Essay talk:Eron Gjoni is an abuse victim

Nah, this is bullshit.
Well, frankly, I don't agree. In fact, in all of this we only know Gjoni's version of events - and I do not trust that version. I especially don't trust it after he told his Mom, who is a human resources employee, that he was going to do the Zoepost and she advised him that it was a bad idea. All of the "rules" he gives for the "games" he says she was playing sound to me like the frankest of bullshit. But it still comes down to us having Gjoni's version of events and trusting that he is being forthright and honest. But let's get to the meat of your essay: Well, fuck a bunch of that. I disagree entirely. Was this sanctified by church and/or state? Were there declarations of eternal fidelity, of total commitment to each other, even an intent that this was to be a monagmous relationship? The answer is hell the fuck no, not even by Gjoni's own words. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'd have the exact same reaction I would to anyone - man or woman - who trolls through various internet forums looking for people to be their harassment army. You feel you were cheated on? Break the fuck up and go your own way. Yes, Volokh has. I personally think he's full of shit on this one, but I tend to think he's full of shit on half of what he does. He's a free speech absolutist. He's going to determine that anything that prevents anyone from speaking, be it whatever, is wrong. I respect his acumen if not his position. We consider mention of that name to be doxxing. Deal with it. Eugene Volokh is not "doxxing" anyone. Your opinion is noted. The rules held by this site see it differently. As long as you are here, you will abide by those rules and opinions that we hold. Volokh is free to do whatever he wants on his blog, but step into our house and you will abide by the rules of the house, whatever they may be. I don't agree. But you know what? I will be happy if Gjoni gets that order removed. Why? Because Gjoni then move forward on a series of harassments, which will probably culminate in Gjoni leading a rape squad to enact the vengeance he thinks he deserves. I have that low of an opinion of the man. So, please, let him speak freely. I, among many others, will be scrutinizing his every move most assiduously, just as a Buddhist monk were studying his favorite sutra. --Castaigne (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Was Gjoni a victim of infidelity or not? The accused has never publicly denied that claim; if Gjoni had invented it out of thin air, I am sure she would have declared her innocence. Blacke (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They weren't married, so no, I say infidelity was not committed. There was no commitment given.
 * And why would you declare something publicly on something that wasn't the business of the public anyway? That wouldn't make sense at all. --Castaigne (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As if infidelity only exists in married relationships. Infidelity exists whenever there are two (or more) people in a relationship, and they have an understanding (whether explicit or implied) of sexual exclusivity, and one of the parties to the relationship violates that understanding. My uncle and aunt have lived together for 30+ years, they have two children of university age, they never married. Unless they have agreed to an open relationship (I wouldn't know whether they have or not), if one of them was to cheat on the other, it would be just as bad and just as wrongful as if they were legally married. So infidelity in non-marriage relations can be just as real and just as wrong as infidelity in marriage. Of course, the relationship we are debating wasn't around for 30+ years; but, I'd argue, that infidelity is always wrong and always abusive, and that it is so even in a younger or less serious relationship, albeit the degree of wrongfulness/abuse is less when the degree of seriousness of the relationship is less.
 * As to "why would you declare something publicly on something that wasn't the business of the public anyway", I think Eron himself answered this when he said he believed that victims of abuse should speak up, so that other victims know they are not alone. Or to use a certain journalist's phrase "When you abuse someone, it’s never a private matter". Blacke (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not consider Zoe/Gjoni to have had a relationship in which absolute fidelity was required and understood to be in existence. To me, they just hooked up for a while, which is what young people do. I'm fairly confident that, even though he doesn't admit to it, Gjoni was climbing onto a non-Zoe bang bus whenever he could. He reminds me of Roosh V.
 * No, I don't really agree with what you consider to be infidelity.
 * Even then, I don't consider infidelity to be "abusive".
 * First you have to convince me it's abuse before I consider it to be worth a public discussion.
 * Your opinion is again noted. And as I usually do with other people's opinions, ignored.
 * I also find it interesting that you don't think the logs of Gjoni deliberately trying to get Zoe harassed and doxxed and whatnot are abuse. I suppose get the Chans as his personal army was justified in your mind. No, please don't try to deny that happened - I've seen the logs and I'm well familiar with the majority of the dregs of internet society. --Castaigne (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also note the pathetic double standards this site has on the issue of "doxxing" - posting the real names of Conservapedia sysops was never a problem, but linking to a blog post by a prominent law professor is utterly beyond the pale. Blacke (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The specified Conservapedia sysops have deliberately made their names public in public spaces and have never objected to their use elsewhere. Zoe has. If you think the Conservapedia sysop names should be removed, get them to object as Zoe has and it will be done. You can't complain about double standards when the circumstances are completely different; it's an apples/oranges comparison. --Castaigne (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the Conservapedia sysops have used multiple aliases on different websites (look e.g. at Conservapedia:Conservative article section "Other known (or suspected) aliases"), and people have sleuthed the connections together. Now, I understand that Zoe Quinn has used more than one name online over the years, but when people sleuth the connections between them, that's doxxing. It's doxxing when it's done to people you like, not doxxing when it's done to people you don't. Blacke (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sleuthing is not how we consider doxxing.
 * Further, Zoe Quinn has changed her legal name to Zoe Quinn. She has asked that the name in question not be used, as she is concerned it will be used to harass her family members. Use of that name is thus considered here to be doxxing and we will not link to it, say it, or otherwise refer to it until she advises us we may do so. As it is not her public name and she is known publicly as Zoe Quinn, we have no need of her original legal name. So, give me a good compelling reason why we should ignore her request, and why we should make an exception in ignoring her request when anyone who makes a similar request is heeded?
 * Last, let me be clear - what is and is not doxxing is purely decided by the consensus of the anarchic mobocracy here. There is no set definition of what doxxing is here and if you want to decide if this or that is doxxing, make a fucking coop case. That's the procedure. Have at it.
 * I really get tired of fucking n00bs like yourself trying to be snotty and make us be obedient to what you think the consensus aught to be. --Castaigne (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, FYI, I personally don't think doxxing is wrong at all and I'd like to see anonymity stripped from the internet. Chew on the implications of that. --Castaigne (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Another voice
I should note that someone else shares my opinion that Eron Gjoni is a victim of abuse, albeit her reasons for believing so are narrower than mine. Blacke (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: both Gjoni and Zoe are human beings and neither of them is perfect. Both probably 'wronged' each other to some extent, directly or indirectly (and one side inevitably did more wrong than the other). Being betrayed by your partner nor being terrorized by an internet hate mob are laughing matters and two wrongs never make a right. Can we stop pushing simplistic narratives that completely dehumanize the other side already? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Let's see. *reads* Yup, random bloggers have the ability to have opinions and do armchair inexpert psychiatric diagnoses, just like you or any other asshole on the internet.
 * Me, I don't diagnose any type of psychiatric condition over the internet because a) that's not professional, b) I'm not a psychiatrist, and c) Zoe's not my patient.
 * Something no one ever tells me, though - why am I supposed to "Trust And Believe" Eron Gjoni? Why has no one independently verified his version of events, or sought to get any other? I don't know, perhaps the Gamergate Investigative Commission will force Zoe to attend an interrogation sess - oh, excuse me, "an inquiry into her relationship with Gjoni". --Castaigne (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see, the blog post I linked to says "People need to stop Internet-diagnosing Zoe Quinn with borderline personality disorder, because I have BPD and it makes me sad". So the author of that post is rejecting any attempt to perform armchair psychiatric diagnosis on Zoe Quinn. (The label "abuse" is not a psychiatric diagnosis, armchair or otherwise.) Yet you attack the post author for doing that? Seems like you didn't actually read that post much. Blacke (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider abuse to be a term defined by psychiatry and law. Obviously you don't. I will not consider it abuse until I have a psychiatric diagnosis or legal ruling on it. I don't even agree with what you deem to be abuse anyway, so I don't care what armchair subjective opinion you or anyone else comes up with is saying about it. Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to use less syllables? --Castaigne (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What round of the discussion
of this lover's spat is that on RW?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might be the 52nd or 53rd? --Castaigne (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)