Now, though I am not surprised, I am saddened by the fact that you removed the part where I point out that DS is probably being harassed just as much, and that harassment in general needs to end.
"And yes, this ridiculous situation needs to stop, extremist behaviors are not acceptable" Extremist behavior comes from both sides.
I am quite shocked of your reading skills. English is not my mother language but still.
"And yes, this ridiculous situation needs to stop, extremist behaviors are not acceptable! DS by posting pictures like that one and trolling the tags where people were supporting SG is doing nothing but willingly making it worse!"
....is what you actually said....you are essentially saying that by him posting those pictures, he opens himself up to all the the targeted harassment he receives.....essentially, victim blaming.....
I would also like to point out the irony of your personal insults at me, while in a thread about targeted harassment...
I don't think you understand what the term "linking to" means.
Oh seriously? Do you have to go this low to try to make a flawed point? He posted and image with one LINK that is one of a PORN website. Clicking on the image does not takes you to the porn website but writing it on your browser address does. Period.
It is also factual he DID before post direct links on his twitter feed to the porn video.
Had I realized that this is what the discussion would devolve into once I pointed out that harassment is happening and needs to stop on both sides, I would have never chimed in.
Some food for thought before I bow out of this toxicity.....look at the extent many in this thread alone are going at Derek Smart.....do you honestly think he's not receiving the same amount, if not more so, of actual targeted harassment as Sandi was?
This needs to stop, internet wide....
Yea, keep equating the abuser with the victim by putting them on even ground so that the former is absolved.
It's the oldest trick in the book.
You DS followers are hilarious.
I can't stand Derek Smart.....but that doesn't mean it is OK for people to tell him to kill himself on a daily basis....
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
....is what you actually said....you are essentially saying that by him posting those pictures, he opens himself up to all the the targeted harassment he receives.....essentially, victim blaming.....
I would also like to point out the irony of your personal insults at me, while in a thread about targeted harassment...
Truly sad...
The effort you are putting to make a flawed point against me is what is truly sad.
I judge any extremism behavior on this situation, it is ridiculous. I'm also not insulting you personally, as much as you are attempting to bait me. :pleased:
....is what you actually said....you are essentially saying that by him posting those pictures, he opens himself up to all the the targeted harassment he receives.....essentially, victim blaming.....
I would also like to point out the irony of your personal insults at me, while in a thread about targeted harassment...
Truly sad...
The effort you are putting to make a flawed point against me is what is truly sad.
I judge any extremism behavior on this situation, it is ridiculous. I'm also not insulting you personally, as much as you are attempting to bait me. :pleased:
You clicked "LOL" on my post where I said that though I can't stand Derek Smart, he shouldn't have to endure being told to kill himself on a daily basis.
No flawed point here...your actions speak for themselves....
You clicked "LOL" on my post where I said that though I can't stand Derek Smart, he shouldn't have to endure being told to kill himself on a daily basis.
No flawed point here...you actions speak for themselves....
Sorry, wrong LOL, the one where you actually quoted me with all your sadness has the right tag now for how i feel about your manipulation of my words. Thanks for making me aware of it.
I don't think you understand what the term "linking to" means.
Oh seriously? Do you have to go this low to try to make a flawed point? He posted and image with one LINK that is one of a PORN website. Clicking on the image does not takes you to the porn website but writing it on your browser address does. Period.
It is also factual he DID before post direct links on his twitter feed to the porn video.
Had I realized that this is what the discussion would devolve into once I pointed out that harassment is happening and needs to stop on both sides, I would have never chimed in.
Some food for thought before I bow out of this toxicity.....look at the extent many in this thread alone are going at Derek Smart.....do you honestly think he's not receiving the same amount, if not more so, of actual targeted harassment as Sandi was?
This needs to stop, internet wide....
Yea, keep equating the abuser with the victim by putting them on even ground so that the former is absolved.
It's the oldest trick in the book.
You DS followers are hilarious.
I can't stand Derek Smart.....but that doesn't mean it is OK for people to tell him to kill himself on a daily basis....
Does that point of view make me a "DS follower"?
I have no words....
So some random person on the internet tells DS to kill himself. In your book this is the same with the targeted and systematic character degradation plan we all witness in Sandi's case.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
I don't think you understand what the term "linking to" means.
Oh seriously? Do you have to go this low to try to make a flawed point? He posted and image with one LINK that is one of a PORN website. Clicking on the image does not takes you to the porn website but writing it on your browser address does. Period.
It is also factual he DID before post direct links on his twitter feed to the porn video.
Had I realized that this is what the discussion would devolve into once I pointed out that harassment is happening and needs to stop on both sides, I would have never chimed in.
Some food for thought before I bow out of this toxicity.....look at the extent many in this thread alone are going at Derek Smart.....do you honestly think he's not receiving the same amount, if not more so, of actual targeted harassment as Sandi was?
This needs to stop, internet wide....
Yea, keep equating the abuser with the victim by putting them on even ground so that the former is absolved.
It's the oldest trick in the book.
You DS followers are hilarious.
I can't stand Derek Smart.....but that doesn't mean it is OK for people to tell him to kill himself on a daily basis....
Does that point of view make me a "DS follower"?
I have no words....
So some random person on the internet tells DS to kill himself. In your book this is the same with the targeted and systematic character degradation plan we all witness in Sandi's case.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
There is no justification for targeted online harassment, no matter how hard you try.
So some random person on the internet tells DS to kill himself. In your book this is the same with the targeted and systematic character degradation plan we all witness in Sandi's case.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
Going to be upfront with you here man; calling the guy a DS follower simply because he disagrees with your perspective is no different than the people who throw around the cultist label.
He sees the abuse that DS gets as no different than what Sandi gets, and you disagree, stop with the name calling and actually debate the point.
"...the shadowy organization is run by a former convict named David D'Amato who seems to get a contact high from destroying the lives of the men who participate in his tickling videos."
"When Gretzner attempts to remove his tickling video from YouTube, D'Amato responds with a curt email that read, "I don't think you grasp the magnitude of what you've provoked." He then posts video of Gretzner being tickled and begging for mercy on user-submitted porn sites like GayTube, as well as Vimeo and Google+. He even creates a website with Gretzner's home address, links to his social media accounts, and his phone number."
"Farrier details an instance in which a performer believed his video would only be seen in-house. The nonconsensual release of a fetish film would seem to be a clear violation of revenge porn laws—until you realize that the law only protects subjects from the release of nude and obviously sexual media... In other words, even if you're performing what is totally, definitely erotic foreplay, in most states you can't pursue justice under these laws unless you're fully nude."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So some random person on the internet tells DS to kill himself. In your book this is the same with the targeted and systematic character degradation plan we all witness in Sandi's case.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
Going to be upfront with you here man; calling the guy a DS follower simply because he disagrees with your perspective is no different than the people who throw around the cultist label.
He sees the abuse that DS gets as no different than what Sandi gets, and you disagree, stop with the name calling and actually debate the point.
To be clear, I am not debating "who got harassed more overall". I am saying that any harassment of any kind needs to stop, and should be equally shunned.
If you are against that statement, IMO, you are not against online harassment; you are just against it for some, and indifferent to it for others as long as you do not like the target.
"...the shadowy organization is run by a former convict named David D'Amato who seems to get a contact high from destroying the lives of the men who participate in his tickling videos."
"When Gretzner attempts to remove his tickling video from YouTube, D'Amato responds with a curt email that read, "I don't think you grasp the magnitude of what you've provoked." He then posts video of Gretzner being tickled and begging for mercy on user-submitted porn sites like GayTube, as well as Vimeo and Google+. He even creates a website with Gretzner's home address, links to his social media accounts, and his phone number."
"Farrier details an instance in which a performer believed his video would only be seen in-house. The nonconsensual release of a fetish film would seem to be a clear violation of revenge porn laws—until you realize that the law only protects subjects from the release of nude and obviously sexual media... In other words, even if you're performing what is totally, definitely erotic foreplay, in most states you can't pursue justice under these laws unless you're fully nude."
Oh man, I would pay good money to have this appear on InfoWars as a news report just to hear Jones try to link this to the lizard people and Illuminati.
So some random person on the internet tells DS to kill himself. In your book this is the same with the targeted and systematic character degradation plan we all witness in Sandi's case.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
Going to be upfront with you here man; calling the guy a DS follower simply because he disagrees with your perspective is no different than the people who throw around the cultist label.
He sees the abuse that DS gets as no different than what Sandi gets, and you disagree, stop with the name calling and actually debate the point.
There is no basis for a meaningful debate here.
He and a couple of others are desperately trying to absolve DS with the argument that he received or receives abuse as well. When asked to provide proof or info about Sandi Gardiner abusing DS they come up with: random people tell him to kill himself.
They choose to ignore the fact that this issue is not about random nameless persons on the internet.
This is about DS proceeding in a planned character assassination on his social platforms. A character assassination targeted at a specific individual with a name and an address. An individual who, to my knowledge, did not abuse mr. DS in any form or manner.
As i said again and again, putting the abuser and the victim on even ground is the oldest trick in the book. It is used frequently by lawyers when defending rapists in court.
"...the shadowy organization is run by a former convict named David D'Amato who seems to get a contact high from destroying the lives of the men who participate in his tickling videos."
"When Gretzner attempts to remove his tickling video from YouTube, D'Amato responds with a curt email that read, "I don't think you grasp the magnitude of what you've provoked." He then posts video of Gretzner being tickled and begging for mercy on user-submitted porn sites like GayTube, as well as Vimeo and Google+. He even creates a website with Gretzner's home address, links to his social media accounts, and his phone number."
"Farrier details an instance in which a performer believed his video would only be seen in-house. The nonconsensual release of a fetish film would seem to be a clear violation of revenge porn laws—until you realize that the law only protects subjects from the release of nude and obviously sexual media... In other words, even if you're performing what is totally, definitely erotic foreplay, in most states you can't pursue justice under these laws unless you're fully nude."
Oh man, I would pay good money to have this appear on InfoWars as a news report just to hear Jones try to link this to the lizard people and Illuminati.
Yeah that'd be funny as hell especially since we know that he would also have strong crazy opinions about it without watching the documentary or even reading about it... he's just that good.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
To be clear, I am not debating "who got harassed more overall". I am saying that any harassment of any kind needs to stop, and should be equally shunned.
If you are against that statement, IMO, you are not against online harassment; you are just against it for some, and indifferent to it for others as long as you do not like the target.
Ah ok, I didn't think you were I assumed you were arguing that harassment is wrong full stop and to that I would agree.
Personally I think both sides of the isle have dipshits in their ranks that are far too invested in this to be healthy. My issue with Smart specifically comes from the fact that he is over 50 years old and should know better than to actively feed and attempt to drum up a hate campaign against a competitor's wife.
That being said the people who send Derek death threats and spam him with hate are no better than he is.
it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly.
Nice try, but another fail. I watched it in an Austrian Cinema with around 200ish other people back then. Wing Commander (the games) were very successfull in the German speaking area. Many WC fans watched the movie and read the novels. While the animated series was almost unknown.
Have fun
Lovely creative editing there, trying to make it seem kefo said something he didn't. The actual post was:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release. Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
So instead of being your usual self how about responding like a reasonable person and provide some actual information on worldwide gross. Also a link showing some proof for your anecdote about the Austrian theatre.
Oh and have fun doing the research.
I watched the movie in Taranto Italy while on a NATO naval exercise with the Greek navy. And yes it sucked donkey balls.
Also, how exactly did the poster edit the quoted text ?
Go read my original post so you can see how Erillion decided to edit my post so he could attack me indirectly. If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda
He and a couple of others are desperately trying to absolve DS with the argument that he received or receives abuse as well. When asked to provide proof or info about Sandi Gardiner abusing DS they come up with: random people tell him to kill himself.
I did not get that from reading his comments. Though OTHERS might be arguing that he does not appear to be. He is saying all harassment is wrong full stop.
They choose to ignore the fact that this issue is not about random nameless persons on the internet.
Some of them do, but he does not appear to be making that argument.
This is about DS proceeding in a planned character assassination on his social platforms. A character assassination targeted at a specific individual with a name and an address. An individual who, to my knowledge, did not abuse mr. DS in any form or manner.
On this I agree. Smart has gone above and beyond acceptable behavior into the realms of outright abuse of another person.
As i said again and again, putting the abuser and the victim on even ground is the oldest trick in the book. It is used frequently by lawyers when defending rapists in court.
Again, while others are definitely doing so, I do not see doodphacer doing so. He is simply commenting on the actions of both sides.
So some random person on the internet tells DS to kill himself. In your book this is the same with the targeted and systematic character degradation plan we all witness in Sandi's case.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
Going to be upfront with you here man; calling the guy a DS follower simply because he disagrees with your perspective is no different than the people who throw around the cultist label.
He sees the abuse that DS gets as no different than what Sandi gets, and you disagree, stop with the name calling and actually debate the point.
There is no basis for a meaningful debate here.
He and a couple of others are desperately trying to absolve DS with the argument that he received or receives abuse as well. When asked to provide proof or info about Sandi Gardiner abusing DS they come up with: random people tell him to kill himself.
They choose to ignore the fact that this issue is not about random nameless persons on the internet.
This is about DS proceeding in a planned character assassination on his social platforms. A character assassination targeted at a specific individual with a name and an address. An individual who, to my knowledge, did not abuse mr. DS in any form or manner.
As i said again and again, putting the abuser and the victim on even ground is the oldest trick in the book. It is used frequently by lawyers when defending rapists in court.
I have never once claimed that Sandi attacked Derek, nor have I ever absolved Derek of anything he has said, so I would appreciate not being lumped in with whoever you were debating with previously in the thread.
If you want to absolve anyone who personally targets Derek Smart on social media , simply because you feel that his indirect attacks against Sandi justify it, then that is who you are.
I am saying that online harassment in all forms from all sources should be the topic here, not a which hunt against Derek Smart.
For starters, I think people having to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
Go read my original post so you can see how Erillion decided to edit my post so he could attack me indirectly. If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda
Feel free to show where I changed your post.
So I "could attack you indirectly". ;-)
Do not insinuate. Do not hint. Do not allude. Show EXACTLY where you believe your text was changed. Show us the "before" and "after" version.
ng to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
Actually I think that's a terrible idea, the anonymous nature of the internet is one of the major reasons why dissenting voices and ideas that people are usually afraid to voice can be heard freely and I for one think that is a good thing.
What I think DOES need to be done is platforms like Twitter and others need to make their definitions of harassment and unacceptable behavior clear and precise while also giving users more features to allow them to control who they do and do not interact with.
For starters, I think people having to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
It's not only about names. It's about what happens on real life when it comes to law does not apply on the Internet. As i said before...
If i get a pic of you and print it with a hate message and post it around walls on a public space on real life... i am not doing something legal. Yet doing the same on the Internet is has no consequence... it just the gap that exists on this matter.
ng to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
Actually I think that's a terrible idea, the anonymous nature of the internet is one of the major reasons why dissenting voices and ideas that people are usually afraid to voice can be heard freely and I for one think that is a good thing.
What I think DOES need to be done is platforms like Twitter and others need to make their definitions of harassment and unacceptable behavior clear and precise while also giving users more features to allow them to control who they do and do not interact with.
For starters, I think people having to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
It's not only about names. It's about what happens on real life when it comes to law does not apply on the Internet. As i said before...
If i get a pic of you and print it with a hate message and post it around walls on a public space on real life... i am not doing something legal. Yet doing the same on the Internet is has no consequence... it just the gap that exists on this matter.
Well stated. It really is just the fact that the law hasn't really caught up to the internet and online interactions.
Give it time and as precedence gets set in court cases and in judicial rulings we will see these wrinkles iron out.
So some random person on the internet tells DS to kill himself. In your book this is the same with the targeted and systematic character degradation plan we all witness in Sandi's case.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
Going to be upfront with you here man; calling the guy a DS follower simply because he disagrees with your perspective is no different than the people who throw around the cultist label.
He sees the abuse that DS gets as no different than what Sandi gets, and you disagree, stop with the name calling and actually debate the point.
There is no basis for a meaningful debate here.
He and a couple of others are desperately trying to absolve DS with the argument that he received or receives abuse as well. When asked to provide proof or info about Sandi Gardiner abusing DS they come up with: random people tell him to kill himself.
They choose to ignore the fact that this issue is not about random nameless persons on the internet.
This is about DS proceeding in a planned character assassination on his social platforms. A character assassination targeted at a specific individual with a name and an address. An individual who, to my knowledge, did not abuse mr. DS in any form or manner.
As i said again and again, putting the abuser and the victim on even ground is the oldest trick in the book. It is used frequently by lawyers when defending rapists in court.
I have never once claimed that Sandi attacked Derek, nor have I ever absolved Derek of anything he has said, so I would appreciate not being lumped in with whoever you were debating with previously in the thread.
If you want to absolve anyone who personally targets Derek Smart on social media , simply because you feel that his indirect attacks against Sandi justify it, then that is who you are.
I am saying that online harassment in all forms from all sources should be the topic here, not a which hunt against Derek Smart.
For starters, I think people having to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
This thread was not created as a general converse about harassment.
This is about someone "assassinating" in a calculated and organized manner a specific person on his social media using scummbag tactics. Removing the perpetrator from the spotlight and putting in his place a vague theme about online harassment only benefits him and does his victim a disservice.
This is what a number of individuals, not you, are doing during the course of this thread. For obvious reasons.
Comments
....is what you actually said....you are essentially saying that by him posting those pictures, he opens himself up to all the the targeted harassment he receives.....essentially, victim blaming.....
I would also like to point out the irony of your personal insults at me, while in a thread about targeted harassment...
Truly sad...
Does that point of view make me a "DS follower"?
I have no words....
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The effort you are putting to make a flawed point against me is what is truly sad.
I judge any extremism behavior on this situation, it is ridiculous. I'm also not insulting you personally, as much as you are attempting to bait me. :pleased:
No flawed point here...your actions speak for themselves....
EDIT: I see you just removed it.....thank you.
As i said, keep equating the abuser with the victim. And keep telling yourself that you're not a DS follower.
He sees the abuse that DS gets as no different than what Sandi gets, and you disagree, stop with the name calling and actually debate the point.
A few quotes from it:
"...the shadowy organization is run by a former convict named David D'Amato who seems to get a contact high from destroying the lives of the men who participate in his tickling videos."
"When Gretzner attempts to remove his tickling video from YouTube, D'Amato responds with a curt email that read, "I don't think you grasp the magnitude of what you've provoked." He then posts video of Gretzner being tickled and begging for mercy on user-submitted porn sites like GayTube, as well as Vimeo and Google+. He even creates a website with Gretzner's home address, links to his social media accounts, and his phone number."
"Farrier details an instance in which a performer believed his video would only be seen in-house. The nonconsensual release of a fetish film would seem to be a clear violation of revenge porn laws—until you realize that the law only protects subjects from the release of nude and obviously sexual media... In other words, even if you're performing what is totally, definitely erotic foreplay, in most states you can't pursue justice under these laws unless you're fully nude."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If you are against that statement, IMO, you are not against online harassment; you are just against it for some, and indifferent to it for others as long as you do not like the target.
He and a couple of others are desperately trying to absolve DS with the argument that he received or receives abuse as well. When asked to provide proof or info about Sandi Gardiner abusing DS they come up with: random people tell him to kill himself.
They choose to ignore the fact that this issue is not about random nameless persons on the internet.
This is about DS proceeding in a planned character assassination on his social platforms. A character assassination targeted at a specific individual with a name and an address. An individual who, to my knowledge, did not abuse mr. DS in any form or manner.
As i said again and again, putting the abuser and the victim on even ground is the oldest trick in the book. It is used frequently by lawyers when defending rapists in court.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Personally I think both sides of the isle have dipshits in their ranks that are far too invested in this to be healthy. My issue with Smart specifically comes from the fact that he is over 50 years old and should know better than to actively feed and attempt to drum up a hate campaign against a competitor's wife.
That being said the people who send Derek death threats and spam him with hate are no better than he is.
If you want to absolve anyone who personally targets Derek Smart on social media , simply because you feel that his indirect attacks against Sandi justify it, then that is who you are.
I am saying that online harassment in all forms from all sources should be the topic here, not a which hunt against Derek Smart.
For starters, I think people having to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
So I "could attack you indirectly". ;-)
Do not insinuate. Do not hint. Do not allude. Show EXACTLY where you believe your text was changed.
Show us the "before" and "after" version.
Have fun
What I think DOES need to be done is platforms like Twitter and others need to make their definitions of harassment and unacceptable behavior clear and precise while also giving users more features to allow them to control who they do and do not interact with.
Just my two cents.
It's not only about names. It's about what happens on real life when it comes to law does not apply on the Internet. As i said before...
If i get a pic of you and print it with a hate message and post it around walls on a public space on real life... i am not doing something legal. Yet doing the same on the Internet is has no consequence... it just the gap that exists on this matter.
Give it time and as precedence gets set in court cases and in judicial rulings we will see these wrinkles iron out.
This is about someone "assassinating" in a calculated and organized manner a specific person on his social media using scummbag tactics. Removing the perpetrator from the spotlight and putting in his place a vague theme about online harassment only benefits him and does his victim a disservice.
This is what a number of individuals, not you, are doing during the course of this thread. For obvious reasons.