“No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors.”
Well. I hope everyone decides to pull any donations they passed on to Wikimisogyny
Wow, I’m not donating to them again. I’m going to let them know, too.
Is there any more to back this up than the one article? I want to make sure this is legit before I regret giving them money and then decide to never donate again.
Hit them where it hurts: donate@wikimedia.org. Let Wikipedia know why you’re not donating to them anymore.
“No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts created specifically for the purpose of being sanctioned,” says Mark Bernstein, a writer and Wikipedia editor .
In contrast, he says, “by my informal count, every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned. This takes care of social justice warriors with a vengeance — not only do the Gamergaters get to rewrite their own page (and Zoe Quinn’s, Brianna Wu’s, Anita Sarkeesian’s, etc); feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia.”
He is exaggerating but there’s a pretty good reason for this: namely, have you read any of the articles related to GamerGate? They are so biased in favor of the anti side, subjective statements are made with objective language. The pages aren’t written like encyclopedia entries. And from what I’ve read, this isn’t even true - Wikipedia IS banning pro-GG people who don’t abide by Wikipedia’s editing terms.
Have any of you stopped to consider that maybe you’re on the wrong side, and the media loves and supports you for the same reason the media has a tendency to paint the groups they like the best in the best light, even when they do something wrong, not because they’re good but because media is biased? Have you stopped to consider this is exactly why GamerGate exists which is why the media is so against it? Even the article I posted still basically says “BUT YOU’RE STILL BANNING FEMINISTS YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT” as if it’s totally okay to ban one side but not the other. Media consistently and adamantly IGNORES the harassment and abuse people on the pro side receive, including doxxing and sometimes even worse.
And when you bring it up people just go “Yeah but” because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
It’s strange to me that Tumblr could be so anti-GamerGate, when realistically, the fight GamerGate is fighting is something that could be so readily applied to things people complain about. Don’t like how the media always paints black men as “thugs” but white criminals as “omg but they were so nice”? Guess what? That’s an issue with journalistic integrity. What about when journals take advantage of a travesty to get views? That’s clickbaiting, also covered by GamerGate. GamerGate started off just covering gaming journalism because that is what was easier to change and what a lot of people in the movement were passionate about and in large part they succeeded but hear me out: the broad message of GamerGate can be applied to all journalism everywhere. I support GamerGate because I see journalism in this country has a real problem, and it’s easier to change the simple journals covering smaller issues and work up. Look at how GamerGate has leaked into mainstream media and how they’ve proven the point by only showcasing things in a biased, objective way. Look how they just aim to promote this status quo - that gamers are all sad nerds, that there are no women or POC in gaming, that video games are dangerous and violent and we all need to play football and follow the gender roles set out for us. That’s what GamerGate is against - journalism should be a means of sharing information, not a means of driving society to behave how YOU want.
And if you’re against that, then quite frankly, I don’t know what else to say. I’ve already talked about how saying “But GamerGate is full of trolls therefore it’s not legitimate” isn’t a good argument since the same people making that argument will quickly go “NOT ALL FEMINISTS” when people point out the same in them.
Indiana is becoming sort of relevant for all the worst reasons. Congratulations.
So she had a miscarriage. meaning she actually wanted to have a baby. This is disgusting because not only did she lose something she actually wanted but she’s being charged with murder because it didn’t make it.
Ask their owners to leave without checking to see if the dog is a service animal
Roll your eyes when the dog is a service animal
Ask whether the dog is a service animal when they are clearly wearing a service coat
stop????????????? questioning my wife’s fucking service dog
It doesn’t matter if “other people have tried to bring pets inside,” that doesn’t give you the right to ask illegal questions??
That’s like saying, “Someone hit me with a stick once, so no one can use a walking cane in my establishment because they might hit me with it.”
if you see a dog wearing all of these:
ASSUME SHE IS A SERVICE DOG
Helpful Facts About Service Dogs
They can be any breed.
They may even be other species, such as miniature horses.
They are allowed anywhere the human public is allowed, such as restaurants, stores, markets, hotels, bathrooms, etc.
You do not need to ask if a dog is a service dog, as long as the dog is wearing a clearly-visible jacket.
As an owner/employee of an establishment that someone brings a dog to, you are only entitled to ask two questions. You don’t NEED to ask any. You are allowed to ask two.
The first question: “Is the animal required because of a disability?” NOTE: If it is obvious what the dog does and why it is required, you ARE NOT allowed to ask this question (for example, if the handler is in a wheelchair or also using a red-tipped white cane).
The second question: “What task does this animal perform?” ALSO not required if it’s obvious.
That’s it.
Any more and you are violating the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), opening yourself and your business up for a hefty lawsuit.
There are two times you are allowed to ask a service animal to leave. You are NEVER allowed to ask the dog’s handler to leave, no matter what the animal is doing.
The first time you are allowed to ask the animal to step outside: if it is not housebroken, and poses a sanitary risk.
The second time you are allowed to ask the animal to step outside: if it is acting aggressive towards or endangering other patrons.
That’s it.
You are only allowed to charge a cleaning fee if you would normally charge a human for the same fee. In other words, if the dog leaves hair on the floor and you wouldn’t charge a human for shedding on the floor, you can’t charge. If it’s a hotel and you wouldn’t charge a human for peeing in the tub, you cannot legally charge the dog for the same.
You are never allowed to ask for documentation that an animal is a legitimate service animal. This is in part to protect many people who don’t have access to medically-provided dogs, who have trained their own service dogs (perfectly legal and fine), or who can’t carry papers around with them at all times.
You may not ask that the animal perform their task for you. What the fuck, don’t do this. Think of allergy alert dogs—are you really going to wave an allergen in front of someone that might have a deadly allergy just to prove that the dog is “real?” congratulations, your ass is sued.
If you want more helpful facts please hit me up, I’m just really sick and tired of going places with my wife and her service dog only to get the message loud and clear that everyone is nervous and we’re unwelcome, when her dog is the most polite, well-trained, well-MARKED animal you’ve ever seen.
A typical conversation entering 2/3 businesses we went into today:
Person: Ma’am, you can’t have a pet in here. You have to leave. Wife: She’s a service dog. She’s wearing her coat. Person: Oh, sorry. We have to ask. People bring their pets in here sometimes, and we have to ask them to leave, because they’re not allowed. Wife: She’s not a pet, she’s a service animal.
Please spread this. Some people just don’t know. Others think that if they can’t see a disability, it doesn’t exist or need treatment.
