Manchu wrote: A person who is threatened with murder has every right to evaluate the credibility of that threat for her- or himself.
Sarkeesian has been subject to appalling harassment for a long time now. And this is not even the first death threat. Also, this is not the first death threat where Sarkeesian herself is only one of the intended targets. The one who threatened to come rape and kill her in her home also threatened to murder her family. In this case, the person threatened to kill not only her and her supporters but everyone who happened to be present.
Here we have a person who has been subjected to a steady stream of extremist vitriol, called everything from liar and thief to the most vile sexist slurs by thousands of complete strangers, and received what to any one of us would (if we're honest) be terrifying threats of rape and murder backed up by knowledge of personal information and reminders that other people have already been murdered for daring to speak about gender. For anyone with a shred of compassion, it should be easy to imagine the fear -- especially of walking into the threat of murder in an environment where he dominant culture insists on people being secretly armed with guns.
The very fact that this threat has triggered yet another personal referendum on Sarkeesian, rather than a discussion about the prevalence of threats of horrendous violence to suppress speech, is strikingly similar to the way report of a rape triggers a personal referendum on the victim. The "she should expect death threats" line is very similar to the "she was asking for it" line. The "she should be willing to die" line is very similar to the prejudice against rape victims who did not fight back for fear of their lives.
Knowing that several posters ITT have been confused by some of my posts, I want to preemptively clarify that I am not saying Sarkeesian receiving a death threat is the same thing as Sarkeesian actually being raped. What I am saying, however, is that the same misogynistic bias that blames rape victims for the crimes committed against them is at work in a conversation where a woman is blamed for threats of rape and murder leveled against her and her family and even against bystanders. It absolutely shocks the conscious, or at least it should do.
Sigvatr wrote: Can you point to where in this thread people have actually said that the threats against her are justified?
I did not claim anyone said the threats are justified.
Lockark wrote: I hate the people who have been sending her death threats and sexual harassing letters.
This is why no meaningful discussion can happen to attack her ideas.
Because of those willing to threaten attacking her directly, they can all be lumped in together and ignored.
Her entire means of communication is a monologue that will not allow for any means of interaction, a means to refute her work and get her to respond.
The threats can be used to her advantage as material to explain why feedback is turned away, generate new media buzz and garner no small measure of sympathy.
You could say she is such a huge target for frustration because there is no public dialogue to be had with her so that "issues" can be talked-out.
So if the more mild mannered of us are a wee bit peeved with her, imagine how the crazies are!
Exalted, I dont think I could have said better myself
The thread's concensus is that the death threats against her are bad and need to be taken seriously, although chances that they are actually being looked into are slim.
Your rape comparison is bad. Blaming the victim in a rape situation usually refers to "She should have expected to be raped wearing that short skirt!" and usually refers to women dressing up in a sexualized way either to fit expectations she feels having to fulfill or because she wants to get laid with a partner of her choice.
The Anita case is very different. Anita is purposefully stirring up hatred by mispresenting information and lying in order to get attention. This is very different. It would be, roughly, similar if it targetted an actual feminist who just did her work. Since Anita isn't (as portrayed above), this isn't comparable.
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down. Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
We cannot say if the death threats are actually serious - we've gotten a lot and are still going with not a single incident so far. Apart from protesters, but alas, that's a different kind of harassment. They should be taken seriously, and they are, but if you will always back off anything because of such a threat, then it quickly becomes a question of professionalism.
Sigvatr wrote: Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote: Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
AdeptSister wrote: I'm sorry, but is no one going to challenge the statement on this thread that male and female circumcision are in anyway comparable? The only thing they have in common is the misleading name. Please do some research on the subject.
As for the threat, the speaker did not feel safe doing the event. While some may believe that she was calling wolf, the level of vitriol she has received for talking about video games is ..excessive. I have yet to hear a reasonable statement about why she should not be afraid for her safety.
I'm sorry, I must have missed that, what was the exact quote?
They aren't comparable. One is the removal of excess skin, the other is the removal of flesh.
skin is flesh, they are directly comparable if you are being fair/honest.
and that is the EXACT kind of misandrist double standard I was talking about.
that standard being:
Its NOT ok to cut off 4 grams of skin of a womans privates, its not ok to cut ANY skin off a womans privates.
its totally ok to cut off 2 grams of skin off a mans privates.
Or would you be ok if someone removes the skin of a womans vagina, without her consent, as a baby for religious/false medical/???? reasons then?
AdeptSister wrote: I'm sorry, but is no one going to challenge the statement on this thread that male and female circumcision are in anyway comparable? The only thing they have in common is the misleading name. Please do some research on the subject.
As for the threat, the speaker did not feel safe doing the event. While some may believe that she was calling wolf, the level of vitriol she has received for talking about video games is ..excessive. I have yet to hear a reasonable statement about why she should not be afraid for her safety.
I'm sorry, I must have missed that, what was the exact quote?
They aren't comparable. One is the removal of excess skin, the other is the removal of flesh.
skin is flesh, they are directly comparable if you are being fair/honest.
and that is the EXACT kind of misandrist double standard I was talking about.
that standard being:
Its NOT ok to cut off 4 grams of skin of a womans privates, its not ok to cut ANY skin off a womans privates.
its totally ok to cut off 2 grams of skin off a mans privates.
Or would you be ok if someone removes the skin of a womans vagina, without her consent, as a baby for religious/false medical/???? reasons then?
As someone who thinks all sorts of circumcision is wrong, female circumcision is much, much worse.
Sigvatr wrote: Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote: Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.
no, it is not a "she was asking for it"
the irony that someone who preaches against female tropes in games, like the damsel in distress, is now practicing being the damsel in distress, and receiving special treatment.
The mens group didnt get all the free extra securuty (which still wasnt enough for anita), the mens group had to pay for it.
anita expects more then the extra security they provided her for some reason.
in addition to this, she is painting with a wide brush, a large group of people (male gamers/men) due to the actions of one or two internet trolls who may not even be men.
Sigvatr wrote: Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote: Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.
Harassment of a public figure is not illegal. Threats of crimes of course, are.
Edited by Manchu -- Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic
where a mens group is threatened, doesnt get free security, and pays for it and moves on without using the event for publicity.
and anita, who was threatened, got extra security for free, says its not enough, and experiences a PR windfall... again... while playing the very trope she claims to be against.
easysauce wrote: the irony that someone who preaches against female tropes in games, like the damsel in distress, is now practicing being the damsel in distress, and receiving special treatment
The damsel trope is about disempowerment, not special treatment. A character is a damsel because she cannot do anything meaningful regarding her circumstances. Sarkeesian is not a damsel because she has the choice to go to the conference or not.
Sigvatr wrote: Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote: Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.
Harassment of a public figure is not illegal. Threats of crimes of course, are.
I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what you quoted.
easysauce wrote: the irony that someone who preaches against female tropes in games, like the damsel in distress, is now practicing being the damsel in distress, and receiving special treatment
The damsel trope is about disempowerment, not special treatment. A character is a damsel because she cannot do anything meaningful regarding her circumstances. Sarkeesian is not a damsel because she has the choice to go to the conference or not.
Sigvatr wrote: Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote: Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.
Harassment of a public figure is not illegal. Threats of crimes of course, are.
I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what you quoted.
There was an argument made about "she asked for it" and harassment. I'd proffer any public figure "asked for it," by merely being a public figure. Then I noted that said harassment is not illegal.
Relapse wrote: I have just been reading through this thread from time to time, and I must say it's taking some interesting twists and turns.
Please don't spam the forum ~ Thanks ~ Manchu
Not spamming, just noting something. No need to get sensitive. It's interesting that this lady is making all of these comments and then getting worked up and creating about getting threats because some people don't like them. Does this come as a surprise to her that this would happen?
Frazzled wrote: There was an argument made about "she asked for it" and harassment. I'd proffer any public figure "asked for it," by merely being a public figure.
Being famous is not the same thing as wanting to be harassed. Famous people do not consent to being harassed.
Frazzled wrote: Then I noted that said harassment is not illegal.
That's incorrect, depending on what is meant by harassment. But more importantly, how do you think legality of an immoral act relevant here?
Relapse wrote: It's interesting that this lady is making all of these comments and then getting worked up and creating about getting threats because some people don't like them. Does this come as a surprise to her that this would happen?
Kilkrazy wrote: In your view the director of the faculty made up the threat in order to further some kind of publicity campaign for Sarkeesian?
How does she gain from not doing her lecture?
I don't buy it. Whatever the reasons, I guarantee this is 90% crap. I don't have to prove anything because this person has proven to be an attention seeking tool. Who's to say this isn't some other stunt just for the fame?
What you are saying is that Sarkeesian goes around setting up speaking engagements at universities in order to cancel them by sending fake email threats to the people with whom she has set up the engagement.
Presumably doing that is better in terms of "attention seeking" than actually delivering lectures.
Exactly, thanks for repeating my post in a succinctly paraphrased explanation.
Manchu wrote: The "she should expect death threats" line is very similar to the "she was asking for it" line. The "she should be willing to die" line is very similar to the prejudice against rape victims who did not fight back for fear of their lives.
I had refuted this similar line of thought and got no answer.
To enter an environment where a risk of harm is to be expected and possibly prepared for is a whole different deal than "deserving" harm because you entered that environment.
Firemen enter burning building to do their job, they use equipment to mitigate their risk and train to evaluate overly hostile circumstances.
They do not deserve to be burned for what they do because they go into burning buildings.
I know for a fact that firemen typically are not willing to die but do have to take some calculated risks.
I think of her as a fireman refusing to wear the equipment so will not go into the burning building because it is too risky, when the tools at hand would allow her to do her job.
She CAN, maintain an interactive environment with critics if she chose to with appropriate filtering and moderating, she has accepted her celebrity status and has to take adequate personal protection steps as those who came before her.
Justin Bieber is getting a ton of death threats, she should investigate what he is doing for protection. To be fair, he is dealing with bigger crowds who could potentially be armed.
I still maintain she is not in all that unique a situation and this is not a new problem, she is just more willing to give the threats more press than others.
What I am saying, however, is that the same misogynistic bias that blames rape victims for the crimes committed against them is at work in a conversation where a woman is blamed for threats of rape and murder leveled against her and her family and even against bystanders. It absolutely shocks the conscious, or at least it should do.
Please remove "woman" from this quote.
It really makes it seem that "because" she is a woman these threats are occurring.
I still think the topic of her being a woman is more an "excuse" than the core reason.
She has pointed out many "bad" things in an industry many of us are fanatically entertained by.
It has been pointed out we should feel shame in many elements of this entertainment because it is perpetuating cultural prejudice.
This in turn, makes us bad people.
People feel attacked and threatened about who they are and what they like being appropriate.
Many people like to argue back about these troubling things being said, some less appropriately than others that need a rude shock from the law.
In a nutshell: Anita the press and you Manchu make me feel like you all "Threw the baby out with the bathwater."
Groups are choosing to allow the vocal minority of stupid people to be the star in the show for #Gamergate.
Anita has had a specific talk about "White Knights" and I would not insult her to think she needs one, mitigate risk, stick-it to the bad guys and get-on with the work or stick to a level of visibility/risk she can manage.
Being famous is not the same thing as wanting to be harassed. Famous people do not consent to being harassed.
SCOTUS says otherwise. They have less protections that non-public figures in the area of free speech (aka what can be said about them).
That's incorrect, depending on what is meant by harassment.
I already said noncriminal behavior. I think we're in agreement there. I will note its really hard to prosecute threats, and this I know from first hand experience.
But more importantly, how do you think legality of an immoral act relevant here?
Sorry can you clarify? But I’ll take the opportunity to note: She’s a public figure. She wanted to be a public figure. Threats are part and parcel of being a public figure – that’s just a reality, unfortunately. Even if the issue were minor there are a lot of kooks in the world (who the feth would shoot John Lennon?) If she’s concerned she should hire or negotiate for more security for her events, but she has no right to more security though.
EDIT: I personally would take criminal threats seriously in that the PoPo should track those down and prosecute them to the absolute fullest extent of the law possible, but of course I realize that won’t happen due to the difficulties and limited legal recourse. I find the "sexist" threats made to be particularly offensive. I think I'm with Manchu on that one and his arguments have been more artful then what I am saying. If these threats are not illegal it would be excellent to have hackers or investigators find the people making the statements and put their public identities out for ridicule. Oh I'd like that a lot.
I guess the burr in my bonnet is this nonsensical demand that all particpants get pat downs. Who the hell does she think she is?
Talizvar wrote: I know for a fact that firemen typically are not willing to die but do have to take some calculated risks.
You keep mixing these metaphors to the point of nonsense. Fire is fire. You can't expect it not to burn you. But I can and should be able to expect people not to murder others for daring to speak on some issue.
Talizvar wrote: It really makes it seem that "because" she is a woman these threats are occurring.
That is in fact part of the reason why these threats are occurring. The threat itself explicitly invokes misogynistic violence.
That is in fact part of the reason why these threats are occurring. The threat itself explicitly invokes misogynistic violence.
Its pretty illustrative and iconic of the issues she speaks about no? if I understand what she speaks about correctly.
its interesting that on the Higher Education comments version of this, the issue isn't about her, but her demands about searching people and CCing. Interesting.
Frazzled wrote: They have less protections that non-public figures in the area of free speech (aka what can be said about them).
That does not amount to them consenting to harassment.
Turning back to your "she asked for it" argument:
Frazzled wrote: She’s a public figure. She wanted to be a public figure. Threats are part and parcel of being a public figure – that’s just a reality, unfortunately.
At this point, I think Sarkeesian is well aware that she can count on being threatened and harassed. That it is happening and almost certainly will continue to happen has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is okay or whether she wants it to happen or whether she has consented to it happening.
Frazzled wrote: I guess the burr in my bonnet is this nonsensical demand that all particpants get pat downs. Who the hell does she think she is?
TBH, I also think this was an unrealistic and presumptuous demand.
Please don't lump me in with the "she asked for it." crowd, other than she is a public figure and wanted to be one. My statement does not have the historically sexist connotation that I am getting for that.
I'm being inartful in what I'm trying to say. All voluntary public figures "ask for it." I think we're both on the same page that threats are bad and the apparent sexist nature of many of the threats (I don't have twitter to follow the threats other than reported here) are as perile as they are misogynistic. OT but unlike apparently everyone else I'm not 100% on what that definition is other than "I hatez da wimminz."
This is why the demand is especially galling. Public figures get threats all the time (unfortunately). I don't see them expecting the right to grope all their listeners.
I would have actually liked to hear her speak and a reasonable debate on the issue made.
No it isn't. Please see my relevant post, I have no interest in reposting the example that will clarify this for you.
no, your prior post lumps all the people who say "famous people expect threats" as blaming the victim or saying "she was asking for it"
which is, false, and my post shows why its false. I cannot help that you put meaning into the word "expect" that isnt there.
if you hit the pool ball just right, you expect it to go into the hole.
no moral "should" or should not, nor blaming of the ball comes into play.
by your logic, when I tell people in combat zones to expect to be shot at, I am telling them they SHOULD be shot at, and blaming them for being shot at in the first place. But how else can I communicate simple cause and effect?
the same way everyone, who is DENOUNCING the threats, saying that public figures expect threats, is just a statement of fact, not "she asked for it" in ANY way shape or form.
I could link the # of times this has been clarified by myself and others, but have no interest in reposing them for you either.
OK, YES she is fething asking for an "emotional response" however, when she bottles up all responses by shutting down ANY discourse/ meaningful reactions to her videos, SHE is creating a situation where the less rational people of the world will resort to things like these death threats.
So, no she is not "asking" for death threats, but she most definitely is asking for a response to her work via that fact hat it's in internet video/blog form and not a paper bound book.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: OK, YES she is fething asking for an "emotional response" however, when she bottles up all responses by shutting down ANY discourse/ meaningful reactions to her videos, SHE is creating a situation where the less rational people of the world will resort to things like these death threats.
So, no she is not "asking" for death threats, but she most definitely is asking for a response to her work via that fact hat it's in internet video/blog form and not a paper bound book.
I agree with this.
Personally, I'm not of fan of this woman. I think she likes to stir up trouble to get attention.
That post may have come across more extreme than really intended
But, when you're going on practically a page and a half of one person going: "that's a she asked for it argument" and every other poster saying "but... THIS!!" and one person going "that's she asked for it" over and over... oi vey, it gets my blood pressure up
Frazzled wrote: Please don't lump me in with the "she asked for it." crowd, other than she is a public figure and wanted to be one. My statement does not have the historically sexist connotation that I am getting for that.
Sure it does. We have a misogynistic death threat. You say by being a public figure, she asked for it. Are you saying, well, no, she didn't ask for a specifically misogynistic one, just any threat generally?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: a page and a half of one person going: "that's a she asked for it argument"
LOL you complain but you yourself posted this
Ensis Ferrae wrote: SHE is creating a situation where the less rational people of the world will resort to things like these death threats
easysauce wrote: I could link the # of times this has been clarified by myself and others, but have no interest in reposing them for you either
Manchu wrote: Maybe part of the issue is the word "expect."
"Expect" can connote something that should be the case:
Example - "I expect my son to do his best in school"
"Expect" can also connote something that probably will be the case:
Example - "I expect the sun will come up tomorrow"
In the first sense -- no one should have to expect death threats because of speaking in public.
In the second sense -- it is realistic for Sarkeesian to expect death theats in a misogynistic culture.
Frazzled wrote: How does she shut down any discourse in her video?
By blocking and removing any/all ability for anyone to comment.
They can comment elsewhere no?
Not any place where they know they can question, or have any sort of actual dialogue with her. I mean, If you Frazzled, create a video on the "proper raise and care of wiener dogs" and I had a question, what good does it do me to go ask Legoburner when you are the "expert" and the one who created the media that I am having an issue with??
Frazzled wrote: Please don't lump me in with the "she asked for it." crowd, other than she is a public figure and wanted to be one. My statement does not have the historically sexist connotation that I am getting for that.
Sure it does. We have a misogynistic death threat. You say by being a public figure, she asked for it. Are you saying, well, no, she didn't ask for a specifically misogynistic one, just any threat generally?
I'm saying public figures get threats. She wanted to be a public figure. Thats the unfortunate bad side of the good. Quit accusing people of saying "she asked for it," when people are saying its an occupational hazard. Mechanics get dirty. if you want to be a mechanic you're going to get dirty. You may not want to get dirty, but its part of the business. Hollywood stars get stalkers. If you want to be a Hollywood star you may not want a stalker, but you should expect that that will happen. Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.
I'm also saying that yep the sexist threats are indeed sexist.
machu, you keep saying that, but its simply not true.
one expects threats, because that is part of being popular/celebrity regardless of gender.
the way you "define" expects, means there is *literally* no way for me to communicate the cause and effect of anything without blaming the victim.
even in your "definition" there are *two* ways "expects" can be used, it should be pretty apparent which way "expects" is being used here, and its clearly NOT to blame the victim.
*person walks out on the thin ice, falls through, dies*
person 1 "one expects that to happen when one walks on the ice"
person 2 "why are you blaming the victim?"
person 1"wtf? thats clearly not what I meant, even if in some run around way that *could* have been interpreted to mean that, its not what I meant, nor is it the accepted, literal, and most common use of the phrase."
person 2 "yes it is, you are clearly blaming the victim, you mean what I say you mean."
Frazzled wrote: Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.
I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.
After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.
Frazzled wrote: Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.
I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.
After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.
So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.
Frazzled wrote: Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.
I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.
After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.
My portion of the argument is only related to her insistence on field stripping everyone who wants to hear her. Thats an unreasonable demand given the unfortunate commonness of threats against public persons (in addition to being unreasonable on its face).
Frazzled wrote: Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.
I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.
After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.
So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.
Sigvatr wrote: So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.
As I explained in the post you quoted, and as I also explained in the post you are referencing, I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats. Those kind of statement serve no other purpose.
Talizvar wrote: I know for a fact that firemen typically are not willing to die but do have to take some calculated risks.
You keep mixing these metaphors to the point of nonsense. Fire is fire. You can't expect it not to burn you. But I can and should be able to expect people not to murder others for daring to speak on some issue.
Mixing metaphors?
Pretty sure I kept it to one (pretty sure a "comparison" not metaphor but we are splitting hairs ).
Sorry, non-living things seem to not be comparable to you.
I should have compared it to "muggings", dare not mix as suggested.
You can expect all you want, but murders happen, we have evidence of that right?
They are not without consequence however (this is where you "should expect people not to murder" but they still can).
I thought I talked about reduction of risk somewhere?
Another real world comparison: All I have to do is make a bad cartoon of Allah and publicize it and "expect" to have an attempt made on me or some very harsh words.
Talizvar wrote: It really makes it seem that "because" she is a woman these threats are occurring.
That is in fact part of the reason why these threats are occurring. The threat itself explicitly invokes misogynistic violence.
But WHY the need of the label of misogynistic violence?
Why assign a gender to it? Does it really freaking matter?
Violence of any kind is still unacceptable, but gender specific makes it even worse right??
Hence we need to compartmentalize it.
Makes it even harder for a guy to comment on it because it "does not apply to me" so I have no right to comment.
For a guy the worst thing they can think of is being raped so this is the garbage they spout off, I am sure these fine folk are in touch with their political correct side... read again a "vocal minority".
So your main view in a nutshell is "Violence and threats are unacceptable and should not happen and if they include anything gender specific, they are even worse, so Anita is above reproach (especially by men) while this is happening"?
My main view is "Crazy happens and as you increase being noticed, the more likely it shall happen, take steps, hope for the best, plan for the worst and sick the law on anyone contrary to it.".
Sigvatr wrote: So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.
As I explained in the post you quoted, and as I also explained in the post you are referencing, I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats. Those kind of statement serve no other purpose.
again, that is not correct, you are putting words in peoples mouths.
No one is justifying, or trying to justify the threats, you are making up your own meaning independent of the intended, or literal meaning of what people are saying.
you are lumping anyone who DAREs to suggest that everyone gets threats (ie DARES to suggest anita s threats are not more speacial then other peoples) is blaming the victim and saying she asked for and deserved it.
and then your own definition of "expects" says there are only two possibilities:
either no one should expect threats (incorrect, EVERYONE famous, or just on the internets, expects threats)
or that the threats can only come from a mysogenistic culture (again false, you are painting the ENTIRE culture with the mysogeny brush, for the sake of some lone wackjob. If one lone whack job threatening anita means the whole culture is mysogenist, then the lone whackjobs threatening the mens groups means the whole culture is misandrist.)
Talizvar wrote: But WHY the need of the label of misogynistic violence?
Why assign a gender to it? Does it really freaking matter?
Because it is the self-admitted motivation. Basic, basic point there honestly.
Ok agree to disagree.
I think the "self-admitted" motivation is too simplistic as the "sole" motivation.
We all can cherry-pick to suit various agendas.
Crazies will threaten, Anita will hold lectures, game "journalists" will pretend gamers as a group do not exist and game developers will keep their heads down and make games as they see fit, people will buy them.
Nothing really will change.
Frazzled wrote: How does she shut down any discourse in her video?
By blocking and removing any/all ability for anyone to comment.
They can comment elsewhere no?
Not any place where they know they can question, or have any sort of actual dialogue with her. I mean, If you Frazzled, create a video on the "proper raise and care of wiener dogs" and I had a question, what good does it do me to go ask Legoburner when you are the "expert" and the one who created the media that I am having an issue with??
I think that is what this event was. A time and a place for people to meet and talk with her about the issue. I honestly wouldn't know what to say to her though.
Manchu wrote: I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats.
Do you believe that a logical assumption and a justification are the same thing?
No.
I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.
The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.
Manchu wrote: I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats.
Do you believe that a logical assumption and a justification are the same thing?
No.
I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.
The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.
Do you believe that receiving harassment after intentionally provoking a negative emotional response is improbable?
Sigvatr wrote: Do you believe that receiving harassment after intentionally provoking a negative emotional response is improbable?
Manchu wrote: I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.
The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.
I don't see why they felt the need to cancel. It certainly seems melodramatic to me to be afraid of a threat of a mass shooting in Utah, where concealed carry is legal and widespread, on a university campus, USU, that allows concealed carry. If the person issuing the Montreal 2.0 threat actually showed up there would likely be multiple people in attendance fully capable of ending that threat quickly and permamnently. Given the school's policies I think USU would be one of the safest places you could be for a lecture.
Frazzled wrote: Its very relevant to the discussion in view of the level of demands she made for her security.
No.
Whether or not it is probable that she might receive a threat has no bearing on her demands regarding security precisely because she had in fact received a threat.
The question of probability of getting a threat is done once a threat has been received.
I think what you mean is, the question of how probable it was that the threat would be carried out is relevant to her demands.
I don't think we have any evidence that such is the case. Even if the threat found to be "imminent" or "credible" could the police have legally accepted Sarkeesian's demands? That has not been established one way or the other.
So it remains: "she should understand it is probable that she will receive threats and harassment" is irrelevant because no one has said otherwise.
Sigvatr wrote: She didn't ask for death threats. She intentionally asked for emotional responses.
So do you think the email at issue was a "death threat" or an "emotional response"?
It seems a lot of people believe it was actually just an emotional response -- not a "real," "legit," "imminent," or "credible" death threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote: Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
He has already explicitly stated that:
Sigvatr wrote: She intentionally asked for emotional responses.
Manchu, with all due respect could you please settle on an argument train? Only a few pages ago you where having a go at the others for blaming the victim and now you seem to have changed tack.
We're on the same tack -- namely that "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is victim blaming.
Sigvatr has straight up admitted he believes Sarkeesian "intentionally asked for emotional response."
It just remains to be seen whether he includes calling her whore, slut, thief, liar, bitch, threatening her with murder and rape, threatening her family, and threatening people who are at an event where she is speaking (regardless of why) in "emotional response."
Nobody is responsible for the volunatary actions that others commit. People sending her threats are doing so of their own free will so no Sarkeesian is not responsible for them.
That said, the fact that the statements one makes and the manner in which they are made has a direct impact on the type of responses one gets is an objective truth.
Anita knew exactly the sort of responses her belligerent and partisan militant feminist views would provoke, and she got the response she wanted. It benefits her ideological agenda and of course helps fill her personal $$$ coffers to present herself as a Damsel in Distress under siege from a horde of angry "misogynists" for bravely daring to speak out against the misogynist patriarchal video game industry. Shes milking this for all its worth.
She advertised her series on 4chan for god's sake.
Spoiler:
Thats not to say I think death threats are acceptable or that she deserves death threats. Any credible threats must be passed onto the Police, investigated and prosecutions brought where appropriate.
Frazzled wrote: Its very relevant to the discussion in view of the level of demands she made for her security.
No.
Whether or not it is probable that she might receive a threat has no bearing on her demands regarding security precisely because she had in fact received a threat.
YES. I didn't discuss the probabilty of the event occurring. I said that her demands were overblown.
EDIT: we seem to be arguing for argument sake. As my intent was to discuss the level of "security" she was demanding, I've made my point, so will attempt to move on.
Prestor Jon wrote: the fact that the statements one makes and the manner in which they are made has a direct impact on the type of responses one gets is an objective truth
Right -- a woman dared to talk critically about gender in video games and that made a "direct impact" -- people have threatened to rape and murder her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anita knew exactly the sort of responses her belligerent and partisan militant feminist views would provoke, and she got the response she wanted.
Classic victim blaming -- exactly the sort of thing often said about rape victims.
Montreal shooter: Primary goal = suicide.
"He noted that Marc Lépine defined suicide as his primary motivation, and that he chose a specific suicide method: killing one's self after killing others (multiple homicide/suicide strategy) is considered a sign of a serious personality disorder." Read your link a bit more, I still say it was an "excuse" ("Weak" really?)
It will be a truly scary society if the primary reason to be nasty to women is because they are women.
Funny how the news is then able to say this about men in the next bit of your link:
""Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate—an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history." - Newspaper columnist Mark Steyn.
Hindsight is 20-20 but geez, women should not be "expected" to be threatened but the average man is "expected" to attack a suicidal maniac with a gun: hardly fair.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anita knew exactly the sort of responses her belligerent and partisan militant feminist views would provoke, and she got the response she wanted. It benefits her ideological agenda and of course helps fill her personal $$$ coffers to present herself as a Damsel in Distress under siege from a horde of angry "misogynists" for bravely daring to speak out against the misogynist patriarchal video game industry. Shes milking this for all its worth.
She advertised her series on 4chan for god's sake.
Spoiler:
Sorry Manchu but im with this party. Anita has done nothing but spread crap and fill her own wallet with the money of her "supporters"
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex.
Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos.
I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because asocial [sic]. I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams.
Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men.
Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they [do not] neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain [that since] women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli.
master of ordinance wrote: Sorry Manchu but im with this party. Anita has done nothing but spread crap and fill her own wallet with the money of her "supporters"
No need to apologize to me for siding with someone who blames the recipient of a death threat for getting a death threat.
master of ordinance wrote: Sorry Manchu but im with this party. Anita has done nothing but spread crap and fill her own wallet with the money of her "supporters"
No need to apologize to me for siding with someone who blames the recipient of a death threat for getting a death threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anita knew exactly the sort of responses her belligerent and partisan militant feminist views would provoke, and she got the response she wanted.
Classic victim blaming -- exactly the sort of thing often said about rape victims.
I wasn't referring to the death threats, rather the vitriolic reaction in general.
So, no. You're wrong.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats not to say I think death threats are acceptable or that she deserves death threats. Any credible threats must be passed onto the Police, investigated and prosecutions brought where appropriate.
Anita's primary motivation is $$$.
She knows that there is a lot of money to be made in Professional Victimhood. She knows that if she says something controversial, and attracts the attention of the wrong kind of people (to the point of directly seeking them out on 4chan), she can present herself as a Damsel in Distress, gain a LOT of media attention and sympath, and money will pour in from well meaning supporters and donors who wish to support what they percieve to be a Feminist bravely speaking out against a patriarchal industry - an industry that was already changing and reforming as a response to simple market pressures as more and more women become gamers.
The video game industry is already reforming and improving without any help from Anita.
master of ordinance wrote: Sorry Manchu but im with this party. Anita has done nothing but spread crap and fill her own wallet with the money of her "supporters"
No need to apologize to me for siding with someone who blames the recipient of a death threat for getting a death threat.
She advertised on 4chan. That alone would be enough to say she was asking for the wrong sought of attention.
Hell, given her reputation for faking death threats im still half calling bull on this one.
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
Prestor Jon wrote: the fact that the statements one makes and the manner in which they are made has a direct impact on the type of responses one gets is an objective truth
Right -- a woman dared to talk critically about gender in video games and that made a "direct impact" -- people have threatened to rape and murder her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anita knew exactly the sort of responses her belligerent and partisan militant feminist views would provoke, and she got the response she wanted.
Classic victim blaming -- exactly the sort of thing often said about rape victims.
It's just a glorfied flame war with 4chan trolls. She confronts the worst aspects of videogaming/the internet and gets a vitriolic response from the people that enjoy those aspects and/or want the attention of harassing her. It's not surprising, it's not pleasant but it's not surprising.
I don't understand why you seem to equate people's lack of surprise that there is gambling taking place in this establishment with condoning the act of threatening to rape and murder women. Nobody is saying that it's ok to threaten to harm Sarkeesian or anyone else, we're just pointing out that a rational person would have foreseen and expected that kind of response from a handful of trolls.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anita knew exactly the sort of responses her belligerent and partisan militant feminist views would provoke, and she got the response she wanted.
So she asked to be called thief, bitch, whore, and liar; she asked for people to say she deserves to be murdered and raped; but you draw the line at the threat to actually do so, that's what she didn't ask for?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: we're just pointing out that a rational person would have foreseen and expected that kind of response from a handful of trolls.
Why does that need to be pointed out? No one has said otherwise.
She knows that there is a lot of money to be made in Professional Victimhood. She knows that if she says something controversial, and attracts the attention of the wrong kind of people (to the point of directly seeking them out on 4chan), she can present herself as a Damsel in Distress, gain a LOT of media attention and sympath, and money will pour in from well meaning supporters and donors (as seen in her $158,000 Kickstarter) who wish to support what they percieve to be a Feminist bravely speaking out against a patriarchal industry - an industry that was already changing and reforming as a response to simple market pressures as more and more women become gamers.
The video game industry is already reforming and improving without any help from Anita.
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
She knows that there is a lot of money to be made in Professional Victimhood. She knows that if she says something controversial, and attracts the attention of the wrong kind of people (to the point of directly seeking them out on 4chan), she can present herself as a Damsel in Distress, gain a LOT of media attention and sympath, and money will pour in from well meaning supporters and donors (as seen in her $158,000 Kickstarter) who wish to support what they percieve to be a Feminist bravely speaking out against a patriarchal industry - an industry that was already changing and reforming as a response to simple market pressures as more and more women become gamers.
The video game industry is already reforming and improving without any help from Anita.
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex.
Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos.
I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because asocial [sic]. I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams.
Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men.
Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they [do not] neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain [that since] women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli.
Just read the silly section on "Search for a rationale". Link here just to be nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre#Marc_L.C3.A9pine I am sure he thought he was perfectly sane.
He had many problems in his past and was looking for a scapegoat.
"Scholars have categorized it as a "pseudo-community" type of "pseudo-commando" murder-suicide, in which the perpetrator targets a specific group, often in a public place, and intends to die in "a blaze of glory"."
Bah, labeling the suicidal with other labels such as women hater still does not compare well with the "average" male population.
I think this thread has been so all over the place I am unsure if there was any point to it.
If it did not have the name Anita Sarkeesian in it, it would have died on the first page.
WallofMeat wrote: Campus security I imagine is not quite the same as a state police force when it come to protecting people from gunman.
I mean - imagine it was you - backed up by campus security? - backed up by the police?
(on a separate not - its not clear this wasnt discussed - furthur would a Uni be chill with throwing campus security at this task - I mean I imagine if one of them 'got shot' - employment tribunals, insurance voids ect ect would come into play as this particular duty is probably not the express pervue of this role).
Often times Campus Police are sworn police officers of the local municipality, giving them all the rights and responsibilities of police officers.
The fact that she faked a twitter account and posted the threats?
How is this a verified fact?
It never was. However judging by the evidence taken from the screenshot (the fact that the account was brand new, the tweets had all been posted within minutes of each other and all where perfectly worded and exactly under the character limit, that the grammar was perfect and that when the shot was taken the user had just logged out) it does seem pretty conclusive.
I am sure he thought he was perfectly sane.
He had many problems in his past and was looking for a scapegoat.
I don't doubt he was crazy and/or morally irresponsible. That doesn't make him any less misogynistic -- which he absolutely was by his own admission. Since his massacre, other misogynists have held him up as a hero. And now we have someone who threatened to imitate his crimes for the same motivation. And you are asking me why we are talking about misogyny?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anita knew exactly the sort of responses her belligerent and partisan militant feminist views would provoke, and she got the response she wanted.
So she asked to be called thief, bitch, whore, and liar; she asked for people to say she deserves to be murdered and raped; but you draw the line at the threat to actually do so, that's what she didn't ask for?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: we're just pointing out that a rational person would have foreseen and expected that kind of response from a handful of trolls.
Why does that need to be pointed out? No one has said otherwise.
If we're in agreement that a reasonably intelligent well adjusted person would have no trouble predicting that Sarkeesian's lectures were going to generate disgusting hate mail and threats directed at her by internet trolls why are you arguing about victim blaming? Some people are choosing to be trolls/tards/whatever towards Sarkeesian because of what she's said/how's she's said it, there's a causal relationship there and it has nothing to do with victim blaming. That she initiatied the "discussion" that's led to her getting threats is an objective fact but I haven't seen any posts saying that she deserves to be threatened.
Manchu wrote: Maybe part of the issue is the word "expect."
"Expect" can connote something that should be the case:
Example - "I expect my son to do his best in school"
"Expect" can also connote something that probably will be the case:
Example - "I expect the sun will come up tomorrow"
In the first sense -- no one should have to expect death threats because of speaking in public.
In the second sense -- it is realistic for Sarkeesian to expect death theats in a misogynistic culture.
I'm sorry, but is this coming from the same person who earlier in the thread took exception to someone else posting definitions?
Manchu wrote: It is always irritating when people quote the dictionary to me, as if I am not an native speaker and as if dictionaries are complete records of all ideas a language is capable of expressing.
Prestor Jon wrote: If we're in agreement that a reasonably intelligent well adjusted person would have no trouble predicting that Sarkeesian's lectures were going to generate disgusting hate mail and threats directed at her by internet trolls why are you arguing about victim blaming?
The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
Manchu wrote: It seems a lot of people believe it was actually just an emotional response -- not a "real," "legit," "imminent," or "credible" death threat.
Well the Police and FBI certainly do not believe it was an imminent threat, and the university does not believe it to be credible
The fact that she faked a twitter account and posted the threats?
How is this a verified fact?
It never was. However judging by the evidence taken from the screenshot (the fact that the account was brand new, the tweets had all been posted within minutes of each other and all where perfectly worded and exactly under the character limit, that the grammar was perfect and that when the shot was taken the user had just logged out) it does seem pretty conclusive.
I'll be honest. I know nothing about Twitter so I can't comment. I thought you meant she'd been caught in some verifiable manner. Is that what you're saying?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in.
By this statement, you allude that rapce victims purposefully dress themselves in a sexualized way to allure rapists.
Please refrain from making that comparison.
It's been debunked above, it's extremely offensive to rape victims and it's offensive to posters who disagree with you because you basically put them on the same level despite this not being the case.
WallofMeat wrote: Campus security I imagine is not quite the same as a state police force when it come to protecting people from gunman.
I mean - imagine it was you - backed up by campus security? - backed up by the police?
(on a separate not - its not clear this wasnt discussed - furthur would a Uni be chill with throwing campus security at this task - I mean I imagine if one of them 'got shot' - employment tribunals, insurance voids ect ect would come into play as this particular duty is probably not the express pervue of this role).
Often times Campus Police are sworn police officers of the local municipality, giving them all the rights and responsibilities of police officers.
Utah State allows students and faculty member who have been issued a concealed carry permit by the state to carry concealed handguns on campus. If Sarkeesian had gone ahead and done the lecture it would be possible/probable that there would be armed people in the audience even without a murderous misogynist making an appearance.
If anyone could build a convincing case that Sarkeesian had faked death threats you would have already heard about it in a 100+ page thread here on Dakka.
Manchu wrote: It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in.
By this statement, you allude that rapce victims purposefully dress themselves in a sexualized way to allure rapists. Please refrain from making that comparison, it's been debunked above, it's extremely offensive to rape victims
This is the outright worst troll attempt I have ever seen.
Sigvatr wrote: and it's offensive to posters who disagree with you because you basically put them on the same level despite this not being the case
Manchu wrote: Sigvatr has straight up admitted he believes Sarkeesian "intentionally asked for emotional response."
It just remains to be seen whether he includes calling her whore, slut, thief, liar, bitch, threatening her with murder and rape, threatening her family, and threatening people who are at an event where she is speaking (regardless of why) in "emotional response."
The fact that she faked a twitter account and posted the threats?
How is this a verified fact?
It never was. However judging by the evidence taken from the screenshot (the fact that the account was brand new, the tweets had all been posted within minutes of each other and all where perfectly worded and exactly under the character limit, that the grammar was perfect and that when the shot was taken the user had just logged out) it does seem pretty conclusive.
I'll be honest. I know nothing about Twitter so I can't comment. I thought you meant she'd been caught in some verifiable manner. Is that what you're saying?
Sadly I cannot say yes Frazzled as despite their being a 99% chance of me being right until she admits it there is still a 1% that says im wrong.
Manchu wrote: This is the outright redacted troll attempt I have ever seen.
a) I wasn't trolling at all. Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
b) Thanks for your kind words.
Don't quote swear words that the filter misses, makes it that much harder to clean up. Thanks, motyak
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
No. I mean I do understand that makes me sound like some kind of nasty word, but no I'm not going to go and look it up. I don't care to poor through the dozens and dozens of threads on Ania. I won't do that and to be fair I wouldn't make anyone else do that. (If you want, your welcome to throw this statement back in my face should I slip up and tell you or someone else to look something up.)
Prestor Jon wrote: Utah State allows students and faculty member who have been issued a concealed carry permit by the state to carry concealed handguns on campus. If Sarkeesian had gone ahead and done the lecture it would be possible/probable that there would be armed people in the audience even without a murderous misogynist making an appearance.
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
Fortunately, I predicted someone would make exactly this slimey troll argument earlier today:
Manchu wrote: Knowing that several posters ITT have been confused by some of my posts, I want to preemptively clarify that I am not saying Sarkeesian receiving a death threat is the same thing as Sarkeesian actually being raped. What I am saying, however, is that the same misogynistic bias that blames rape victims for the crimes committed against them is at work in a conversation where a woman is blamed for threats of rape and murder leveled against her and her family and even against bystanders. It absolutely shocks the conscious, or at least it should do.
And there's still this:
Manchu wrote: Sigvatr has straight up admitted he believes Sarkeesian "intentionally asked for emotional response."
It just remains to be seen whether he includes calling her whore, slut, thief, liar, bitch, threatening her with murder and rape, threatening her family, and threatening people who are at an event where she is speaking (regardless of why) in "emotional response."
Just to point out: you are calling me a troll which is violating rule #1. Your passive-aggressive to aggressive tone isn't really nice either.
I already replied to this:
Sigvatr wrote: The thread's concensus is that the death threats against her are bad and need to be taken seriously, although chances that they are actually being looked into are slim.
Your rape comparison is bad. Blaming the victim in a rape situation usually refers to "She should have expected to be raped wearing that short skirt!" and usually refers to women dressing up in a sexualized way either to fit expectations she feels having to fulfill or because she wants to get laid with a partner of her choice.
The Anita case is very different. Anita is purposefully stirring up hatred by mispresenting information and lying in order to get attention. This is very different. It would be, roughly, similar if it targetted an actual feminist who just did her work. Since Anita isn't (as portrayed above), this isn't comparable.
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down. Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
We cannot say if the death threats are actually serious - we've gotten a lot and are still going with not a single incident so far. Apart from protesters, but alas, that's a different kind of harassment. They should be taken seriously, and they are, but if you will always back off anything because of such a threat, then it quickly becomes a question of professionalism.
Prestor Jon wrote: If we're in agreement that a reasonably intelligent well adjusted person would have no trouble predicting that Sarkeesian's lectures were going to generate disgusting hate mail and threats directed at her by internet trolls why are you arguing about victim blaming?
The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
So you agree that it was probable for Sarkeesian to get threats but think it's wrong for people to say she should expect to get threats? We say that she should expect trollish behavior because we all saw it coming and believe that she did too. She's free to say and think whatever she wants and threats are wrong but nobody is surprised by this.
Your comparison to blaming rape victims is way off base.
Prestor Jon wrote: Utah State allows students and faculty member who have been issued a concealed carry permit by the state to carry concealed handguns on campus. If Sarkeesian had gone ahead and done the lecture it would be possible/probable that there would be armed people in the audience even without a murderous misogynist making an appearance.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing what your point is
My point is that gunmen don't scare me as much when I know I'll be able to shoot back and likely have other good guys with guns to back me up. Also that somebody would have to be really stupid to decide to try to hurt women on one of the few campuses wherein they're allowed to be armed.
I am sure he thought he was perfectly sane.
He had many problems in his past and was looking for a scapegoat.
I don't doubt he was crazy and/or morally irresponsible. That doesn't make him any less misogynistic -- which he absolutely was by his own admission. Since his massacre, other misogynists have held him up as a hero. And now we have someone who threatened to imitate his crimes for the same motivation. And you are asking me why we are talking about misogyny?
yes and NO ONE is saying lepine, or the individuals who threatened anita, are not misogynistic people.
What IS being said is that these individuals actions do not allow you to broadly label the whole culture as misogynistic .
the death threats to anita, were anti women even without them being spelled out as such in an obvious way, the same as lepines actions were inherently and obviously anti women. Even without the note.
the same as the threats to the mens groups are misandry or anti male.
In all three cases, its the individuals making the threats who are misogynistic/misandrist , not the culture at large.
if you claim that the marc lepines actions and donkey caves threats against anita are proof of the culture at large being mysogenist.
its no different then someone judging all of feminists or the culture at large as misandrists because of the individuals who call for male culling/castration/ect or individual threats on mens groups.
Prestor Jon wrote: My point is that gunmen don't scare me as much when I know I'll be able to shoot back and likely have other good guys with guns to back me up. Also that somebody would have to be really stupid to decide to try to hurt women on one of the few campuses wherein they're allowed to be armed.
That presupposes that you have a favorable view of firearms. We do not know Anita's views on same.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You're ignoring the correct dictionary definition of a word in favour of using your own preferred definition...and you wonder why people are quoting the dictionary to you?
Sining wrote: You did mis-define misogyny. There isn't any real claim about it.
Nope:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
That is an argument, not a definition.
Sining wrote: I don't remember an actual argument by you unless you're talking about your claim that a shooting was spurred by misogyny, which I already replied to but haven't received any replies from you except your famous quote above.
Oh really? Let's show the "famous quote" in context:
Manchu wrote: What I am saying is -- scratch that, what I am reminding you of is massacres motivated by misogyny have recently happened. Where are the misandrist shooting sprees?
One problem is actual.
The other problem is hypothetical.
Sining wrote: Ah yes, the Elliot Roger shooting spree in which he killed more men than women -_- The same person who wanted to punish women for rejecting him and punish MEN for having a better sex life than him. '
I love people using a tragedy for their own personal spin. Come, tell me more about your narrative
cincydooley wrote: I think its pretty silly to claim his shooting rampage wasn't spurned by his misogyny. Unless his manifesto was total BS.
Sining wrote: He hated both sexes. He hated women for rejecting him cause he thought he was a nice guy. He hated men for getting the girls he felt they weren't worthy for. Dude was just full of hate for everyone.
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
A guy who hates men for possessing women when he does not is a misogynist rather than a misandrist. The issue is that he believes women are possessions for men to claim and own.
So are you ready to actually talk about how misogyny is bad for everyone, including using violence to prevent people from speaking on gender issues, or do you want to keep deflecting the actual topic of the thread with a dictionary?
Sorry, ignore my comment. Got linked to a comment by Manchu from page 4. Got too many active tabs open and I'm losing track of this thread.
Ah, that makes much more sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: the death threats to anita, were anti women even without them being spelled out as such in an obvious way, the same as lepines actions were inherently and obviously anti women. Even without the note.
Violence against women is not necessarily misogynistic. Misogyny is hatred of women. This hatred can and does motivate a lot of violence against women but it is not the only motivation for violence against women. Similarly, not every instance of violence against a man is misandric.
Prestor Jon wrote: My point is that gunmen don't scare me as much when I know I'll be able to shoot back and likely have other good guys with guns to back me up. Also that somebody would have to be really stupid to decide to try to hurt women on one of the few campuses wherein they're allowed to be armed.
That presupposes that you have a favorable view of firearms. We do not know Anita's views on same.
Prestor Jon wrote: So you agree that it was probable for Sarkeesian to get threats but think it's wrong for people to say she should expect to get threats?
Here's what I am saying:
Manchu wrote: The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
Manchu wrote: I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.
The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.
Manchu wrote: After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.
Manchu wrote: I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats. Those kind of statement serve no other purpose.
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
No. I mean I do understand that makes me sound like some kind of nasty word, but no I'm not going to go and look it up. I don't care to poor through the dozens and dozens of threads on Ania. I won't do that and to be fair I wouldn't make anyone else do that. (If you want, your welcome to throw this statement back in my face should I slip up and tell you or someone else to look something up.)
Using only one example:
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
Manchu wrote: The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is a HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
easysauce wrote: the death threats to anita, were anti women even without them being spelled out as such in an obvious way, the same as lepines actions were inherently and obviously anti women. Even without the note.
Violence against women is not necessarily misogynistic. Misogyny is hatred of women. This hatred can and does motivate a lot of violence against women but it is not the only motivation for violence against women. Similarly, not every instance of violence against a man is misandric.
while you are correct that not all violence against men/women is "hatred" of men/women based,
in both cases that is what it was,
anita and lepines victims were choosen precisely because they were women and thats where the hate was directed.
the mens group as also targeted, because it was a mens group, and thats where the hate was directed.
Regardless,
we both agree, the threats on anita are mysogenistic in nature,
but you are applying that individuals actions to a broader culture, instead of just the individual who made the threats.
Another thing that gets my hackles up about all this is the various news articles saying "threats force her to cancel her appearance."
That feels pretty disingenuous to me, admittedly no responsibility of hers, but still, it irritates me and does seem to suggest that the news is pushing her into the damsel in distress role.
Now, this opinion of mine would be different if the various authorities involved had released a stronger statement.
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
Plus, AFAIK the source of the Lets Play footage was never identified which for Anita is very unusual (as she's been conclusively proven to lift the majority of her gameplay footage from othe YT channels without acknowledging her sources), and there were accusations that Anita staged the gameplay footage of a player abusing the bodies herself*.
Compel wrote: Another thing that gets my hackles up about all this is the various news articles saying "threats force her to cancel her appearance."
That feels pretty disingenuous to me, admittedly no responsibility of hers, but still, it irritates me and does seem to suggest that the news is pushing her into the damsel in distress role.
Now, this opinion of mine would be different if the various authorities involved had released a stronger statement.
*Ahem*
A NEWS ORGANIZATION WRITES BROAD STROKED HEADLINES? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!
Sigvatr wrote: Rape victims are NOT. That is a HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
You already tried that one. And as I already noted, I figured you would do it hours ago, when I first brought up this entire line of reasoning:
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
Fortunately, I predicted someone would make exactly this slimey troll argument earlier today:
Manchu wrote: Knowing that several posters ITT have been confused by some of my posts, I want to preemptively clarify that I am not saying Sarkeesian receiving a death threat is the same thing as Sarkeesian actually being raped. What I am saying, however, is that the same misogynistic bias that blames rape victims for the crimes committed against them is at work in a conversation where a woman is blamed for threats of rape and murder leveled against her and her family and even against bystanders. It absolutely shocks the conscious, or at least it should do.
Your rape comparison is bad. Blaming the victim in a rape situation usually refers to "She should have expected to be raped wearing that short skirt!" and usually refers to women dressing up in a sexualized way either to fit expectations she feels having to fulfill or because she wants to get laid with a partner of her choice.
The Anita case is very different. Anita is purposefully stirring up hatred by mispresenting information and lying in order to get attention. This is very different. It would be, roughly, similar if it targetted an actual feminist who just did her work. Since Anita isn't (as portrayed above), this isn't comparable.
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down. Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
Sigvatr wrote: Rape victims are NOT. That is a HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
You already tried that one. And as I already noted, I figured you would do it hours ago, when I first brought up this entire line of reasoning:
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
Fortunately, I predicted someone would make exactly this slimey troll argument earlier today:
Manchu wrote: Knowing that several posters ITT have been confused by some of my posts, I want to preemptively clarify that I am not saying Sarkeesian receiving a death threat is the same thing as Sarkeesian actually being raped. What I am saying, however, is that the same misogynistic bias that blames rape victims for the crimes committed against them is at work in a conversation where a woman is blamed for threats of rape and murder leveled against her and her family and even against bystanders. It absolutely shocks the conscious, or at least it should do.
What part of
"Anita advertised her series on 4chan"
- a notorious lair for internet trolls - do you not understand?
No you did not because this (which you claim is your response):
Sigvatr wrote: Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down. Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk
is exactly what prompted me to start asking you whether of not the threat she received in this case is just an "emotional response" in your opinion. Is calling her a liar, thief, bitch, whore, etc, an emotional response? Is saying she deserves to be raped and murdered or is someone saying they hope those things happen an emotional response? Where is the line between what you say Sarkeesian "purposefully provoked" and what she didn't?
No you did not because this (which you claim is your response):
Sigvatr wrote: Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down. Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk
is exactly what prompted me to start asking you whether of not the threat she received in this case is just an "emotional response" in your opinion. Is calling her a liar, thief, bitch, whore, etc, an emotional response? Is saying she deserves to be raped and murdered or is someone saying they hope those things happen an emotional response? Where is the line between what you say Sarkeesian "purposefully provoked" and what she didn't?
What line? I draw no line. She KNEW she would get death threats, and she KNEW an hate campaign would be beneficial to her media image, her career, and her business.
One who does not purposefully wish to provoke trolling should not seek out those Trolls on 4chan. Which Anita did.
I'd like to point out that the Dobson threats against Anita were almost identical to the ones Wu got were both analyzed and stated to be 94% female in origin. Not concrete evidence, but that's awfully coincidental with the rumblings that the lizard squad is running around.
She works for a PR company that has proven to be manipulating the media. It is backed by a new York millionaires son who works in AAA gaming who can only be described as a lunatic.
She has been profiteering off the negativity her incendiary beliefs cause. This has launched her into the mainstream media. Basically a huge TROLL in it for the money. And no one will question it but instead feed her more money outright to aid her in her pursue. That's the easiest way, to feed off people's sympathy.
I call her character into question. Not her gender.
Prestor Jon wrote: So you agree that it was probable for Sarkeesian to get threats but think it's wrong for people to say she should expect to get threats?
Here's what I am saying:
Manchu wrote: The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
Manchu wrote: I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.
The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.
Manchu wrote: After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.
Manchu wrote: I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats. Those kind of statement serve no other purpose.
Ok. Well speaking for myself I think it's logical to believe that She got death threats? I'm not surpirsed =/= It's her fault she got death threats. She deserves them.
Trolls are gonna troll so when then they spew out over the top melodramatic threats I'm not surprised. Anita is repsonsible for everything she chooses to say, post, tweet, etc. Trolls are responsible for everything they say, post, tweet, etc. You're the one, by your own admission, that's trying to shoehorn the question of blame into the observation that this behavior is not surprising.
It doesn't matter how many times you do it because it is not a counterargument to this point:
Saying Sarkeesian asked for this harassment and these threats is similar to saying rape vitcims were asking to be raped (because of where they were, who they were with, what they were wearing) inasmuch as both victim-blaming arguments are motivated by the same thing -- misogyny.
Prestor Jon wrote: You're the one, by your own admission, that's trying to shoehorn the question of blame into the observation that this behavior is not surprising.
I gave you an example of me saying the same thing in three different ways and you still don't understand so I'm going to say it's probable that a fourth attempt will not help.
Where is the line between what you say Sarkeesian "purposefully provoked" and what she didn't?
What line? I draw no line. She KNEW she would get death threats, and she KNEW an hate campaign would be beneficial to her media image, her career, and her business.
So she was asking for death threats?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CatharsisX wrote: both analyzed and stated to be 94% female in origin
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
No. I mean I do understand that makes me sound like some kind of nasty word, but no I'm not going to go and look it up. I don't care to poor through the dozens and dozens of threads on Ania. I won't do that and to be fair I wouldn't make anyone else do that. (If you want, your welcome to throw this statement back in my face should I slip up and tell you or someone else to look something up.)
Using only one example:
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
The game lets you do it. Is that not support? I actually mean that as a question. There is a lot of ambiguity in what a game supports. I can see arguments to be made that if a game lets you do something then it is supporting it. After all it gave you the place and ability to do it when it didn't have to. (Skyrim doesn't let you kill kids because they don't want to support that kind of play. ) On the other end, you are argue that because the game punishes you for doing something that means it doesn't support it after all your told don't do that. It's like giving someone a citrate and then saying "Now make sure you don't smoke."
Yes. Google. Or the previous Anita Sarkeesian threads on this forum.
That's a no, then? I certainly could not find it on Google, and I looked.
I mean, I've seen this idea before - that she "brought it on herself" by "trolling on 4chan". For something that gets repeated so often, I'm having a really hard time finding, like, screenshots of the posts in question.
Saying Sarkeesian asked for this harassment and these threats is similar to saying rape vitcims were asking to be raped (because of where they were, who they were with, what they were wearing) inasmuch as both victim-blaming arguments are motivated by the same thing -- misogyny.
It doesn't matter whether you, personally, consider it not to matter. It still is incredibly offensive and bm, further insisting on your point that is proven to be offensive is...debatable.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Where is the line between what you say Sarkeesian "purposefully provoked" and what she didn't?
What line? I draw no line. She KNEW she would get death threats, and she KNEW an hate campaign would be beneficial to her media image, her career, and her business.
So she was asking for death threats?
She wanted it, yes. Because she financially benefits from all the negative publicity.
You keep on describing this as "She was asking for death threats" and insisting on drawing this silly hyperbolic analogy to Rape victims "asking for it".
Rape victims don't have a financial incentive to be raped.
Whereas Anita runs a business. She holds tele-seminars, makes media appearences, works for and with a PR company (Silver String), makes large amounts of money via Kickstarter and donations on her website. Being subjected to an internet hate campaign raises her media profile, garners sympathy for her and her views, and brings the $$$ rolling in.
Thats not to say that these death threats are justified. THEY'RE NOT. I don't think ANYBODY in a free democratic society should be subjected to death threats no matter what they say, because everyone has the right to free speech. Hell, I don't even think somebody who expresses support for ISIS should be threatened with violence. I hope those making genuine death threats are investigated and prosecuted (as indeed has happened in numerous high profile cases in recent years in the United Kingdom as a result of a crackdown on internet trolling).
But what Anita is doing is the equivalent of getting in somebody's face, verbally abusing and provoking them, then crying foul when that person whallops you in the face. Violently attacking you is wrong, and should be punished with the full force of the law, but deliberately provoking that reaction is wrong too.
Yes. Google. Or the previous Anita Sarkeesian threads on this forum.
That's a no, then? I certainly could not find it on Google, and I looked.
I'd be interested in seeing that too... if Ouze can't find it... not sure if I can. Ouze is rank level Sensei in Google-fu.
For those unfamilar with how 4Chan, and image boards like it... Threads are not kept around 'forever' like on a traditional forum (such as Dakka), each board on 4chan has 10 pages of 10 threads. Once a thread would end up on the 11th page, it is pruned and gone 'forever'. When a thread hits around 300 posts it 'auto sages', which means that new posts do not bump it up. Some threads are sent to an archive site, I do not know if /v/ has one. Sometimes someone will screen shot a thread for whatever reason, and that will end up getting reposted somewhere.
The Mods on /v/ grew tired of GamerGate threads pretty quickly and started deleting them pretty quickly, along with anything related to 'gamer celebrities' like Anita.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Where is the line between what you say Sarkeesian "purposefully provoked" and what she didn't?
What line? I draw no line. She KNEW she would get death threats, and she KNEW an hate campaign would be beneficial to her media image, her career, and her business.
So she was asking for death threats?
She wanted it, yes. Because she financially benefits from all the negative publicity.
You keep on describing this as "She was asking for death threats" and insisting on drawing this silly hyperbolic analogy to Rape victims "asking for it".
Rape victims don't have a financial incentive to be raped.
Whereas Anita runs a business. She holds tele-seminars, makes media appearences, works for and with a PR company (Silver String), makes large amounts of money via Kickstarter and donations on her website. Being subjected to an internet hate campaign raises her media profile, garners sympathy for her and her views, and brings the $$$ rolling in.
Thats not to say that these death threats are justified. THEY'RE NOT. I don't think ANYBODY in a free democratic society should be subjected to death threats no matter what they say, because everyone has the right to free speech. Hell, I don't even think somebody who expresses support for ISIS should be threatened with violence. I hope those making genuine death threats are investigated and prosecuted (as indeed has happened in numerous high profile cases in recent years in the United Kingdom as a result of a crackdown on internet trolling).
But what Anita is doing is the equivalent of getting in somebody's face, verbally abusing and provoking them, then crying foul when that person whallops you in the face. Violently attacking you is wrong, and should be punished with the full force of the law, but deliberately provoking that reaction is wrong too.
Manchu wrote: Saying Sarkeesian asked for this harassment and these threats is similar to saying rape vitcims were asking to be raped (because of where they were, who they were with, what they were wearing) inasmuch as both victim-blaming arguments are motivated by the same thing -- misogyny.
It doesn't matter whether you, personally, consider it not to matter. It still is incredibly offensive and bm, further insisting on your point that is proven to be offensive is...debatable.
There is no reasonable, good faith explanation for being offended by this comparison. The comparison is valid -- blaming a woman for receiving death threats is as misogynistic as blaming a woman for being raped. So case in point:
Manchu wrote: There is no reasonable, good faith explanation for being offended by this comparison
...that you see.
The comparison is valid -- blaming a woman for receiving death threats is as misogynistic as blaming a woman for being raped.
Let alone the fact that a lot of hate she gets isn't because she's a woman, but because she's desperately looking for attention by presenting misinformation, lying etc. There's a more fitting general term for it, but since it contains a fascist term, I don't wanna give you reasons. If you posted stuff like her, I'd hate you just as much as her. You would not get the same amount of attention, however, as you're not a woman and cannot hide behind "feminism".
You still don't (want to?) understand why your statement is so offensive. Not a SINGLE woman will dress up sexy, go out looking to get raped. NO such woman is ASKING to get molested, harassed or even raped.
Anita purposefully stirs up hatred. She WANTS to get (negative) attention. Death threats (as rare as they are) are a part of this.
Your problem is that:
a) You don't seem to see the difference between those two cases.
b) You seem to assume that it being logical to get negative attention immediately means that it's justified to so people.
Do you really need the rape comparison to make a point?
Well, it hardly matters, does it? It was presented that she "trolled" 4chan, and what appears to have happened - even if it were her, which the poster says is not - what happened was she mentioned the series, answered a few questions politely, and that was it - on the V board, not B. So, 2 assertions, two misses.
Manchu wrote: There is no reasonable, good faith explanation for being offended by this comparison
...that you see.
The comparison is valid -- blaming a woman for receiving death threats is as misogynistic as blaming a woman for being raped.
Let alone the fact that a lot of hate she gets isn't because she's a woman, but because she's desperately looking for attention by presenting misinformation, lying etc. There's a more fitting general term for it, but since it contains a fascist term, I don't wanna give you reasons. If you posted stuff like her, I'd hate you just as much as her. You would not get the same amount of attention, however, as you're not a woman and cannot hide behind "feminism".
You still don't (want to?) understand why your statement is so offensive. Not a SINGLE woman will dress up sexy, go out looking to get raped. NO such woman is ASKING to get molested, harassed or even raped.
Anita purposefully stirs up hatred. She WANTS to get (negative) attention. Death threats (as rare as they are) are a part of this.
Your problem is that:
a) You don't seem to see the difference between those two cases.
b) You seem to assume that it being logical to get negative attention immediately means that it's justified to so people.
Do you really need the rape comparison to make a point?
Manchu wrote: By all means, clarify your point that death threats are part of the negative attention that Sarkeesian wants.
The question is: does Anita purposefully provoke (negative) emotional responses? Yes. Does this include angry e-mails? Yes. Does this include angry comments? Yes. Does this include angry letters? Yes. Does this include death threats? Yes.
The difficult thing to get here is that the motivation for everything might differ. You immediately assume that her haters are misognists. Which is short-sighted and wrong. Does this mean that they automatically aren't misognistic? No.
I assume that you do understand that there is a difference between "wanting" something in particular and in general.
tl;dr: If you purposefully stir up hatred, you get hatred. Which form that hatred then takes can differ widely.
If we're talking bad comparisons, it's like someone running down the street, insulting another guy.
A: The other guy insults him back. You'd say "Okay, that's not too bad and ok."
Your problem is that you do not see that both reactions belong to the same reasoning and are on the same reaction scale - just on another end.
B: The other guy beats him up. You'd say "WOAH! Now where did THAT come from?!"
Sigvatr wrote: I assume that you do understand that there is a difference between "wanting" something in particular and in general.
So she wants death threats generally but not necessarily this specific one? Or she wanted some other kind of death threat? Or only death threats like this?
Manchu wrote: So she wants death threats generally but not necessarily this specific one? Or she wanted some other kind of death threat? Or only death threats like this?
Well, I am still confused by your post. It says the same thing. You say she wanted death threats and then you say you assume I know the difference between wanting something generally and specifically.
So -- again, which kind of death threats do you think Sarkeesian wants? or are you saying she is not particular, she wants any kind of death threats?
Manchu wrote: Well, I am still confused by your post. It says the same thing. She wanted death threats and the you say you assume I know the difference between wanting something generally and specifically.
So -- again, which kind of death threats do you think Sarkeesian wants? or are you saying she is not particular, she wants any kind of death threats?
Well she has gotten threats about being murdered and raped.
You say she wanted this? I mean, yes, as a matter of fact you have already posted ITT that Sarkeesian wanted death threats. But now are you saying, no she only wanted nasty comments saying she should be raped and/or murdered but not actual threats?
Manchu wrote: Well, I am still confused by your post. It says the same thing. You say she wanted death threats and then you say you assume I know the difference between wanting something generally and specifically.
So -- again, which kind of death threats do you think Sarkeesian wants? or are you saying she is not particular, she wants any kind of death threats?
What I read out of it:
Sarkeesian WANTS reactions, comments, etc. (general)
Sarkeesian is getting death threats (specific) which are a FORM of reaction... It's a particular form of reaction she shouldn't want, but still a reaction.
Manchu wrote: I mean, yes, as a matter of fact you have already posted ITT that Sarkeesian wanted death threats.
Oh, okay, so you admit to being forced to twist a user's posts to make a point. Why do you even ask me to elaborate on my point if you then ignore it to begin with?
Sarkeesian WANTS reactions, comments, etc. (general)
Sarkeesian is getting death threats (specific) which are a FORM of reaction... It's a particular form of reaction she shouldn't want, but still a reaction.
I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
Sigvatr wrote: a) I wasn't trolling at all. Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention.
That's a pretty big tinfoil hat you have there.
How, exactly, do you know the motivations and goals of Sarkeesian beyond speculation and arguing as if your preferred possibility is the only possible truth?
I remember having asked half a dozen times before in similar threads about how people are so good about knowing motivations, with only answers like 'use google' 'look at twitter' and so on.
I have yet to recieve an actual waterproof answer.
FWIW, she may well be aware that she is risking death threats by doing what she does. I very strongly doubt that the death threats, nor any other harassment et cetera ad nauseam, are goals of hers. They are simply inevitable, yet no less outrageous, side effects. And I very strongly suspect (but, of course, I can't prove) that Anita sees it in the same way.
To put it another way: If I go out digging, chances are I'll get tired. But I don't go dig just to get tired, I am trying to dig up something. Getting tired is not nearly as large a problem as death threats, but neither is digging as large a thing as what Anita is doing, so it evens out.
TL;DR: Until you find some waterproof evidence that Sarkeesian is a selfish fraudster and attention seeker-for-profit, I am calling BS.
Manchu wrote: I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
So you're claiming that death threats are not a negative emotional reaction?
Sigvatr wrote: a) I wasn't trolling at all. Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention.
How, exactly, do you know the motivations and goals of Sarkeesian beyond speculation and arguing as if your preferred possibility is the only possible truth?
Manchu wrote: I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
So you're claiming that death threats are not a negative emotional reaction?
There is no way the statement you quoted could mean that. I even posted "including but not limited to death threats."
The information cascade part is the most important part, that and the "where is that army?" to a cheering mass crowd, especially considering she is part of a PR company that has been manipulating the media. Ad Hominem attack in 3... 2.... 1...
Manchu wrote: I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
So you're claiming that death threats are not a negative emotional reaction?
There is no way the statement you quoted could mean that. I even posted "including but not limited to death threats."
So you do consider death threats being a negative emotional reaction?
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
No. I mean I do understand that makes me sound like some kind of nasty word, but no I'm not going to go and look it up. I don't care to poor through the dozens and dozens of threads on Ania. I won't do that and to be fair I wouldn't make anyone else do that. (If you want, your welcome to throw this statement back in my face should I slip up and tell you or someone else to look something up.)
Using only one example:
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
The game lets you do it. Is that not support? I actually mean that as a question. There is a lot of ambiguity in what a game supports. I can see arguments to be made that if a game lets you do something then it is supporting it. After all it gave you the place and ability to do it when it didn't have to. (Skyrim doesn't let you kill kids because they don't want to support that kind of play. ) On the other end, you are argue that because the game punishes you for doing something that means it doesn't support it after all your told don't do that. It's like giving someone a citrate and then saying "Now make sure you don't smoke."
For the comparison to Skyrim Kids;
In Skyrim, kids are not actively trying to kill you. Sure, neither are the chickens, but as it is you really have no reason to want to kill kids in the game (Unless you just want to be a dick).
In Hitman, the women in question are still "enemies"; if you mess up they can turn you in, raise the alarm, and other such things. To allow the polygons the ability to actively "attack" you in such matter but not allow you to do anything about it is bad game design.
I don't think the point is kids in Skyrim are the same as women in Hitman. Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game. Bethesda chose not to support gameplay where you can be violent to children. IO chose to support gameplay where you can be violent toward women bystanders (and so did Bethesda).
Manchu wrote: I don't think the point is kids in Skyrim are the same as women in Hitman. Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game. Bethesda chose not to support gameplay where you can be violent to children. IO chose to support gameplay where you can be violent toward women bystanders (and so did Bethesda).
At the same time though, it wouldn't make sense in Hitman to have a mission "require" you to kill, and hide the body of your target, but then turn around and disallow any such thing in another mission, regardless of whether "you" are trying to hide a man or a woman in a closet/laundry basket, refrigerator, etc.
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
The game lets you do it. Is that not support? I actually mean that as a question. There is a lot of ambiguity in what a game supports. I can see arguments to be made that if a game lets you do something then it is supporting it. After all it gave you the place and ability to do it when it didn't have to. (Skyrim doesn't let you kill kids because they don't want to support that kind of play. ) On the other end, you are argue that because the game punishes you for doing something that means it doesn't support it after all your told don't do that. It's like giving someone a citrate and then saying "Now make sure you don't smoke."
For the comparison to Skyrim Kids;
In Skyrim, kids are not actively trying to kill you. Sure, neither are the chickens, but as it is you really have no reason to want to kill kids in the game (Unless you just want to be a dick).
In Hitman, the women in question are still "enemies"; if you mess up they can turn you in, raise the alarm, and other such things. To allow the polygons the ability to actively "attack" you in such matter but not allow you to do anything about it is bad game design.
That's why it's different.
Children can report crimes in skyrim. (Like 99% sure they can. Even chickens can report crimes.) Then in fallout 3 kids can kill you. even. It's not really that different.
You make an argument that is it bad game design and I can see that, but the reason that would be bad game design is kind of telling. They can spot you you and turn you in. If you don't knock them out and if you don't put their bodies in that convent crate, then at risk of their "attack". It's almost as if the game is wanting you to do it. you to do it. (It's a next zero on your score and dose make the level safer.)
It can't be said for sure that this is the case. Like i said before there is a lot of ambiguity in this subject.
Children can report crimes in skyrim. (Like 99% sure they can. Even chickens can report crimes.) Then in fallout 3 kids can kill you. even. It's not really that different.
You make an argument that is it bad game design and I can see that, but the reason that would be bad game design is kind of telling. They can spot you you and turn you in. If you don't knock them out and if you don't put their bodies in that convent crate, then at risk of their "attack". It's almost as if the game is wanting you to do it. you to do it. (It's a next zero on your score and dose make the level safer.)
It can't be said for sure that this is the case. Like i said before there is a lot of ambiguity in this subject.
Ideally, the way the devs "want" you to play, is in such a way that you get the Silent Assassin rating. To do this, you have to be good enough to NOT knock anyone out, not attract any attention, not do ANYTHING other than touching the specific "target" of the mission.
Manchu wrote: I don't think the point is kids in Skyrim are the same as women in Hitman. Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game. Bethesda chose not to support gameplay where you can be violent to children. IO chose to support gameplay where you can be violent toward women bystanders (and so did Bethesda).
more games contain violence towards males (innocent or not) then females,
But if a game had no women in it to be violent towards (as often happens) you would call that sexist too as there were no women....
so what is the correct choice here?
Do we treat women the same as men, and make them killable (even if bystanders) exactly the same way as is the case in this example?
or do we need to only kill male fictional characters, and protect plygonal women the same way we protect polygonal children?
again, double standard here that needs to be addressed
(much like the numerous previous hard, pertinent questions about double standards regarding sexism)
Children can report crimes in skyrim. (Like 99% sure they can. Even chickens can report crimes.) Then in fallout 3 kids can kill you. even. It's not really that different.
You make an argument that is it bad game design and I can see that, but the reason that would be bad game design is kind of telling. They can spot you you and turn you in. If you don't knock them out and if you don't put their bodies in that convent crate, then at risk of their "attack". It's almost as if the game is wanting you to do it. you to do it. (It's a next zero on your score and dose make the level safer.)
It can't be said for sure that this is the case. Like i said before there is a lot of ambiguity in this subject.
Ideally, the way the devs "want" you to play, is in such a way that you get the Silent Assassin rating. To do this, you have to be good enough to NOT knock anyone out, not attract any attention, not do ANYTHING other than touching the specific "target" of the mission.
Nope. Actually one of the problems people had with HM:A (apart from the sex stuff that oddly enough we haven't even got to yet.) A good chunk of the game practicality forces you to fight. In a hand full of places it literally forces you to shoot people in the face. (Slow motion john woo style.) It has that assassins creed sickness where the game wants you to use every ability unless you forget that it is there. This is another reason why it's so hard to figure out what the game wants you to do.
Nope. Actually one of the problems people had with HM:A (apart from the sex stuff that oddly enough we haven't even got to yet.) A good chunk of the game practicality forces you to fight. In a hand full of places it literally forces you to shoot people in the face. (Slow motion john woo style.)
Huh? My wife finished the game with the Silent Assassin achievement which means that you have to kill noone (!) but your targets.
Nope. Actually one of the problems people had with HM:A (apart from the sex stuff that oddly enough we haven't even got to yet.) A good chunk of the game practicality forces you to fight. In a hand full of places it literally forces you to shoot people in the face. (Slow motion john woo style.)
Huh? My wife finished the game with the Silent Assassin achievement which means that you have to kill noone (!) but your targets.
/e: Thread getting kinda OT.
That is tricky but doable I think. The game would likely count the john woo stuff as your targets. Also I can imagine someone just running past some of the more fidly sneaking bits. It's just important to understand that HM:A isn't like say blood money where you are a stealth assassin trying to take out your targets subtly as possible. Many levels you have no targets and other levels your not going to take out your target in a sneaky way.
The issue is less about what you must do to get some achievement and more about what the developers have chosen to allow you to do.
But I agree this is getting OT. I understand people are asking about how Sarkeesian allegedly lied, misrepresented, or at least exaggerated in her last Feminist Frequency video but it seems the question has now been answered so we can move on.
The key takeaway is that Sarkeesian's critics think her comments regarding Hitman: Absolution demonstrate that she is either (or both) not actually familiar with the games she uses as examples or (/and) such examples are purposefully meant to mislead/troll the audience.
How is this relevant to this thread?
For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are
- hateful diatribes - sexist slurs - threats of rape - threats of murder - threats of raping/murdering friends and family - threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture
reasonable and proportionate responses to a bad argument about a video game?
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them. - The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them. - Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
The game lets you do it. Is that not support? I actually mean that as a question. There is a lot of ambiguity in what a game supports. I can see arguments to be made that if a game lets you do something then it is supporting it. After all it gave you the place and ability to do it when it didn't have to. (Skyrim doesn't let you kill kids because they don't want to support that kind of play. ) On the other end, you are argue that because the game punishes you for doing something that means it doesn't support it after all your told don't do that. It's like giving someone a citrate and then saying "Now make sure you don't smoke."
For the comparison to Skyrim Kids;
In Skyrim, kids are not actively trying to kill you. Sure, neither are the chickens, but as it is you really have no reason to want to kill kids in the game (Unless you just want to be a dick).
In Hitman, the women in question are still "enemies"; if you mess up they can turn you in, raise the alarm, and other such things. To allow the polygons the ability to actively "attack" you in such matter but not allow you to do anything about it is bad game design.
That's why it's different.
Children can report crimes in skyrim. (Like 99% sure they can. Even chickens can report crimes.) Then in fallout 3 kids can kill you. even. It's not really that different.
You make an argument that is it bad game design and I can see that, but the reason that would be bad game design is kind of telling. They can spot you you and turn you in. If you don't knock them out and if you don't put their bodies in that convent crate, then at risk of their "attack". It's almost as if the game is wanting you to do it. you to do it. (It's a next zero on your score and dose make the level safer.)
It can't be said for sure that this is the case. Like i said before there is a lot of ambiguity in this subject.
Actually, you can't compare HM: A and Skyrim and then make the leap to Fallout 3; they are different games; Fallout 3 even had the Pint Sized Slasher missions. We are also then talking about a series with a perk literally called "Child Killer".
Also, Reporting Crimes in Skyrim is totally different than reporting you in HM: A; Skyrim you don't have to commit crimes, it's there if you want it, where as Hitman you HAVE to trespass (And be potentially discovered) as it's a core part of the game.
Slag232 -- please use spoiler tags if you are going to quote long chains of quotes.
I will edit the one you just made but please do this yourself going forward.
ALSO - as mentioned above - the discussion comparing Skyrim with Hitman is leading us off-topic. If anyone wishes to continue that discussion (on game design), please start a thread in the video games sub-forum. I am going to delete any further posts on that topic. Thanks
Just in case no one saw this, USU has confirmed that Sarkeesian didn't cancel her event because of the threat, which the FBI and local PD confirmed was minimal to no risk, but because USU students who have been issued CCW permits might have the gal to carry at the presentation and USU would not violate state law and disarm them.
For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are
- hateful diatribes - sexist slurs - threats of rape - threats of murder - threats of raping/murdering friends and family - threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture
It's...sad how you still haven't realized the difference between there being a reason for an action and a justification for an action but continue to insinuate that everyone disagreeing with you assumes that the former is the same as the latter.
You did not yet (want to?) realize that noone in this thread argues from that point of view or even assumes the above mentioned. On the internet, even disagreeing with someone in a YouTube comment can be a reason for all of the above mentioned things. Being better in an online game most often yields to strangers telling me how my mom is in bed, that I should get cancer, die, get raped etc. etc. Your extremely heavy bias is obvious and it clouds your ability to openly talk about a topic.
It is obvious that people have responded to Sarkeesians videos in an overwhelmingly negative way.
Why do you think it is useful or relevant to state what is obvious again and again?
Is there some reason why you are doing so?
Actually you are not just saying people are making threats because they are irritated by Sarkeesian.
You have actually said Sarkeesian wants a negative response.
And you explicitly included death threats as part of that negative response; so you have stated that Sarkeesian wants death threats.
Here are your exact words:
Sigvatr wrote: Anita purposefully stirs up hatred. She WANTS to get (negative) attention. Death threats (as rare as they are) are a part of this.
Sigvatr wrote: The question is: does Anita purposefully provoke (negative) emotional responses? Yes. Does this include angry e-mails? Yes. Does this include angry comments? Yes. Does this include angry letters? Yes. Does this include death threats? Yes.
Here again is the relevant question:
Manchu wrote: For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are
- hateful diatribes - sexist slurs - threats of rape - threats of murder - threats of raping/murdering friends and family - threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture
reasonable and proportionate responses to a bad argument about a video game?
Keep in mind that no one questions whether the bulletted items above are "probable" or "realistic." They HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. The only remaining issue here is whether they are a reasonable and/or proportionate and/or appropriate response to someone making a bad argument (even assuming the argument is bad) about a video game.
are you not answering questions that show the double standard then?
if you, and/or anita, have issue with what developers choose to let you do in video games, what is the correct choice?
should women be treated just like men, be killable ect?
should they be untouchable like children?
or should they be their own special class in video games?
4th option????
its a simple question on the point you made, please stop avoiding it and doing the run around, I read your post, I asked a question on it (politely) and you keep avoiding it.
You have actually said Sarkeesian wants a negative response.
Yep. Go back to my previous posts.I said that she explicitely provoked (negative) emotional responses. She WANTS attention and the CONSEQUENCE or SIDE EFFECT of getting GENERAL ATTENTION is that you get BOTH positive AND negative reactions - which include a lot of things, as already having been portrayed above.
And you explicitly included death threats as part of that negative response; so you have stated that Sarkeesian wants death threats.
Wrong conclusion, as above and above. And above. As portrayed above, she WANTS attention IN GENERAL. A death threat is NOT what she wants. She WANTS an emotional response. A death threat is a FORM of such an emotional response. It's a SIDE EFFECT of what she wants to achieve.
Keep in mind that no one questions whether the bulletted items above are "probable" or "realistic." They HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. The only remaining issue here is whether they are a reasonable and appropriate response to someone making a bad argument (even assuming the argument is bad) about a video game.
So do you think that this is in question in this very thread?
are you not answering questions that show the double standard then?
This thread isn't supposed to be about Hitman. It's clear that it is hypocritic to complain about these 2 (?) women when you slaughter hundreds of men but that has already been discussed in length in the other thread.
Just in case no one saw this, USU has confirmed that Sarkeesian didn't cancel her event because of the threat, which the FBI and local PD confirmed was minimal to no risk, but because USU students who have been issued CCW permits might have the gal to carry at the presentation and USU would not violate state law and disarm them.
Well thats very different. So it had nothing to do with the threats, just her rabid anti-gun view (or she was trying to create a furor).
Sigvatr wrote: As portrayed above, she WANTS attention IN GENERAL. A death threat is NOT what she wants. She WANTS an emotional response. A death threat is a FORM of such an emotional response. It's a SIDE EFFECT of what she wants to achieve.
This is a distinction without a difference.
- You say she wants negative responses. - You say death threats are part of that negative response.
As I have asked before, where is the line you want to draw between negative responses she wants and negative responses she doesn't want?
Keep in mind that no one questions whether the bulletted items above are "probable" or "realistic." They HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. The only remaining issue here is whether they are a reasonable and appropriate response to someone making a bad argument (even assuming the argument is bad) about a video game.
So do you think that this is in question in this very thread?
I explicitly identified it as the "relevant question."
Sigvatr wrote: This thread isn't supposed to be about Hitman. It's clear that it is hypocritic to complain about these 2 (?) women when you slaughter hundreds of men but that has already been discussed in length in the other thread.
I think I can put this one to rest by saying I think Sarkeesian's argument about Hitman is so exaggerated as to actually undermine her overall argument rather than support it.
Frazzled wrote: Well thats very different. So it had nothing to do with the threats, just her rabid anti-gun view (or she was trying to create a furor).
You should read the letter. It actually does not say Sarkeesian did not cancel because of the threat.
are you not answering questions that show the double standard then?
This thread isn't supposed to be about Hitman. It's clear that it is hypocritic to complain about these 2 (?) women when you slaughter hundreds of men but that has already been discussed in length in the other thread.
this is a thread talking about treatment of women/mysogeny and the facets of it.
That does not mean I can only talk about how mysogenistic society is,
Bringing up the other side of the discussion is very pertinent.
You cant just open a thread that deals with things like "damsel tropes" and not be willing to discuss "disposable male" tropes as well, they are part of the same issue.
But thank you for the answer, yes it is hypocritical of anita to expect the polygonal women to be treated differently from polygonal men.
this is relevent, because if she expects women to be treated differently then men in video games with respect to violence, then its reasonable to assume she expects women to be treated differently in real life with respect to violence.
the fact is, this whole thread is about how the violent threats against her are more special then the threats against anyone else.
which is anti feminist, anti male and anti equality in general.
at best she is a hypocrate, at worst she is scamming the people who donate to her.
the fact that no one is even allowed to question her integrety, lest they be labled a mysogenist/ect, discredits her and her followers.
Manchu wrote: This is a distinction without a difference.
- You say she wants negative responses.
- You say death threats are part of that negative response.
It's important to make that distinction and the "(negative)" is also important as she not only looks for negative attention, but also for positive attention in the form of self-affirmation and money. Furthermore, intentionally provoking negative responses does not have to yield to the latter. A lot of people provoke negative emotions without asking for death threats. If you do not make said distinction, as portrayed above, then you come to a wrong conclusion.
Provoking negative responses is the cause or the reason for death threats. Cause and effect are not identical.
As I have asked before, where is the line you want to draw between negative responses she wants and negative responses she doesn't want?
She is the one to say and know what kind of attention she wants or not. I can't. She could even be embracing those death threats as they harden her victimization cocoon. I can't tell. The thing is: she intentionally provoked people and now has to deal with the backlash that caused.
I explicitly identified it as the "relevant question."
So how did you come to the conclusion that this has not been answered yet?
easysauce wrote: the fact is, this whole thread is about how the violent threats against her are more special then the threats against anyone else
No. This thread is about the fact that she received a threat for the reason that she was going to speak publicly about video games. The fact that this is totally unacceptable does not make similar threats to anyone else more acceptable.
Sigvatr wrote: She is the one to say and know what kind of attention she wants or not. I can't.
But you have and are doing exactly that:
Sigvatr wrote: Anita purposefully stirs up hatred. She WANTS to get (negative) attention. Death threats (as rare as they are) are a part of this.
Sigvatr wrote: The question is: does Anita purposefully provoke (negative) emotional responses? Yes. Does this include angry e-mails? Yes. Does this include angry comments? Yes. Does this include angry letters? Yes. Does this include death threats? Yes.
Ouze wrote: I see we're still using the "she shouldn't have dressed that way" rationalization, as well.
Yep. This is why I have to ask:
Manchu wrote: For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are
- hateful diatribes
- sexist slurs
- threats of rape
- threats of murder
- threats of raping/murdering friends and family
- threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture
reasonable and proportionate responses to a bad argument about a video game?
easysauce wrote: the fact is, this whole thread is about how the violent threats against her are more special then the threats against anyone else
No. This thread is about the fact that she received a threat for the reason that she was going to speak publicly about video games. The fact that this is totally unacceptable does not make similar threats to anyone else more acceptable.
no but its been claimed it makes the lone "threat makes" indicative of issues as a whole.
thats the part where anitas threats are being elevated,
you wooulnt claim threats made by muslims mean all muslims are terrorists,
yet its been claimed (by you) that the threats against anita paints a larger group then just the threat makers as mysogenist
easysauce wrote: you wooulnt claim threats made by muslims mean all muslims are terrorists
No, I wouldn't claim that.
The equivalent on-topic claim here would be: a man made a misogynistic threat, therefore all men are misogynists.
I would not and have not made that claim.
First, we don't even know if it was a man who made the threat.
Second, if I made that claim I would be calling myself a misogynist.
Sigvatr wrote: Still not understanding the (intended) cause-effect relation as I see.
You just posted that you can't say what kind of attention Sarkeesian wants. You have already posted that she wants negative attention. I don't think I am missing anything. Putting "negative" in parentheses does not change anything about your contradictory claims. You argued Sarkeesian wants death threats. I understand why you want to get out of that. It is a shamefully misogynistic thing to say.
"You should read the letter. It actually does not say Sarkeesian did not cancel because of the threat."
You mean this part:
When our law enforcement personnel spoke about security measures, she was concerned that state law prevented the university from keeping people with legal concealed firearm permits from entering the event, and chose to cancel.
When our law enforcement personnel spoke about security measures, she was concerned that state law prevented the university from keeping people with legal concealed firearm permits from entering the event, and chose to cancel.
Yes. That part does not say that Sarkeesian did not cancel because of the threat.
Frazzled wrote: Thats your interpretation. Mine is the opposite. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's not a matter of interpretation.
The letter said she had concerns about carry concel at her event. It does not say whether those concerns were or were not related to the threat.
Someone who has been threatened with a shooting spree would probably be concerned about being in a room potentially full of people secretly armed with guns.
Your "interpretation" is a misreading (willful or otherwise) of the letter.
Manchu wrote: Maybe part of the issue is the word "expect."
"Expect" can connote something that should be the case:
Example - "I expect my son to do his best in school"
"Expect" can also connote something that probably will be the case:
Example - "I expect the sun will come up tomorrow"
In the first sense -- no one should have to expect death threats because of speaking in public.
In the second sense -- it is realistic for Sarkeesian to expect death theats in a misogynistic culture.
right there manchu,
you flat out said, the only reason she would expect death threats is in a mysogenistic culture.
You give two choices, either no one expects death threats, which obviously isnt the case as she very much expects them (fact is everyone expects them on the internet, and every famous person expects them through the internet+ other means)
the only other choice you offer being that only a mysogenistic culture would cause the expectation of threats for anita.
might not be what you mean, but thats what you said.
Frazzled wrote: Thats your interpretation. Mine is the opposite. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's not a matter of interpretation.
The letter said she had concerns about carry concel at her event. It does not say whether those concerns were or were not related to the threat.
Someone who has been threatened with a shooting spree would probably be concerned about being in a room potentially full of people secretly armed with guns.
Your "interpretation" is a misreading (willful or otherwise) of the letter.
Sure it does. Good to see you can't admit a person can have a valid opinion that differs from your own.
Easysauce, I think you have consistently misunderstood my posts in this thread. I really don't think it has been intentional so I will do my best to explain my position to you.
Some people in North America view women as objects. This viewpoint motivates some amount of violence against women, including a recent case of mass murder in California where the killer explicitly outlined his misogynistic views and motivations for killing. This thread is about the threat of mass murder with explicit reference to a massacre in Montreal in 1989 where the killer explicitly outlined his misogynistic views and motivations for killing.
None of this implies that there are no problems with how men are treated. None of this implies that all men are misogynists. None of this implies that only women should be protected from threats of violence and violence.
Frazzled wrote: Thats your interpretation. Mine is the opposite. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's not a matter of interpretation.
The letter said she had concerns about carry concel at her event. It does not say whether those concerns were or were not related to the threat.
Someone who has been threatened with a shooting spree would probably be concerned about being in a room potentially full of people secretly armed with guns.
Your "interpretation" is a misreading (willful or otherwise) of the letter.
Sure it does. Good to see you can't admit a person can have a valid opinion that differs from your own.
Frazzled, the fact that you can't read a letter properly has nothing to do with me accepting or rejecting opinions, valid or otherwise.
College: we're aware that there have been threats in the past and we're beefing up security, even though we don't believe that this threat is genuine you'll have an security escort at all times including to and from the event. There will also be uniformed and plain clothes police officers watching over the event.
Anita: I want metal detectors and pat downs enforced.
College: Sorry (likely we don't have that for anyone really) Additionally it violates state law in that they are legally allowed to carry.
Anita: People exercising their rights makes me uncomfortable, and I need extra, extra protection with a cherry on top because I'm Anita, I simply I won't attend!
stanman wrote: College: we're aware that there have been threats in the past and we're beefing up security, even though we don't believe that this threat is genuine you'll have an security escort at all times including to and from the event. There will also be uniformed and plain clothes police officers watching over the event.
Anita: I want metal detectors and pat downs enforced.
College: Sorry (likely we don't have that for anyone really) Additionally it violates state law in that they are legally allowed to carry.
Anita: People exercising their rights makes me uncomfortable, and I need extra, extra protection with a cherry on top because I'm Anita, I simply I won't attend!
Manchu wrote: Easysauce, I think you have consistently misunderstood my posts in this thread. I really don't think it has been intentional so I will do my best to explain my position to you.
=.
fair enough, I get what you *mean* but honestly, Im not getting your meaning off the bat because what you actually say leads to a different conclusion.
at the same time, numerous people are trying to communicate simple cause and effect, and its being called victim blaming despite that not being the case, so i would say you are also mis understanding my (and others) posts.
when you said that the options were "no one should expect threats" and "in mysogenistic culture she expects threats", where you reference the culture at large (not individuals) as mysogenistic,
then because she does expect threats, it must mean the culture is mysogenistic, and if the culture is mysogenistic, that includes a huge dearth of people, not just the individuals who did the deed.
Can you at least see how someone could see that 2nd option's reference to mysogenistic culture is referencing the culture at large instead of particular individuals?
If I seem persistant, its because I really do care about the issue and simply want to understand where you are coming from.
In their statements the college did state they were taking extra precautions, Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms. She felt that despite the college adding extra security that it still did not meet her expectations of safety so she cancelled. Anita said in her comments about withdrawing that she wasn't cancelling due to the threats but because safety was not sufficient to meet her standards (because it did not provide metal detectors or pat downs) so how is that not accurate?
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.
Eagerly awaits Manchu's claim that I'm misreading things.
When university officials told Sarkeesian they could not stop concealed-weapon permit carriers from packing their handguns into the room where she was going to speak, Sarkeesian called it off and left town.
Backpacks would not have been allowed into the Taggert Student Center Auditorium, but Sarkeesian said USU declined to pat down students or post metal detectors at the doors.
If they aren't allowed to bring in bags, it'd be a bit difficult to bring in the assault rifles and bombs that the letter threatened. Also Anita proudly claimed in a previous event that she attended that it was the third time she'd been under a bomb threat, yet still went (making her so very brave). But even when the campus and police feel there's no credible threat she suddenly pulls back for this one? Likely because she saw the chance to grab another spot in headlines by way of controversy.
easysauce wrote: at the same time, numerous people are trying to communicate simple cause and effect, and its being called victim blaming despite that not being the case
The problem is, there really is not a necessary "cause and effect" rule here. This is where the rape shaming example is so relevant.
"She was raped because of (what she wore, where she was, who she was with) etc" makes the point that her being raped was primarily the result of what she did. So the idea is that she, or something about her, caused the rape -- this is the "she was asking for it" argument. Actually, nothing about her caused the rape. The rape was caused by the rapist.
Similarly, nothing Sarkeesian did actually caused anyone to harass and threaten her. Harassment and threats are responses to what she said but they are not the logical results of what she said. The people who caused this harassment and these threats are the people who did the harassing and made the threats just like how the person who causes a rape is the rapist.
The "she was asking for it" argument, whether applied to rape or death threats (and threats of rape) is misogynistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Eagerly awaits Manchu's claim that I'm misreading things.
That would be charitable. What we can certainly say is that you conclusions have no basis in the evidence.
stanman wrote: Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms.
She canceled because she did not want to go to a place where people can be secretly armed with guns after she had been threatened with murder if she went to that place.
easysauce wrote: at the same time, numerous people are trying to communicate simple cause and effect, and its being called victim blaming despite that not being the case
The problem is, there really is not a necessary "cause and effect" rule here. This is where the rape shaming example is so relevant.
again,
your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect,
if someone walks out into the rain, expect to get wet. cause, effect.
if someone does anything online, expect online threats.
if someone does anything public/famous, expect all sorts of threats.
its no more "blaming the victim" to assert this, then to state that hillary clinton expects threats, or to state that our troops expect to be shot at.
you are misundestanding it, and drawing paralells to a completly different arguement, people who say rape victims "asked for it" are totally different then people who say "that is rapist ally, its full of rapists who rape people, expect to be raped if you go into rapist alley."
its not blaming the victim, its a statement of cause and effect.
in the same way people can state "outside it is raining, its really wet, expect to get wet if you go into the rain." are just stateing cause and effect, so to are people saying to expect threats online.
blaming the victim would have to consist of actually balming the victim. IE "she went into rapist alley, its her fault they raped her."
MrDwhitey wrote: I would like sources for the "likely we don't have that for anyone" speculation.
Who does? I've only seen metal detectors at airports, courts, some sporting events, and certain very high level poltiical events. Absent the airports/courts they were private and paid for privately.
I'm sure if she wanted to pay for all that she could. Apparently under Utah law it would have been irrelevant, as CHLers couldn't be refused there.
Manchu wrote: She canceled because she did not want to go to a place where people can be secretly armed with guns after she had been threatened with murder if she went to that place.
So she had metal detectors and pat downs at all 3 of the prior events she attended that had received bomb and death threats?
While I expect my junk to be lovingly fondled by the TSA, I wasn't aware it'd been adopted at college campuses nationwide as standard protocol. Hate to break it to you but anywhere can be secretly armed with guns, you don't need to be in a CC or OC state to do it.
MrDwhitey wrote: I would like sources for the "likely we don't have that for anyone" speculation.
Who does? I've only seen metal detectors at airports, courts, some sporting events, and certain very high level poltiical events. Absent the airports/courts they were private and paid for privately.
I'm sure if she wanted to pay for all that she could. Apparently under Utah law it would have been irrelevant, as CHLers couldn't be refused there.
I am sure he thought he was perfectly sane.
He had many problems in his past and was looking for a scapegoat.
I don't doubt he was crazy and/or morally irresponsible. That doesn't make him any less misogynistic -- which he absolutely was by his own admission. Since his massacre, other misogynists have held him up as a hero. And now we have someone who threatened to imitate his crimes for the same motivation. And you are asking me why we are talking about misogyny?
So, Anita canceled a university appearance due to a misogynistic crazy person who may also be suicidal or just a troll who likes to mess with people. I just find the obsession to have a word that is a sub-category for prejudice is just a way to make it "special".
Sure fine, we can talk of misogynist behavior, suicidal mindsets, people who hate their games being criticized, gun control, police not doing their jobs, freedom of speech, trolls and their antisocial behavior, lots here to pick but sure, women haters seem to be the more "important" topic.
If "I" were Anita (disregard I am not, do not have her money, fame or gender), I would not publish or acknowledge the hate mail and send the threat emails to the police.
Acknowledging any of it is like trolling for more: it gets them all excited.
Cancelling the presentation is a huge mistake: where do you draw the line after that?
Again, something that will only attract more threats, each trying to outdo each other on who gets to be quoted in the news... so exciting.
Wear a bulletproof vest, have an armored podium, make metal detectors and armed security part of the conditions for an appearance.
I do not "expect" Anita to die for her cause whatever that may be, but she can manage the risk.
<edit> Ah, metal detectors struck down, still terms for attending a "private" event should have allowed some leeway... well, count on armed well meaning supporters?
Manchu: there are many things that are "unacceptable" that are a reality and must be acknowledged as a fact in need of correction.
The "outspoken minority" and Anita I feel are not worthy representatives for a balanced view and should not enjoy further press time.
easysauce wrote: your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect
No it doesn't. I don't think you understand causality and I don't really have the interest to teach you about it.
Talizvar wrote: So, Anita canceled a university appearance due to a misogynistic crazy person who may also be suicidal or just a troll who likes to mess with people.
Correct, mostly. Here's an important point: the person who sent the threat identified themselves as a misogynist by reference to the 1989 massacre. They did not identify themselves as crazy or a troll.
Talizvar wrote: Manchu: there are many things that are "unacceptable" that are a reality and must be acknowledged as a fact in need of correction.
I fully agree. ITT the one we are talking about is misogynistic violence.
MrDwhitey wrote: I would like sources for the "likely we don't have that for anyone" speculation.
Who does? I've only seen metal detectors at airports, courts, some sporting events, and certain very high level poltiical events. Absent the airports/courts they were private and paid for privately.
I'm sure if she wanted to pay for all that she could. Apparently under Utah law it would have been irrelevant, as CHLers couldn't be refused there.
I'm taking the piss out of a previous post.
Oh sorry. Continue taking the piss (wait isn't that the church petition subpoena thread? )
easysauce wrote: your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect
No it doesn't. I don't think you understand causality and I don't really have the interest to teach you about it.
other way around manchu,
I dont think you understand causality,
stating that "on the internet, one expects threats" is a true statement.
That the insular nature of the internet causes people to make more threats, is also true.
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the difference between someone making an objective statement about cause and effect, and them making a subjective blame statement.
that you misunderstand multiple people trying to do this, despite us patiently trying to explain it, means I likely wont have any sucess explaining it to you.
Here's a place for you to begin: correlation is not the same as causation. Good luck with this in all honesty. Causation can actually be pretty tricky.
Here's a place for you to begin: correlation is not the same as causation. Good luck with this in all honesty. Causation can actually be pretty tricky.
this isnt a case of causation vs correlation at all... thats not even close.
the fact is, that you are misunderstanding people, and there looks to be far more effort from the people being mis understood to correct you, then your own effort to try to understand things properly.
stating that someone who enters a specific enviroment (a wet one, or a threat heavy one like the internet) will expect certain outcomes as a direct result of those conditions, is causation by its actual definition.
That in this thread you have used: non standard definitions for words and been suprised that people dont know what you mean,
and gotten upset to the point of uttering obscenties,
makes me think that it wont matter how well thought out or factual the state ment is, its still "blaming the victim" to spell out the realities of cause and effect in this case.
that is, after all, why you dont object to "if you go out in the rain, expect to get wet" because this effect and cause dont strike you as "wrong"
so while the cause and effect "if you go online as a celebrety expect threats" is deplorable, awful, hateful, ect... it is still a factual statement, and people stating this fact are not blaming the victim at all.
Anita Sarkeesian is a fraud and a charlatan. I wouldn't actually advocate for her execution but that's only because she'd probably feel some sort of vindication from it.
Squigsquasher wrote: Anita Sarkeesian is a fraud and a charlatan. I wouldn't actually advocate for her execution but that's only because she'd probably feel some sort of vindication from it.
She's like Jesse Jackson, there may indeed be underlying social issues that need to be addressed and corrected. But as somebody who now makes a living out of being in the spotlight surrounding those issues they end up needing to inflame things and work up as much controversy as possible so that they can inject themselves back into the spotlight (and make money).
There are some valid points which she made in her earlier work, but she's run low on legit items to discuss and has started fabricating and falsifying issues within games so that she has new topics to discuss. Without controversy she's out of gas and will fade from relevance and lose income, which she desperately doesn't want to happen.
When self promoting in media outlets there's no such thing as bad press, anytime they are talking about you you're relevant for the next 15 minutes of fame.
I'll be honest, I can understand not feeling safe enough to take the stage given the context and the detail of the threat, I get that. However the way I've seen the story told it's "forced to cancel" more than "chose not to make appearance" forced to cancel seems to infer she had no choice here, like it was authorities or the school that decided to shut it down because the threat was too high, which is simply not the case. There's that disconnect there, it's not like all parties are aligned and all parties collectively decided to cancel the event. Neither the school nor the authorities shut this thing down, anita wanted special treatment (shocker) and did not receive it. She's free to decide that the level of security doesn't meet her standards, but it's indeed worth pointing out that the school and authorities were ready to go. If you don't want attendees to be armed that's perfectly understandable, pick a different state, one with different gun laws.
Manchu wrote: You just posted that you can't say what kind of attention Sarkeesian wants. You have already posted that she wants negative attention. I don't think I am missing anything. Putting "negative" in parentheses does not change anything about your contradictory claims. You argued Sarkeesian wants death threats. I understand why you want to get out of that. It is a shamefully misogynistic thing to say.
So to sum it up, you seem to lack the understanding of a very basic concept, cause and effect, you cannot (or do not want to) grasp the difference between reasons and justifications and you immediately assume that any threat against her is done out of misogny - which is a pretty darn sexist thing to say as you quickly jump to her side just because she's female. Positive sexism is sexism too; just to let you know.
I highly suggest looking up causality to get closer to an understanding of there being a difference between a reason and a justification.
The fact that you, after a huge amount of pages, still continue to offend rape victims and willfully ignore the posts of most people agreeing with you is saddening and shocking.
Anita willfully provoked (negative) reactions. Do you still deny that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Squigsquasher wrote: Anita Sarkeesian is a fraud and a charlatan. I wouldn't actually advocate for her execution but that's only because she'd probably feel some sort of vindication from it.
Crablezworth wrote: She's free to decide that the level of security doesn't meet her standards
Crablezworth wrote: but it's indeed worth pointing out that the school and authorities were ready to go.
This is really just one sentence but I quoted it in halves because I think these are BOTH extremely good points.
No one should confuse the fact that Sarkeesian felt forced to cancel; the school did not force her to cancel. ALSO no one should be be under the misapprehension that she claims the school forced her to cancel. She made an understandable request that the school could not oblige.
easysauce wrote: your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect
No it doesn't. I don't think you understand causality and I don't really have the interest to teach you about it.
Talizvar wrote: So, Anita canceled a university appearance due to a misogynistic crazy person who may also be suicidal or just a troll who likes to mess with people.
Correct, mostly. Here's an important point: the person who sent the threat identified themselves as a misogynist by reference to the 1989 massacre. They did not identify themselves as crazy or a troll.
Talizvar wrote: Manchu: there are many things that are "unacceptable" that are a reality and must be acknowledged as a fact in need of correction.
I fully agree. ITT the one we are talking about is misogynistic violence.
Yep.
Established now you cherry picking easy stuff (not identified self as crazy or troll... hehe... few do!) and will not be drawn into discussing anything real.
Seeing the trend of nitpicking details to no purpose other than "error" or not meeting your definition of a word rather than possible solutions of the circumstance (you do see the difference right?).
It's been strange.
Your argument is: Sarkeesian talking about video games CAUSED someone to threaten a shooting massacre. That is, it is Sarkeesian's fault (given what she did is the cause) that someone threatened a shooting massacre. This is the exact same thing as saying, for example, the way a woman dressed CAUSED her to be raped.
Why are you speaking on behalf of rape victims? And what exactly did I say that would offend rape victims? And please don't just post a quote; I would like an explanation as to exactly how anything I have posted is offensive to rape victims.
Sigvatr wrote: Anita willfully provoked (negative) reactions. Do you still deny that?
Someone mentioned loaded questions earlier in the thread. I had to explain to them that a loaded question is one that requires you to agree to an assumption in order to answer. What you have just posted is an actual loaded question. Answering it would require me to agree that I have ever denied that "Anita willfully provoked (negative) reactions," which I have not. I have not made any claims as to what Sarkeesian intended vis-a-vis the harassments and death threats she has received. You on the other hand have posted several times that Sarkeesian wanted negative reactions, including death threats.
Talizvar wrote: .Established now you cherry picking easy stuff
This is not English. I have no idea what you are trying to say or what it refers to.
Talizvar wrote: will not be drawn into discussing anything real
Manchu wrote: Your argument is: Sarkeesian talking about video games CAUSED someone to threaten a shooting massacre.
Meeep. As above. And above. And above. She CAUSED (negative) emotional responses. She CAUSED the REASON for the threat. She did not CAUSE the threat itself as the latter is a choice not made by HER but by the person threatening her. You cannot CAUSE an event you cannot DECIDE to cause.
Why are you speaking on behalf of rape victims? And what exactly did I say that would offend rape victims?
Because I see the stuff my wife has to get along with and while often not being intentionally, people tend to downplay rape, e.g. by using it as an emotionally loaded comparison that is supposed to show how "super bad" another action is. That is what you did - and still do:
This is the exact same thing as saying, for example, the way a woman dressed CAUSED her to be raped.
By saying this, you immediately put rape victims and Anita on one level. Not because you intend to do so (hopefully...), but because you rush to conclusions - and no preamble is going to fix that. As already pointed out, by saying that the "Dressing sexy means wanting to get raped!" and "She wanted to get a threat!" is comparable, you show a lack of understanding. The former is very different. Not a single rape victim wants to get raped. Not a single rape victim wants to arouse rapists. Women dress that way to e.g. woo a man *they* choose. Anita WANTS to attract negative reactions.
And in general: if you need to make a comparison to rape to prove your point, that's not only highly offensive, you also undermine your very own point; even if it was valid.
Someone mentioned loaded questions earlier in the thread. I had to explain to them that a loaded question is one that requires you to agree to an assumption in order to answer. What you have just posted is an actual loaded question.
This is what you yourself love to do to other users, so please don't act surprised.
Sigvatr wrote: Not a single rape victim wants to get raped.
But Sarkeesian wants death threats? Oh wait you have answered that again and again already including just twice now in the same post:
Sigvatr wrote: She CAUSED (negative) emotional responses.
Sigvatr wrote: Anita WANTS to attract negative reactions.
And what is your definition of "(negative) emotional responses"?
Sigvatr wrote: Does this include angry e-mails? Yes. Does this include angry comments? Yes. Does this include angry letters? Yes. Does this include death threats? Yes.
You are using the "she asked for it" argument. It's the exact same argument misogynists use to shame rape victims. It's just as misogynistic when you use it here. Don't blame me for the argument you are using.
Meeep, wrong again. She WANTS (negative) emotional responses. Those CAN include death threats. Does that mean that she WANTS those? Nope. She CAUSES negative emotional responses, but she WANTS none of those.
"Huh? You can cause something you do not want?!"
Yes. Anita CAUSES those because she WANTS positive (emotional) responses for the most part. She ACCEPTS there being negative emotional responses because her MEANS to do so rely on PURPOSEFULLY provoking other people and PROVOKING other people CAUSES negative reactions.
It's the exact same argument misogynists use to shame rape victims. It's just as misogynistic when you use it here. Don't blame me for the argument you are using.
It is not, exactly as portrayed above. Since you have been told twice as to why this is offensive and downright wrong, at this point, you are willfully playing down rape and offending rape victims - which is gut-twistingly shocking, at least to me. Either continue to do so or use another comparison to make your point. It's your choice.
Furthermore, you start being sexist again. Anything goes against Anita immediately is misognistic. That's positive sexism.
The fact is that Anita purposefully provokes negative emotional responses. Hands down. If you think that this is misognistic, then you let your emotions, again, blind your clear sight.
Crablezworth wrote: She's free to decide that the level of security doesn't meet her standards
Crablezworth wrote: but it's indeed worth pointing out that the school and authorities were ready to go.
This is really just one sentence but I quoted it in halves because I think these are BOTH extremely good points.
No one should confuse the fact that Sarkeesian felt forced to cancel; the school did not force her to cancel. ALSO no one should be be under the misapprehension that she claims the school forced her to cancel. She made an understandable request that the school could not oblige.
"I was forced not to eat lunch by a poorly constructed ham sandwich" vs "I chose not to eat lunch due to a poorly constructed ham sandwich" both statements are kind of absurd, I just prefer the second one because what's really being communicated is that someone's culinary standards are not being met, not some malevolent sandwich is forcing someone to starve. I've seen plenty of articles that went with the "anita chose to cancel due to threat" and I much prefer the accuracy of going that route.
I hope they catch the individual who made the threat. With that said, if we assume the threat is genuine and an individual intended to do exactly what they claimed in the letter, why make the threat at all? Why not simply attempt the attack/massacre? What does it say the the school and authorities still intended to allow the event in spite of the specific nature of the threat?
Sigvatr wrote: The fact is that Anita purposefully provokes negative emotional responses. Hands down. If you think that this is misognistic, then you let your emotions, again, blind your clear sight.
It's also worth pointing out that she just assumes all anonymous commentors ranging from the rude/inappropriate ones all the way up to the individuals sending actual threats along with negative comments are men.
Crablezworth wrote: What does it say the the school and authorities still intended to allow the event in spite of the specific nature of the threat?
To be fair, it's entirely her choice whether to attend and hold the speech or not. You should not be forced or pressured to give a speech when you do not feel safe.
Professionalism is another question, though. Her behavior is similar that of someone new to giving speeches and she already has some experience.
Crablezworth wrote: What does it say the the school and authorities still intended to allow the event in spite of the specific nature of the threat?
To be fair, it's entirely her choice whether to attend and hold the speech or not. You should not be forced or pressured to give a speech when you do not feel safe.
Professionalism is another question, though. Her behavior is similar that of someone new to giving speeches and she already has some experience.
I'm not disputing that, she's free to decide if the level of security meets her standards.
Sigvatr wrote: She WANTS (negative) emotional responses. Those CAN include death threats. Does that mean that she WANTS those? Nope.
Here we are again -- where do you draw the line between negative reactions she wants and negative reactions she doesn't want?
And what makes you think you get to draw that line? On what basis do you draw it?
You blame Sarkeesian for receiving negative reactions (including death threats). You say she causes them -AND- you say she wants them (except maybe not the death threats, you get to draw a line for her on that for some reason).
You blame Sarkeesian for receiving negative reactions (including death threats). You say she causes them -AND- you say she wants them (except maybe not the death threats, you get to draw a line for her on that for some reason).
I don't think it's entirely impossible that she has positively benefited from negative online reaction. I can't speak to anita "wanting" threats, however from my perspective she kinda needs threats to stay relevant. That's my honest objective assessment, heroes need villains and it's no justification to threaten, really if anything it just points out that those threatening her are basically enabling her to stay in the spotlight and be considered relevant.
This is a good point. I would phrase it as: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.
This is a good point. I would phrase it as: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.
I still have yet to understand how misogyny is the primary motivation here, especially seeing as it's pretty much always something one is inferring. That's the whitewash side of all of this, it's like saying people take issue with bill maher or sam harris because they hate men, could never possibly be a reaction to what they have to say or the broad brushes they seem to favor.
In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.
This is a good point. I would phrase it as: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.
but there you go again,
stating that specific, individual cases of harrasment/threats is proof of widespread misogyny in the culture as a whole.
You keep stating that these specific individuals and their threats are representative of gaming and western culture as a whole.
you seem to comprehend that the actions of a few militant feminists does not define the culture as a whole, yet you seem unable to grasp how a few chauvanists dont describe the culture as a whole either.
I could easily say the same thing about misandry and mens groups
"if there was no misandy in Western culture more generally, nothing mens groups say would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats"
but would you agree with that statement? if not, why?
please answer:
why are the individuals who threatened anita, representitive of the cultre as a whole, when individuals who threaten mens groups are not representing the culture as a whole?
easysauce wrote: stating that specific, individual cases of harrasment/threats is proof of widespread misogyny in the culture as a whole
Sarkeesian has been the subject of sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time. And a lot of the abuse directed at her has been explicitly sexist and misogynistic. I believe this does indeed reflect that there are misogynistic attitudes at work in our society.
Easysauce, I have already explained to you that I have never claimed there are no misadric attitudes in our society.
Crablezworth wrote: I still have yet to understand how misogyny is the primary motivation here
then in the same post say this:
Crablezworth wrote: In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.
You just defined misogyny. If you aren't sure here are three separate definitions from three different sources.
Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.
noun
1.
a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.
n.
One who hates women.
adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
stanman wrote: In their statements the college did state they were taking extra precautions, Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms. She felt that despite the college adding extra security that it still did not meet her expectations of safety so she cancelled. . .Eagerly awaits Manchu's claim that I'm misreading things.
Manchu wrote: That would be charitable. What we can certainly say is that you conclusions have no basis in the evidence.
Yup, absolutely no basis in the evidence whatsoever. Except for Anita's Tweets of course
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.
Crablezworth wrote: I still have yet to understand how misogyny is the primary motivation here
then in the same post say this:
Crablezworth wrote: In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.
You just defined misogyny. If you aren't sure here are three separate definitions from three different sources.
Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.
noun
1.
a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.
n.
One who hates women.
adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
If you dislike a particular women, for a reason other than her gender, is that misogynist?
Oh and the first quote is in reference to the negativity she receives, not the specific threat which is the topic of this thread. Mind you it was a long sentance, so by all means quote me out of context.
Manchu wrote: Correct, mostly. Here's an important point: the person who sent the threat identified themselves as a misogynist by reference to the 1989 massacre. They did not identify themselves as crazy or a troll.
Given that the threat was not viewed as credible can we still put faith in the claim that the person who issued it was in fact a misogynist? If I, as a pasty white Irish person, identify as a Japanese Samurai does that make it so or does it have to go beyond a mere claim?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Yup, absolutely no basis in the evidence whatsoever. Except for Anita's Tweets of course
You think this
Feminist Frequency @femfreq To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.
says the same thing as this?
stanman wrote: Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Given that the threat was not viewed as credible can we still put faith in the claim that the person who issued it was in fact a misogynist?
Yes.
EDIT - almost got me there - it's another loaded question: You understand that we can't know "in fact" anything about the motivations of the person who sent the threat at this point because we don't know who the person is. We only know that they identified their own motivations as misogynistic.
Manchu wrote: No one should confuse the fact that Sarkeesian felt forced to cancel; the school did not force her to cancel. ALSO no one should be be under the misapprehension that she claims the school forced her to cancel. She made an understandable request that the school could not oblige.
I don't recall anyone seriously advancing the claim that the school caused her to cancel as an argument
If that was the context it failed miserably on all fronts. Phrasing something poorly then shouting "out of context!" doesn't really work when something is not really put into proper context to begin with.
Crablezworth wrote: If you dislike a particular women, for a reason other than her gender, is that misogynist?
Did you not read the threat? It wasn't aimed at just her.
My question has nothing to do with the incredibly specific threat I've already said was fair to infer "misogyny" from. What are you even debating?
The question you quoted is asking, in general, why would one assume that individuals who have a bone to pick with anita's politics/ideology fear or hate women?
Crablezworth wrote: In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.
I don't like anita sarkeesian, does that make me a misogynist?
If that was the context it failed miserably on all fronts. Phrasing something poorly then shouting "out of context!" doesn't really work when something is not really put into proper context to begin with.
You'd probably have to finish the sentance to understand the point it's making, I know, it's tough.
easysauce wrote: stating that specific, individual cases of harrasment/threats is proof of widespread misogyny in the culture as a whole
Sarkeesian has been the subject of sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time. And a lot of the abuse directed at her has been explicitly sexist and misogynistic. I believe this does indeed reflect that there are misogynistic attitudes at work in our society.
Easysauce, I have already explained to you that I have never claimed there are no misadric attitudes in our society.
i dont bring up misandry to assert you think there isnt any,
I bring it up because you would never use the example of one man being harrased and threatened (even repeatedly) as an indicator for the culture as a whole.
when you say society/cullture in general thats quite a different scope this last post where its just calling out attitudes (i presume you now mean of individuals, not society/culture in general, which implies everyone)
so do you mean its just "elements" within the culture (ie individuals) not the culture itself then when you call out the whole culture/society?
if you are going to claim that because *some* or a *lot* individuals threaten her mysogenistically, constantly, is indicative of widespread issues in society/culture,
then I can counter claim that "since the majority (some, or a lot) of people are either supporting or not actually threatening her, is a sign that society/culture is actually one that loves/accepts women."
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Yup, absolutely no basis in the evidence whatsoever. Except for Anita's Tweets of course
You think this
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.
says the same thing as this?
stanman wrote: Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms.
Your selective quoting does you a dis-service as you. Please address what I said, and underlined. Not what you have misrepresented.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Given that the threat was not viewed as credible can we still put faith in the claim that the person who issued it was in fact a misogynist?
Yes.
EDIT - almost got me there - it's another loaded question: You understand that we can't know "in fact" anything about the motivations of the person who sent the threat at this point because we don't know who the person is. We only know that they identified their own motivations as misogynistic.
It is not a loaded question. It is a question to try and clarify the inherent contradiction in your post. You claim on the one hand that we don't know enough about their motivations because we don't know who sent it, or what their intentions were, but somehow we know enough to say that they are misogynist based on this same lack of evidence and not knowing who sent the threat
Manchu wrote: Here we are again -- where do you draw the line between negative reactions she wants and negative reactions she doesn't want?
Still not getting the difference. She wants negative emotional attention as she provokes people - and that's the entire aim of someone who provokes others. She (likely) doesn't want all the offensive responses she gets, including death threats.
And what makes you think you get to draw that line? On what basis do you draw it?
I don't draw any line here. If you actually read my posts, you'd have realized that a few pages (!) ago, I already said that all of those things I mentioned aren't appropriate reactions. You merely insist on the death threats because you desperately try to make a point and attempt to demonize me / convince by using purely emotional reasoning. This, fortunately, only works on a select bit of people, however.
easysauce wrote: you would never use the example of one man being harrased and threatened (even repeatedly) as an indicator for the culture as a whole
Sure I would, if the motivation for the harassment and threats was misandric.
thats just bad reasoning then
by your own logic, since the vast majority of people are supportive of anita (or at least neutral) that should be an indicator that sociaty/culture as a whole loves women.
if a few people get to determine society/culture as a whole, despite the majority not holding their views, thats a completly backwards way of defining culture/society...
its akin to calling a cherry pie, with two raisens in it a "raisen pie",
our cuture is defined by the majority/prevailent ideas, not the marginalized ones.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Your selective quoting does you a dis-service as you.
As I what? Anyway, I told stanman his conclusion that Sarkeesian canceled the events because she disagreed with people having the right to carry conceal had no basis in fact. It didn't and it doesn't.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: but somehow we know enough to say that they are misogynist based on this same lack of evidence and not knowing who sent the threat
I said the person who sent the letter identified their own motive as misogyny. Because they threatened to imitate another massacre that was motivated by misogyny. This is a simple point.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The same threat that you keep claiming is misogynistic in spite of its obvious lack of credibility
What does the credibility of a threat have to do with whether it is misogynistic?
Manchu wrote: Sarkeesian has been the subject of sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time. And a lot of the abuse directed at her has been explicitly sexist and misogynistic.
Discussion 101: If you use 1 singular case as an example to make a general statement, you're failing to make a point.
easysauce wrote: by your own logic, since the vast majority of people are supportive of anita (or at least neutral) that should be an indicator that sociaty/culture as a whole loves women
As I have explained to you several times, that is not my logic.
Manchu wrote: sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time
We've also discussed the 1989 massacre referenced in the threat as well as Elliot Rodger's killing spree ITT. We have also discussed the misogynistic "she asked for it" argument that you and others have repeatedly made ITT.
Manchu before you ninjaed with an edit you suggested that Anita made a reasonable request for security that wasn't met, since when are security pat downs a "reasonable" request for those attending a low level college lecture?
I've been to a number of lectures where the speaker had death threats tossed at them prior to the event, yet had no such screenings. At what point do we place the speaker behind bullet proof glass, bring in bomb sniffing dogs and strip search every attendant?
Manchu wrote: sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time
You claim that the only reason for why people hate her is her gender. Meeep, wrong. Again, you jump to wrong conclusions.
Your train of thought:
See that she is female => "[Female Dog]!" => "MISOGNY!"
How it most likely works:
Fall to her provocation => Get angry => "[Female Dog]!" => Not actual misogny. Unless you want to say that "Son of a [Female Dog]!" is misandristic. Do you?
We have also discussed the misogynistic "she asked for it" argument that you and others have repeatedly made ITT.
So you chose to keep downplaying rape / rape victims. Thumbs up, stay classy.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Your selective quoting does you a dis-service as you.
As I what? Anyway, I told stanman his conclusion that Sarkeesian canceled the events because she disagreed with people having the right to carry conceal had no basis in fact. It didn't and it doesn't.
We're now pointing out errors in editing now? Remind me, is that a step above or below correcting someone's grammar?
You mis-quoted and mis-represented my argument, and now you are attempting to avoid it all together because the evidence from Anita herself shows that you are wrong
Dreadclaw69 wrote: but somehow we know enough to say that they are misogynist based on this same lack of evidence and not knowing who sent the threat
I said the person who sent the letter identified their own motive as misogyny. Because they threatened to imitate another massacre that was motivated by misogyny. This is a simple point.
The threat was not credible. That is the simple point.
Just because someone self identifies as something does not make it so. That is the simple point
So if the threat to imitate a misogynistic massacre is in no way credible then why do you keep putting such faith in something that has been debunked?
stanman wrote: Manchu before you ninjaed with an edit you suggested that Anita made a reasonable request for security that wasn't met
I edited the word "reasonable" to "understandable" to avoid confusing the issue about what the law, which I wasn't talking about, and her point of view as someone who just received a death threat, which is what I was talking about. I made this change because I anticipated the word "reasonable" would be confusing and your question proves I was correct.
Manchu wrote: Calling out your misogyny is not downplaying rape and rape victims.
I precisely told you why you are now willfully (!!) disrespecting rape victims, it's not because you make false claims because you can't defend your point with proper reasoning.
easysauce wrote: by your own logic, since the vast majority of people are supportive of anita (or at least neutral) that should be an indicator that sociaty/culture as a whole loves women
As I have explained to you several times, that is not my logic.
you say its not your logic,
but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole.
There is a disconnect there...
are the (possibly numerous) individuals, making mysogynistic threats to anita, indicators of issues in sociaty/culture as a whole?
I think you are saying "yes", would that be correct?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: now you are attempting to avoid it all together because the evidence from Anita herself shows that you are wrong
I argued that there was no evidence Sarkeesian canceled her appearance because she disagreed with the students' right to carry concealed. You have offered no evidence from any source proving that she canceled for that reason.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So if the threat to imitate a misogynistic massacre is in no way credible then why do you keep putting such faith in something that has been debunked?
No one has proved the threat was a hoax. The person who made the threat identified their motive as misogynistic. That has not been debunked.
easysauce wrote: but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole
No. I say it reflects that there are misogynistic attitudes in society.
Manchu wrote: Calling out your misogyny is not downplaying rape and rape victims.
I precisely told you why you are now willfully (!!) disrespecting rape victims, it's not because you make false claims because you can't defend your point with proper reasoning.
You blame the person who received the misogynistic threat for receiving it.
I am calling out your misogyny. Saying that is "disrespecting rape victims" is almost as shameful as blaming a person threatened with murder.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Your selective quoting does you a dis-service as you.
As I what? Anyway, I told stanman his conclusion that Sarkeesian canceled the events because she disagreed with people having the right to carry conceal had no basis in fact. It didn't and it doesn't
For somebody that loves to nit-pick apart quotes you seem to be selectively ignoring what Anita's own twitter posts stated.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.
When university officials told Sarkeesian they could not stop concealed-weapon permit carriers from packing their handguns into the room where she was going to speak, Sarkeesian called it off and left town.
Backpacks would not have been allowed into the Taggert Student Center Auditorium, but Sarkeesian said USU declined to pat down students or post metal detectors at the doors.
So in Anita's own words she chose not to attend because people might be exercising their rights to legally carry a firearm. It's not my random made up conclusion, but from direct statements made by Anita herself as to why she decided not to attend. The three quotes above are directly from Anita's account. Either your are ignoring her statements to fit your own agenda, or it flew over you head in which case I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
easysauce wrote: but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole
No.
ok, so if you do not *mean* its indicative of society/culture as a whole,
Manchu wrote: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.
then why say things like the above, as it factually, and literally, means you dont think she would be receiveing these threats if "if there was no misogyny in video games and western culture more generally"
you yourself said it applies to culture/society in general, hence why I think thats what you meant...
it seems like there is a huge disconnect between what you are saying, what you think it means, and what it literally means.
I am calling out your misogyny. Saying that is "disrespecting rape victims" is almost as shameful as blaming a person threatened with murder.
I'm fine with it. I told you that it's your decision and you chose to downplay rape and insult rape victims. If showing up your logical fallacies makes you resort to calling me a misognist, then fine, that's ok to me. I don't want to be affiliated with people who share such a shocking attitude to begin with.
stanman wrote: They're both the same, students might be armed which is protected by state law, a situation she didn't agree with so she canceled.
She had been threatened with murder if she went to this event. She wanted the people attending not to be armed with guns. She did not say she canceled because she disagrees with the laws allowing them to carry conceal.
stanman wrote: she chose not to attend because people might be exercising their rights to legally carry a firearm
This is a new argument. Here's your original one, that I said had no basis in fact:
stanman wrote: Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms.
They're both the same, students might be armed which is protected by state law, a situation she didn't agree with so she canceled.
From my very rudimentary understanding of this (forgive me if I'm mistaken) police in utah enforce the law of their state and as such could not prevent people from attending with firearms they are permitted to carry.
Crablezworth wrote: From my very rudimentary understanding of this (forgive me if I'm mistaken) police in utah enforce the law of their state and as such could not prevent people from attending with firearms they are permitted to carry.
That's my understanding as well. They could not legally comply with her request.
stanman wrote: They're both the same, students might be armed which is protected by state law, a situation she didn't agree with so she canceled.
She had been threatened with murder if she went to this event. She wanted the people attending not to be armed with guns. She did not say she canceled because she disagrees with the laws allowing them to carry conceal.
She along with any feminist in attendance was threatened. What if one of the individuals who planned to attend identified as a feminist and wanted to protect themselves with their legally owned firearm, is that bad?
Crablezworth wrote: From my very rudimentary understanding of this (forgive me if I'm mistaken) police in utah enforce the law of their state and as such could not prevent people from attending with firearms they are permitted to carry.
That's my understanding as well. They could not legally comply with her request.
Small distinction but it seems anita claimed police would not, rather than could not.
"Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches. "
Crablezworth wrote: What if one of the individuals who planned to attend identified as a feminist and wanted to protect themselves with their legally owned firearm, is that bad?
So FYI I am not opposed to carry conceal laws but this isn't a thread about gun control.
On topic, yeah as far as I can tell she did not want anyone there to be armed except for security/police. I think that is a perfectly understandable position to take.
On topic, yeah as far as I can tell she did not want anyone there to be armed except for security/police. I think that is a perfectly understandable position to take.
As a non-American, isn't that basically asking to give up a fundamental right?
Sigvatr wrote: As a non-American, isn't that basically asking to give up a fundamental right?
Carry conceal is not actually a constitutional right (is that what you mean by fundmental?) although it is of course premised on one, the right to privately own (some kinds of) firearms (under certain conditions). Where you can carry (openly or concealed) is a different matter. You cannot carry firearms into most government buildings in many states, for example.
So again -- while this is not a gun thread -- I think the point is that Sarkeesian's request is not absolutely far-fetched but it seems that the university and police could not in this instance comply because of state law.
easysauce wrote: but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole
No.
ok, so if you do not *mean* its indicative of society/culture as a whole,
Manchu wrote: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.
then why say things like the above, as it factually, and literally, means you dont think she would be receiving these threats if "if there was no misogyny in video games and western culture more generally"
you yourself said it applies to culture/society in general, hence why I think thats what you meant...
it seems like there is a huge disconnect between what you are saying, what you think it means, and what it literally means.
still dont see how you can make broad claims as above yet not be making broad claims manchu
It is rather fascinating to watch the forum warfare having evolved into Manchu 1v5ing.
I have seen my own views on feminism develop as I have watched various videos and arguments here, but ultimately I agree more with Melissia and Manchu than with Sigvatr/Dreadclaw/easysauce/stanman/HBMC/Crablezworth.
nomotog wrote: Not too be too much of a buzz kill, but agreeing that death threats are bad isn't really that hard.
Considering how many people seen to casually make them or imply that they are justified around the web, I'd say it doesn't hurt to point out that almost all Dakkanauts agree death threats are not acceptable/justified.
nomotog wrote: Not too be too much of a buzz kill, but agreeing that death threats are bad isn't really that hard.
Considering how many people seen to casually make them or imply that they are justified around the web, I'd say it doesn't hurt to point out that almost all Dakkanauts agree death threats are not acceptable/justified.
I don't think anyone in this thread has suported the use of death threats against Sarkeesian...
Manchu wrote: There is a lot of disagreement but I think there is still at least some common ground:
Death threats are unacceptable no matter who they are directed at or why.
And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.
Indeed, and that is the most important part.
Edit: I just found a great video on the topic of feminism. Now to just wait for a good time to link it - I wonder what people would say about it.
Check out Factual Feminist if you haven't yet. Reasonable claims, wide knowledge and..well..relies on facts. I liker her way of talking. Not for our resident Anita fanboys, though - FF is about facts ;D
Manchu wrote: There is a lot of disagreement but I think there is still at least some common ground:
Death threats are unacceptable no matter who they are directed at or why.
And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.
Indeed, and that is the most important part.
Edit: I just found a great video on the topic of feminism. Now to just wait for a good time to link it - I wonder what people would say about it.
Check out Factual Feminist if you haven't yet. Reasonable claims, wide knowledge and..well..relies on facts. I liker her way of talking. Not for our resident Anita fanboys, though - FF is about facts ;D
Attitudes like yours is exactly why I am so cautious. You have more passive-agressiveness stuffed into your post than in the average Sverigedemokraterna political manifesto.
Spoiler:
Look at this if you'd like to have a look at my views on feminism, basically. This guy is rather agreeable. Warning, possibly NSFW as he talks a lot about porn, hence spoilered (it's also rather OT). It's in Swedish but there are english subtitles on youtube.
).
thats a bit harsh.
