On the matter of Weev vs. Kane

Update, January 20: Kane’s response is here. She acknowledges that she said some racist stuff while she was dating Weev, but dismisses her behavior on the basis that it was “irony” or “satire.” She also takes me to task for having the temerity to have an opinion about it, asserting that I’m jealous of her career, washed up, and obsessed with her, “relentlessly picking on her”. By which I suppose she means I last wrote about her for Matter six months ago and hadn’t given her another thought until a bunch of people emailed me the Breitbart piece two days ago, which is the actual reality of the situation. People who are gods in their own minds don’t always realize that they don’t figure nearly so prominently in the minds of others.

That said, I don’t think that suggesting that she has some ‘splainin to do re: racist behavior implies Team Weev or that it’s okay to harass her–though having an opinion about her in public is not harassment no matter how many times she calls it that.  For some perspective, it’s worth reading what the co-founder of Model View Culture has to say: Amelia Greenhall left MVC after four months of working with Kane and here she explains why. I contacted Greenhall when I was working on the Matter piece and she didn’t respond. When I asked Kane why Greenhall left, she said  “I think we just had a little bit different vision of the company and the time commitment that it would be around it,” implying I suppose that Greenhall wasn’t willing commit and Kane was. Greenhall now says that’s not true, and rightly points out that you can believe that MVC is aiming to do and generally does do good work (which I believe is true) and still have qualms with Kane and it is not some sort of de facto endorsement of Weev. There is third option.


I’m getting a bunch of emails about this piece by Weev on Breitbart–largely because I did a profile of Shanley Kane for Matter several months ago that ended up being less a profile than a sit-down and some analysis thanks to some controversy manufactured by the subject prior to publication. I emailed earlier to a couple of acquaintances:

FWIW, I trust Weev less than Shanley by an order of magnitude, but as I learned from unfortunate experience, she apparently considers lying a legitimate means to her various ends.

My hunch is that the truth is somewhere in between–not as bad as Weev portrays (and Weev is, let’s not forget, a self-proclaimed liar) but I’m sure she has some skeletons she’d rather not see dragged out of the closet. But if I were in her shoes, I’d address anything he’s saying that’s true and verifiable, or it’s going to undermine the good things she’s trying to do.

And everyone loves a creepy right-winger who repents and turns into a good liberal. Look at Arianna Huffington.

And I say that as someone who likes Arianna.

To contextualize the comment about lying: During the course of reporting that story, Kane claimed on Twitter that I had been harassing her family and friends, when I hadn’t contacted any of them–and in fact, at that point in the reporting process, didn’t know who they were. Then she claimed that I was harassing her, Tweeting “LEAVE ME ALONE” over and over again, apparently to convince followers that I was contacting her at that very moment, and had been, repeatedly and relentlessly.

All subjects are unreliable narrators, but there’s a difference between the unreliability inherent in anyone’s self-perception and unreliability introduced by intent to deceive. That said, in the annals of bad subject behavior, it’s not the worst I’ve experienced. But after that I had to assume it wasn’t the first time she’d made something up whole cloth in order to get what she wanted, and I think it probably lowers her moral high ground on other issues.

I should mention here that there’s a strain of militant activism that says lying is a legitimate tactic, ethically speaking, but I don’t subscribe to that. I work in an industry where making things up whole cloth gets you kicked out of the industry, probably for life. And my tolerance for being lied to myself is very low. I’d always rather know the truth, even if it’s ugly and uncomfortable.

But I don’t think that’s so much what’s at issue here. It’s more about whether it matters if she was a racist asshole two years ago, given what she’s trying to do now.

I’m inclined to think that it doesn’t as long as she continues in her current vein, working on behalf of women and minorities in tech–though it might make people of color understandably more hesitant to work with her, especially if she doesn’t offer a satisfactory explanation for it.

But I do think people are capable of changing their political stripes and overcoming their own bigotries. It happens more rarely than we’d all like, but it does happen.

So if some of what Weev is saying is true, I’d be interested in hearing from the subject–honestly–about what happened, how she came to the views she has now and what made her change her thinking. Not because some sort of mea culpa will make it all better, but if someone more reliable and reputable than Weev corroborates the details in the Breitbart story, I think she owes her supporters an explanation.

  • Some dude

    Everything about her that I’ve read suggests that she is a hateful bully that found out that if you pick the right cause to bully for people will forgive all

  • Henry Smith

    I feel like this article attempts to walk a neutral path through this controversy, but falls far short of this goal through its failure to condemn the unnecessary and gratuitous revelations about Shanley’s sexual past. It would have been perfectly sufficient for Breitbart to state that the two once had a relationship, without the gleeful kink-shaming which adds nothing of public interest to the story and seems like little more than an attempt to humiliate the subject. Maybe before August 2014 it would have been more understandable to miss the mark in this way, but given the obvious resemblance to Eron Gjoni’s infamous Zoe Post, I’d have hoped to see you push back at least a little against *anything* involving a former boyfriend using a woman’s sexuality to shame her in public.

    What strikes me as particularly dubious is that the article makes a lot of very grand claims about racist remarks, and then points to the documentary evidence of the relationship itself as if to substantiate those claims. If, as the author of the article has repeatedly claimed, the allegations of racism are the most important issue, then why is the documentary evidence of this former racism not forthcoming? Maybe you still feel a bit slighted by the way Shanley conducted herself when you were researching your article, but it still seems pretty shitty to put the burden of proof on her rather than Weev and Milo.

    • Henry – I’m not obligated to walk through every nuance of the piece. You seem to assume that this is a story because of the claim that Shanley had sex with Weev. I don’t think that’s the case; I think it’s a story because it claims that she endorsed and shared his views.

      Also: I think you’ve failed to follow her response to this. The reporter asked her to comment on the details, and A) she didn’t deny it, and B) she acknowledged on her own Twitter feed that there are things in her past that she’s not proud of, but that she’s changed since then because people do change. Expecting her to corroborate the evidence in detail on top of that would be ridiculous.

      As a reporter, in my experience, subjects don’t fess up for no reason. If they’re not issuing specific denials and they are acknowledging the truth of some of what’s been said–even if it’s in a vague way–it’s because they know that those things can be corroborated. The burden of proof is not entirely on Shanley. I’m also reacting to her responses. I only mention her behavior with me because I can’t assert that I believe she lies as a matter of course without offering concrete examples. If you’re going to assert something like that, you back it up.

      I also do not think people are as obsessed with Shanley’s sex life as you seem to think. A lot of men think the two worst things you can say to a woman are “you’re a slut” or “you’re unfuckable.” And yes, *those* kind of men will try to kink-shame her. These are also the people who are insisting that Gamergate is about ethics in journalism, etc. and frankly, I don’t care about them. That’s also not something I feel the need to address because in my experience bigots don’t listen to reason and if they want to make it about her sex life, they’d find a way to do that even if she were a medically confirmed virgin.

      Women don’t see everything through that lens. We don’t view ourselves as human beings whose worth is primarily tied up in our sexuality. That Shanley might have a kinky sex neither surprises nor shocks me and for women who read that, I’d guess the fairly universal response was “meh, so what?”. Whether/how Shanley fucked Weev or anybody for that matter is only important to the sexist assholes who frankly would punish her for having sex at all. And I’m not talking to them. They’re not worth addressing. I’m talking to the reasonable people who are wondering if the racism charges have implications for MVC. (You can dislike part of a story, and that doesn’t mean much if material facts turn out to be true. And a badly done story can still be true. Even if we agree that her alleged kinky sex life shouldn’t have come into it, evidence of past racism is still relevant, no matter where it gets uncovered, or by whom.)

      If she said racist things in the past and supported a neo-Nazi, then yes, I think that’s news and worth addressing. And if I were a woman of color writing for Shanley, I’d want to know WTF happened there. Maybe it’s not what you care about here, but I do.

      • The Deuce

        Btw, notice that she tried to “correct the record” by stating that weev “left out the part” where she dumped him and made him cry (a bit hard to believe given that she tried to get with him right before he went to prison and donated $500 to him at that time, but I digress), and yet she can’t clear the record by denying the racist things she said.

        Instead, her response to “do you deny saying these racist things?” is to deflect and go “Well weev is an abuser!”

        She’s too arrogant and egotistical to avoid commenting on their history altogether in order to puff herself up, but she’s too stupid to realize that in doing so while not commenting on other parts, she merely incriminates herself further.

        • Well, there’s plenty of evidence that Weev is a liar and an abuser, not the least of which is that he admits to the former and has a history of the latter that does not start with Shanley. (See: Kathy Sierra.) But I’d agree with you that “he’s worse than I am!” is not really a defense.

      • Henry Smith

        I guess for me the difficulty is that this isn’t an isolated incident. It’s maybe the 3rd time in recent months that this particular journalist has popped up on my radar following this same pattern: he’s dug up some dirt on a prominent woman, and before he can verify it, he publishes it all and demands the subject confirm or deny it.

        Back in November, it was Randi Harper. He ran through her Encyclopedia Dramatica page’s list of allegations about her past, and at one point even tweeted a picture of her and her sister containing a photoshopped backdrop with a Nazi flag to ask her about that (he deleted it in the end).

        More recently he was giving prominent Twitter user “srhbutts” the same treatment, tweeting to ask her “lol @srhbutts is it true you and your girlfriend used to jerk off your dog and ask the internet for tips on keeping him hard”. More unsubstantiated rumours from Encyclopedia Dramatica.

        This is an unscrupulous journalist with a track record of attacking prominent women with rumours about their past, working with an unreliable source who has every reason to lie and exaggerate, and I think you’ve mis-stepped enormously here in the legitimacy you’ve given the allegations. I’m familiar with Shanley’s response to the allegations, and I know about her admissions, and I still think you’ve made a mistake.

        • Well, you and I will have to disagree. My parsing comes from journalistic experience and direct experience with the subject. I have no idea how much experience you have with either, and of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. But we are coming from two very different places. And in my twelve years as a journalist, I can tell you that lots of shitty, sexist, conservative reporters still break news occasionally. I think you have to explore the possibility that you are entirely right about the reporter’s motivations and it still doesn’t negate the facts of what happened.

        • Roxie

          Milo (@Nero) admits that he despises feminists so the fact that he contacted Shanley to “hear her side” is insincere. He would have used anything she said to him against her in his hit piece. The fact he ends his recent note to her, demanding that he respond to his questions, with “Best wishes” is a bad attempt to intimidate and mock the woman. He’s a slimeball who is relishing having such a great target. This won’t be the last time he chooses to “expose” an outspoken woman.

          But then, as he is a gay conservative, I find his social and political positions completely baffling as well as his worship of Mariah Carey. The fact that he, in turn, is fawned over by these Gamer Gaters shows that having a common enemy (uppity women) will bring together disparate groups as allies.

          • Well, it doesn’t matter what his motives are; contacting the subject of a story for comment is standard journalistic procedure and if he didn’t do it, it would have been an omission. He doesn’t have to be sincere for it to be correct procedure. Same with asking for a response to specific questions. You could be entirely right that he’s a slimeball but there was nothing inappropriate about contacting her. That’s what you’re supposed to do as a journalist.

            And I don’t think he’s using her instructions to fuck off against her. I think that response pretty much speaks for itself. There’s certainly no way to use it on her behalf (which he wouldn’t be obligated to do anyway). As I said above, the accuracy of his reporting is what matters, regardless of his motivations. He could be a despicable asshole and it doesn’t change the truth or lack thereof of the story.

      • Dave The Sandman

        you missed off C in what she did in response

        and C) Doxxed the journalist, publishing his phone number on Twitter and encouraged her gaggle of pet haters to harass him.

        Shanley Kane is a poisonous little bully who needs cutting down to size. And from what Weev has been saying on Twitter in respect of documentary evidence he has, and may well release, Id say that poor ikkle Shanley is going to get a sythe to the ankles sometime very soon.

        • Fairly certain weev is a gleeful doxxer as well (see Kathy Sierra), but for some reason I don’t see you calling for a scythe (that’s how it’s spelled, btw) to his ankles. Now WHY would that be?

          • Dave The Sandman

            I think weev is equally poisonsous as the hellspawn he created. The thing is weev isnt pretending to be someone he isnt. He admits he is a troll. Kane….well…..

            Kane and Weev are equally rotten, but only one wraps herself in the cloak of self righteousness. The other accepts he is an anti-social troll.

            And is that the “both sides do it” defence?

            And just for your info, btw, this side of the Atlantic we Lancastrians spell it “sythe”. Both spellings are listed in the OED.

          • Fair enough. And no, it’s not a defense. I think doxxing is cowardly and dangerous. I’m just baffled when people point to Shanley’s bad behavior while not acknowledging that Weev’s exploits have been 10x worse and far more epic. I’m not inclined to give him a pat on the back for being up front about it anymore than I’d listen to Charles Manson confess to murder and think “well, at least he’s honest about it!”

          • I also think it’s hypocritical to complain about harassment and then turn around and dox people who are critical of you. (And here I’m talking about Shanley.) Either you believe that harassment is wrong or you don’t. It can’t just be wrong if you’re on the receiving end of it and perfectly fine to do to your perceived enemies.

      • edtastic

        “These are also the people who are insisting that Gamergate is about ethics in journalism, etc. ”

        It most certainly is and that includes exposing the self serving opportunist riding high on their privilege who coopted social justice as a easy source of power and moral authority along with the unethical press who enable them with biased coverage. We’re witnessing yet another #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen which The Nation called “Toxic Twitter Wars” because white feminists were being taken to task. GamerGate is far more open to dissent and minority voices than a elite inner circle of cronies covering each others butts will ever be.

    • The Deuce

      LOL, the closest thing to a “detail” in the whole piece is that she called weev “Daddy” in emails. If that’s your idea of kink, you’re the prude here (Eron Gjoni’s blog had even less sexual “detail” than that, fwiw, as in none whatsoever. The frequent claims to the contrary are a dead giveaway that most people condemning it haven’t read it and are relying purely on a political narrative). And to think that Milo of all people would “kink shame” is especially absurd.

      I can see why so many of Shanley’s supporters are so up in arms about the Daddy thing though, and don’t want it to be talked about or thought about.

      For one, it shows that Shanley has contempt for you fawning, groveling, supplicating male suckups who think you’re helping women and doing what she wants. There’s a reason she aggressively swoons after a guy like weev, neo-Nazism and all, but doesn’t give guys like you the time of day. You all give Shanley money, but she gives weev money, and that “Daddy” is a clue about what she really wants from a guy, regardless of the public narrative that she spouts and that you have blindly lapped up.

      Secondly, you need something – anything – to deflect from these revelations about Shanley and avoid facing up to what you know to be true. Your movement has made an icon out of her, an idol, and now you are emotionally invested in her immaculateness and must cling to it regardless of the evidence, since to admit that you have been so wrong would be a tremendous blow to your narrative, your worldview, and your sense of self. Like a cult, you must blot the hatethink out of your mind, and not allow yourself to consider it or to reach the rational conclusion from it.

      “Milo pointed out that Shanley called weev ‘Daddy’ therefore his report is not credible” is a nonsense stance to take, but it’s a convenient way of ignoring the inconvenient reality. By getting all indignant about the supposed “kink shaming” of the article and launching into a crusade against that imagined injustice, you can put off thinking about the hatefacts before you and continue telling yourself that you’re fighting evil.

      So the outrage over the “Daddy” thing reveals a lot more about those of you getting outraged over it than anything else. My advice: The sooner you swallow your pride and get on with your life the better. Living in cognitive dissonance will eat away at you and destroy you from the inside eventually.

      • Good lord. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

        • M.

          What? he’s absolutely spot on. That’s precisely what this handwringing is about, or Shanley would be this month’s Cosby. Milo doesn’t dwell on sexual trivia, and Eron’s account is almost devoid of lurid details, yet it is a riveting read for the precise dissection and drawing out of yet another pathological liar and serial hypocrite (and let’s not forget that by Zoe’s own standard and admission, a serial rapist) hiding behind the trappings of social justice which gave her cover to abuse whoever she wants. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

          If Henry wants to “white knight” for a woman, let it be the traditional personification of truth.

    • surlybastard

      I agree with Spiers’s response to you. I find this story fascinating because of the apparent change of views that Shanley had in a relatively short period of time. It would be interesting to learn what prompted this turnabout.

      I also agree that Milo should have published that “Weev and Shanley had a personal relationship 3 years ago” and left it at that; the details only serve as a personal attack.

      That being said, we shouldn’t stick our fingers in our ears chanting “I can’t hear you!” every time Milo or weev says something, just because they’re scummy.

      • M.

        “It would be interesting to learn what prompted this turnabout.”

        It’s called “political expediency”.

        Ms. Shanley’s claim that it ended “3 years ago” is about as reliable as her claim that she’s spent “decades” in tech at the ripe age of 28.

  • The Deuce

    FWIW, I trust Weev less than Shanley by an order of magnitude

    Why? Weev is a creep, but of the two he’s actually honest about who and what he is.

    And everyone loves a creepy right-winger who repents and turns into a good liberal. Look at Arianna Huffington.

    When someone claims to “see the light” and switches views but remains a self-righteous self-serving jerk throughout, I tend to suspect a cynical opportunist, an assumption that has served me well, but that’s just me.

    It’s more about whether it matters if she was a racist asshole two years ago, given what she’s trying to do now.

    Don’t forget she was trying to get back with her neo-Nazi ex boyfriend and send him money in prison even more recently. And there’s even less time between that and the *beginning* of her career as “civil rights” activist and professional victim-bully. When is this supposed earth-shattering change in worldview supposed to have taken place?

    I’m inclined to think that it doesn’t as long as she continues in her
    current vein, working on behalf of women and minorities in tech…

    That’s her stated goal. It should be blatantly obvious at this point, from her nastiness, lying, personal destruction of minorities and other women who interfere with her or even ask questions, and her attempt to smear even *you personally* as a harasser, that she’s actually working on behalf of herself and nobody else.

    But I do think people are capable of changing their political stripes and overcoming their own bigotries.

    It’s accompanied by profound humility and a willingness to forgive others when that happens, an understanding that you aren’t better than anyone else. “Queen” Shanley, on the other hand, is more arrogant, hateful, and self-righteous than ever, slandering innocent people and permanently wrecking their lives and careers for comments (or even completely fabricated accusations) not nearly as bigoted as what she said in the recent past (or still says now, only directed against the politically “acceptable” kinds of people to hate).

    She never had an epiphany or a turnaround. She went straight from racist comments and intimacy with a white supremacist to a career of condemning and destroying others over supposed politically incorrect slights. Her so-called “repentance” is not the genuine kind that actually seeks to BE better than she is, but merely to SEEM better by self-righteously denouncing others, putting her above them in her mind. It’s past time to stop making excuses for this psychopath.

  • Roxie

    The fact that these two people, at such opposing ends of the political spectrum, were an item is shocking. But it sounds like weev has only gotten more extreme in his bigotry while Shanley had some sort of change of heart or, it could be, that she was just playing the part of a supportive girlfriend and didn’t believe the things she was saying (which is worse for image, I think). I do agree though, for her own future, she needs to give some accounting of how she went from the person she was to the person she is now. It’s not because it’s now being demanded of her or because it’s a moral issue, but for the future of her own career she needs to be willing to be more forthcoming and transparent. And the sooner she does this, the less impact it will have on her life.

    I don’t know much about the woman except for her blog and Twitter account but I think that people she has alienated are jumping for joy about this revelation which is so embarrassing which makes me sympathetic to her, even if what she said in the past was repellent. While I can’t recommend her character, I can condemn those who seek satisfaction in documenting humiliating moments in the lives of others, regardless of who that person is.

    • M.

      That was her entire m.o: documenting, outing and humiliating others. Do you have any idea how many people she and her minions doxed and/or destroyed?
      Here’s some other things you could discover with minimal digging:
      1. She lives off of her VC boyfriend. -Some feminist.
      2. She continued to consort with, support, and even visit the “abusive a–hole” she supposedly dumped (“he cried like a baby for a month”, says the fabulist) when he went to jail. This willingness to project her own failings onto others and then rage against them is a sure sign that her ego is far too fragile to not compulsively lie to cover up any perceived weakness and that she should never be entrusted with any cause other than herself.
      3. If you read any of her tirades against people that might be exploring her background, like Speirs and Milo, you understand just how paranoid and self deluded she is. A common theme is that these people are simply jealous of her success. This success consists of helping to launch a twit combine that managed to get a single appearance on Hanselminutes. (That won’t be happening again, since Scott wouldn’t touch this with a ten foot pole even if he wasn’t interracially married).
      4. Anyone that thinks that Linus is “not important” to modern computing and only got where he is because of the ‘patriarchy’ is far too ignorant to do anything in technology other than some make-work marketing job.
      5. Anyone that levels baseless, ad hominem attacks on the founders of github for being ‘nerds’. is far too immature to speak for anyone that’s moved beyond the second grade.
      6. She is a despicable human being and quite obviously too stupid to turn a camera off while making yet another poor life choice. Apparently she makes these poor choices quite frequently with real bottom of the barrel scum. One would think that would be worthy of some shame, if she had any.

    • “The fact that these two people, at such opposing ends of the political spectrum, were an item is shocking.”

      Look at it as a circle instead of a line. It’s not very far from hating and wanting to hurt the other because of skin color to hating and wanting to hurt the other because of beliefs.

      And those possessed by such hatred will always find adequate justification for their hate… and quite a few who will excuse it and support them in it.

  • Satoshi Kamasutra

    You know what I find really sad? Kane is obviously a deeply unhappy and troubled person who needs help. If the people rushing to defend her actually gave a shit about her well-being, they’d tell her the truth and push her to get help, instead of making excuses and further enabling and encouraging her self-destructive behavior.

    • Well, fortunately, I get the impression from things she’s said that she does have a good support group of friends and family. And I’m not sure she views her behavior as self-destructive in any way. I think she views it as a reasonable response to how other people are behaving.

      • Satoshi Kamasutra

        Yes, I understand that’s how she views it, just as an alcoholic views their drinking as a reasonable response to stress or their boss being a pain in the ass, or a fight with their spouse or any of a million other bullshit excuses. If you’re a drunk and your “support group of friends and family” makes excuses for you and reassures you that everything you’re doing is just fine, the way Shanley’s Internet fan club does, then they’re not really helping you, they’re just enabling you.

        • Remnant Psyche

          I don’t think anybody CAN help her. She clearly has a personality disorder.

  • whatever

    Reading the Breitbart piece and the Shanley twitters, the only salient accusation that she didn’t confirm outright was that she is a trollish hypocrite and con-artist who doesn’t believe the stuff she says, but uses it as a lever to part fools from their money and hype her own brand.

    With that as the backdrop, looking back at your interactions with her and your experience, what can you say about Shanley makes you believe or disbelieve she is not a troll, hypocrite, or con-artist?

  • Alan Page

    About a decade ago Pamela Jones ran Groklaw and was attacked by quite a few people (including Dan Lyons) for her articles about SCO. The contrast with Shanley could not be more stark. Pamela never descended into abuse and insults despite DDOS attacks and negative media. She kept on with solid research and well thought out arguments and, in the end, demolished her critics when what she wrote about SCO/Linux turned out to be correct.

    • LutherZBlissett

      “About a decade ago” is like saying “in another universe governed by different laws of physics”.

      Groklaw predates modern social media: it was coincidentally set up around the same time as 4chan, at a time when there was a big separation between the tech web and… whatever you want to call 4chan. It didn’t engage with issues of sexism and institutional prejudice.

      How you consider this relevant, compared to the more recent treatment of people like Kathy Sierra, I’m really not sure.

      • Alan Page

        Because both she and Shanley were attacked by Dan Lyons (and other critics) both online and in print. Pamela was doxxed by an article in Linux World which included purported phone numbers for her and her mother and photos supposedly of her house. The difference is that Pamela didn’t have a meltdown and didn’t let it stop her. She addressed her critics with reason, not invective.

        Facebook was launched in 2004, Groklaw in 2003 and active until 2013. Pamela could have used Facebook, Twitter and other social media but chose not to.

        Quote from Pamela on Groklaw:
        ” Guys sometimes like to say I am “emotional” because I am female. I take that as sexism,
        actually, but in any case since you misdiagnosed me in this instance, it’s obvious that emotion has nothing to do with it. It would be hard to find a case I care about less than this one. My interest is elsewhere.”

        So yes, she was attacked for being female at times. Responds, moves on.

        • LutherZBlissett

          “Facebook was launched in 2004”

          And logins were heavily restricted until… 2006. Groklaw existed in a similar web space to Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Scripting News, etc. I was there, I remember it.

          If you want to compare apples and oranges, and pretend that there’s no difference in how women can be and are abused online now compared to 2003, then that’s your own delusion. It perpetuates the myth of deserving and undeserving victims, and imposes standards of acceptable behavior on women that are largely overlooked for men. (The old myth of hysteria is strong in your comments.)

          Kathy Sierra responded and moved on and her life was made a misery twice over. What’s your answer to that?

          • Trickle_Down


            The site where the GNAA troll group was first formed. The same troll group that makes up the core of Gamergate.,

            Yup, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORLD than now!!!