QFT. I wish Kotaku and those other sites would just die off already :/
Btw I've seen these so-called photos that people talk about. I'm not surprised Nintendo would fire her for them.

This is incorrect. Or, to put it more accurately, correct only in theory. In practice, feminism often seems to be exactly what the name suggests (which is pretty ironic, considering how eagerly a lot of feminists jump on little things such as choice of words). I know feminism should be about equality, but practice often seems different. I'm all for equality though, just not in the form of real-life feminism.

I'm sorry, but that's highly reductive, black-and-white thinking, on a complex topic. Alison wasn't defending the watching of child porn. Her thesis was on the topic of *drawn* child porn - images of fictional children drawn with pen and paper, or by computer. No child was in any way harmed by such images.

Law shouldn't be about revenge. It shouldn't be about punishing people because it'll make the victim or their family feel better. And it most certainly shouldn't be about punishing something for being outside of the mainstream. It should be dealing with real problems, like actual child sexual abuse, not demonisation of those who have an unusual sexual proclivity and seek out ways to satisfy that proclivity without actively doing anything to any children.

If you can't comprehend these concepts, then I'm glad you're not a politician - we have enough politicians who are incapable of understanding nuance as it is.

EDIT: But I do like the part where you suggested that child sexual abuse is worse than drug use, and therefore the reasoning regarding how to deal with the problem should be completely different even though there's a direct analogy between the two cases. Indeed, if anything, the fact that the real concern with child porn is at the producer end should give you MORE reason to want to deal with it by going after the makers, whereas drug use is more about the impact on the end user and those around the end user.

Wow someone is actually defending freaks who own child pornography?

This is too much.

People who own CP should spent their lives in jail, they aren't normal and shouldn't be allowed to live in a free society with the rest of us.

People who produce CP should simply be killed.

Kotaku claims GamerGate harrassed yet another woman out of the gaming industry. Yup. And I'm the pope.

And then all the facts come out, and no one in the mainstream gives a shit, because KOTAKU pointed at GAMERGATE.


Whyyyy is this world so duuuumbbbbbb

Or...whatever she was doing conflicted with the values that Nintendo wants to portray.  I've left something out because I don't really know if it's connected or not.  And I'd really rather not spread a false bit of info, esp. this info, esp. in todays climate.   But, there are several reasons Nintendo would think whatever job you're doing conflicts w/ your work at their company, and I'll leave it at that.

Yes and no.   The problem with child porn (among many, many other things) is those who download it, are in fact, encouraging its creation.  They are supporting the industry by driving the supply/demand.  So, to say that those who view CP should be left alone, I think is mistaken and stupid (and also not something someone working for Nintendo should be saying).  But, that's my opinion, I don't necessarily think she should be fired for it, I just think it's a morally indefensible position.  Are people who make the content infinitely worse?  Absolutely.  But, that content isn't made without people wanting it.  And just keep it firmly in mind that, every bit of CP, by our legal standards, is an act of rape, since a child cannot given consent.

So was she ACTUALLY being harassed?
Or was she being harassed in the way that most modern feminists claim whenever they feel they're losing an argument?
Where harassment really just means "lots of people are criticising something stupid I said and I don't like it."

Don't believe a word Kotaku says without clear evidence provided.

I never fail to be amused how people misunderstand this so badly. THIS IS NOT HOW LANGUAGE WORKS. 

Language is ultimately defined by usage. Not by dictionaries. Dictionary editors will even agree with this! Think about it. If dictionaries defined words (rather than describes usage), why would words change over time? And why would you have multiple definitions for words in many dictionaries? You wouldn't.

Feminist just doesn't mean a belief in equality. When you poll the population, you see this incredibly clearly. Most people believe in equality of the sexes but only a tiny percentage identify as feminists. This is how words are ultimately defined. The dictionaries WILL eventually change the definition to match this. They inevitably always do. They probably just haven't yet because they're scared of the backlash.

What's the evidence that it actually happened?

It worries me that these kinds of assertions are taken on trust so much nowadays. We know how many liars there are out there. 90% of the cases of online harassment I've looked into have pretty much just been criticism and the person receiving it was just very thin skinned.