the attention of your customers who I will be contacting, that Mr. Ego is associated with a reactionary movement known as the MRA.

They are an anti-feminist, anti-homosexual, and are classified by the SPLC as a hate group in the united states. They support the rescinding of women's rights and their mission is male domination over female of both public and private life.

His pseudonym is KillYourEgo and you can find a record of everything he has written on the forum for this hate group at /u/killyourego. If you follow this link here you will find definitive proof my claim that your employee is in fact this man.

I am a strong proponent of civil rights. This hate group goes against everything I stand for. As a result, I am compelled to inform you that I will be contacting your customers and affiliates to inform them that you employ a known racist and misogynist and I will encourage them to boycott you until you have ceased to support this hate monger.

I am sorry that you must be burdened with this, I know that you had no idea about this man's online lifestyle. But the truth is out now and the responsibility is placed on your shoulders.

I know you'll make the right decision,

SRSASSHOLE

[–]killyourego 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Manzboobz 13 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

So how did that turn into becoming anti-doxing spokespeople for VA?

[–]dumbguyscene28 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

subredditdrama has a pretty good discussion of this in the thread about VA coming back to reddit as mbrutsch. mbrutsch's post correcting the many errors as he sees it in gawker's report is all pretty informative, more so than most of the stuff you've probably read about it.

One point that is made is that Andersen Cooper has a lawyer look at it and on air the lawyer stated that he saw nothing illegal.

There is also a possibly faked (just can't tell) image floating around antisrs of some SRSer admitting she intentionally posted lots of CP in jb and then called them on it days later when it had all not been caught.

All of these are one sided views, the latter possibly faked, none of it makes this a mens rights issue, but it is of interest to /r/mr since this is the environment we inhabit like it or not.

As I showed you last night, there is lots of doxxing going around reddit and lots more threatened and that too makes it of interest.

You can say, and I might mostly agree, that a lot of this is over the top paranoia, but, it is there, it is real, it is causing real world issues, and I see no one being the "spokespeople for VA" at all, but I do see people discussing a relevant and timely and real issue.

[–]kencabbit 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Huffington Post reports Violentacrez fired due to Gawker's doxxing.
Author	tubefox
Upvotes	74
Comments	180
Date	October 15, 2012 9:01 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11j52o/huffington_post_reports_violentacrez_fired_due_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/huffington-post-reports-violentacrez-fired-due-to.1011287 https://theredarchive.com/post/1011287

Comments