So.. I'm posting this thread in video games, and then immediately reporting my own thread. I'm not 100% sure if this belongs in video games, or the OT, or if this is just too hot on the heels of the last thread that was about women & video games that was instalocked. This is such an escalation that I think it's sort of newsworthy but I understand if it's the latter.
'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance By Adi Robertson on October 14, 2014 07:09 pm
Anita Sarkeesian, creator of the popular Tropes vs. Women video series, is at the center of yet another death threat. The Standard Examiner reports that the director of Utah State University's Center for Women and Gender, along with several other people, received an email promising a mass shooting if they didn't cancel a speaking engagement for Sarkeesian, who was scheduled to talk at the center on Wednesday morning. Sarkeesian later announced on Twitter that she had been forced to cancel the appearance because of insufficient police protection against concealed weapons. A member of the Center for Women and Gender confirmed to The Verge that the threat was real, although she and campus police declined to provide more details.
THE LETTER REFERENCES THE DEADLY 'MONTREAL MASSACRE' OF 1989
The Standard-Examiner has printed what it says are excerpts from the letter, in which the unknown author (who claims to be a Utah State student) claims to have "a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." More specifically, they threatened to carry out a "Montreal Massacre-style attack" against Sarkeesian and anyone who attended the talk. "Feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge," reads the email. The Montreal Massacre, carried out in December of 1989, was a mass shooting directed at engineering students in Montreal's École Polytechnique. The killer, who also claimed that his life had been ruined by feminists, singled out women and murdered 14 before killing himself. Today, its anniversary is commemorated in Canada as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
The threat is far from the first directed at Sarkeesian and anyone around her. Organizers of the Game Developers Choice Awards confirmed in September that they had received an email in which an anonymous critic threatened to bomb the ceremony if they did not revoke an award they were giving to Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian herself has been the subject of a virtually nonstop harassment campaign since 2012, and in August, she called the police and left home because of very specific and violent death threats.
Nor is she the only woman in games to have been harassed over the past three months. Game developer Zoe Quinn left home in August after an ex-boyfriend posted details of their relationship online, implying (intentionally or not) that she had started romantic relationships to get good press coverage. While these claims were debunked almost immediately, she's remained a major figure in the "Gamergate" controversy that's taken over large parts of the gaming community. Gamergate, a loose movement whose members say they want stricter ethics policies for journalists and an end to "political correctness" in games writing, has nonetheless fostered a group of angry trolls who have prompted some people to leave the industry because of harassment. Most recently, game developer Brianna Wu left home after a series of violent threats to both her and her husband, apparently because she had tweeted images making fun of Gamergate. These messages have included personal details like addresses and the names of family members.
Some members of Gamergate have accused women in games of going so far as to fake threats in order to get attention, or others of carrying out "false flag" attacks to damage the movement's reputation. But a police spokesperson confirmed that Sarkeesian had filed a report with them in August, saying that the case had been referred to the FBI (which neither confirms nor denies that it is investigating it.) Earlier in the summer, the FBI met with the International Game Developers Association to address online harassment of developers, whether as a result of political differences or simply changing a game's balance. So far, none of the messages to Sarkeesian and others have been acted upon, but this is unlikely to be the last time someone on the internet threatens to murder women who make or talk about video games — and anyone who supports them.
More violence by misogynists whom are mad at women for having opinions-- we've had a number of spree shooters motivated by hatred of women in the past few years, so I'm not surprised they're taking it quite seriously. Threats are nothing new, sadly-- I've had threats directed at me, too... not surprised at all.
Sadly, a lot of people make excuses for this kind of violence or threats thereof, which makes them little better than the ones actually committing it in the end.
Let's go with OT, and we'll be keeping a weather eye on this thread. This is the warning, any over the line behaviour of any kind from either side or an unrelated individual gets the thread locked and warnings given out
I know at some points it was alleged that some of these calls\threats were fake, plants to rouse sympathy. I for one believe they were all genuine but either way, I think the attention a mass shooting threat garners will root that out pretty quickly were that the case.
Ouze wrote: I know at some points it was alleged that some of these calls\threats were fake, plants to rouse sympathy. I for one believe they were all genuine but either way, I think the attention a mass shooting threat garners will root that out pretty quickly were that the case.
I'd bet that the threats were genuine, as in they came from someone with real malicious intent towards Ms. Sarkeesian, but that they were also fake, as in if she had gone ahead with her schedule, no shooting spree would have occurred.
Ouze wrote: I know at some points it was alleged that some of these calls\threats were fake, plants to rouse sympathy. I for one believe they were all genuine but either way, I think the attention a mass shooting threat garners will root that out pretty quickly were that the case.
I'd bet that the threats were genuine, as in they came from someone with real malicious intent towards Ms. Sarkeesian, but that they were also fake, as in if she had gone ahead with her schedule, no shooting spree would have occurred.
I too am inclined to believe that this is most definitely the case.
Ouze wrote: I know at some points it was alleged that some of these calls\threats were fake, plants to rouse sympathy. I for one believe they were all genuine but either way, I think the attention a mass shooting threat garners will root that out pretty quickly were that the case.
I'd bet that the threats were genuine, as in they came from someone with real malicious intent towards Ms. Sarkeesian, but that they were also fake, as in if she had gone ahead with her schedule, no shooting spree would have occurred.
I too am inclined to believe that this is most definitely the case.
That's my read. It could be legit, trolling, or a false flag deal. As far as I can tell there is about the same amount of evidence for any of those possibilities. And I love the continuing one sided coverage of the twitter tag that shall not be named.
Take a stand, on anything, or become vocal/popular enough, and you are guaranteed death threats regardless of your gender.
the fact is, and its a sad, sad fact, is that we have enough ingrained cultural mysogeny, and misandry to go around.
There was a recent conference of a mens group in Detroit that received similar death threats, but instead of cancel, they raised more money to cover the additional security instead.
the police didnt step in free of charge for the mens group, it seems this lady in the OP expected them to step in free of charge for hers.
What was that about damsels in distress again?
Girls like Karen Straughan have opinions, and get death threats all the time because she dares to have the opinion that misandry exists in a large, and socially acceptable fashion.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I give it 50/50 between trolling and Sarkeesian making more false threats. Gotta keep the cash rolling in.
On the one hand, I'm with you... As I believe the previous threats via that Twitter "screen shot" were completely fake, and completely done up for the purpose of marketing and creating a "scandal"
This however.... I dunno. Depending on the source, if they even trace it, could be more of the same, but I'd probably put it more at like, 70/30 genuine?? 60/40 maybe?
Whether it's genuine or not, it obviously has to be taken seriously by the authorities..
Then again, who really wants to go to Utah?? That there is Mormon country, and that is a whole brand of crazy all on its own
It's possible that the threat could be a genuine threat from some beta misogynist, but it's equally likely that it was just some bored 4chanite who knew he could get away with it.
Until we see some actual details beyond "guy calls in threats" I don't see how this can even be classified as news. It's really just confirmation-bias bait.
Ouze wrote: I know at some points it was alleged that some of these calls\threats were fake, plants to rouse sympathy. I for one believe they were all genuine but either way, I think the attention a mass shooting threat garners will root that out pretty quickly were that the case.
I'd bet that the threats were genuine, as in they came from someone with real malicious intent towards Ms. Sarkeesian, but that they were also fake, as in if she had gone ahead with her schedule, no shooting spree would have occurred.
I too am inclined to believe that this is most definitely the case.
I think that is how it is with most threats, but you know you try and take them all seriously just in case they are real. I recall a few bomb threats or shooting threats that shut down the schools.
One bit I found talked about open carry laws and that they couldn't ban guns? That sounded kind of silly so I don't know if it is true?
cincydooley wrote: Is there like, a readers digest version of why this lady is important?
In a strange way antia is mostly important because she was threatened. I mean it's not to say that she never existed before then it's just not may people watched her video about Christmas songs with creepy subtext, but then she had a kickstarter project that attracted a massive amount of hate from game fans. That hate then attracted a lot of counter hate. Then basically that dynamic has really overshadowed anything she has done since. It is rarely about what she is saying, but the way people react to what she is saying.
Sining wrote: I don't think anyone wants this to happen, pro GG, anti GG, pro Anita or anti Anita. Well, except maybe the crazy person who sent in this threat.
With that being said, hope they catch the guy who sent in the threat. Whether he intended to do so or not, it's still a criminal offense.
I don't think this is a GG thing. It seems more a general feminist hate thing.
cincydooley wrote: Is there like, a readers digest version of why this lady is important?
She had the temerity to have an opinion on feminist representation in video games which drove some people indiscriminately insane. She also asked for a small amount of money on KS ($6000) to fund a series about it and got lots of threats which boosted the money higher, which made the people throwing fits complain even more. In truth she doesn't say anything all that unexpected but because she put herself out there she became a lightning rod of internet hate. Even from this thread you can see some of the goofiness surrounding the mole hill.
Condensed version? She figured out how to ride a one trick pony into money via kickstarter. Outside of that she's a complete waste of time to listen to,
The more neutral version is Anita is a games culture critic. Not a game critic. A game culture critic, who likes to critic the portrayal of women in games and has arguments that a lot of people disagree with, including many women. However, she also has many supporters as well.
In the past she got 120k on KS for promising to produce some videos, and she's way over the due date on those videos. She also has a patreon account that she likes to mention every now and then
The more neutral version is Anita is a games culture critic. Not a game critic. A game culture critic, who likes to critic the portrayal of women in games and has arguments that a lot of people disagree with, including many women. However, she also has many supporters as well.
In the past she got 120k on KS for promising to produce some videos, and she's way over the due date on those videos. She also has a patreon account that she likes to mention every now and then
(This sentiment maybe bugs me more then it should.) She isn't really about games. I mean at least not originally. She existed before that. She made videos before she made her kickstarter. The game stuff isn't even it's own thing. It's part of a lager series she has called tropes Vs women.
cincydooley wrote: Is there like, a readers digest version of why this lady is important?
She had the temerity to have an opinion on feminist representation in video games which drove some people indiscriminately insane. She also asked for a small amount of money on KS ($6000) to fund a series about it and got lots of threats which boosted the money higher, which made the people throwing fits complain even more. In truth she doesn't say anything all that unexpected but because she put herself out there she became a lightning rod of internet hate. Even from this thread you can see some of the goofiness surrounding the mole hill.
To be fair she isn't entirely free of fault. She's lied in many ways from using let's plays from other people despite claims of playing the games herself for recording to lying that she likes games when she has no interest in them. More significantly, she has specifically twisted segments of information in various ways to her favor in manipulative manners (for example her allegation that Hit an rewards you for killing female prostitutes and then drag them around or her claim that fallout is abusing dead bodies of women despite that being possible for both sexes and various other flaws). It's also very likely she's trying to ride out the drama and has even falsified some of the claims or over exaggerated some of them.
Not to say I don't agree with the general premise of much of it and, let us be honest, most games don't have all that amazing characters or stories with a tendency to lazy characters, dialogue, and stories held up more because of their gameplay. That and the whole advertisement of games by Aneta is honestly spot on. Overall, it's the standard storm of the Internet where people go wild in a blind mass pillaging of everything and everybody where SJW crawl out of everywhere, feminists both good and bad, MRA jump out, and people get polarized while trolls and ragers and normally decent people start doing each other and sending baseless death threats. Humanity is amazing.
All that said, despite the fact that this is standard procedure for the internet, it is still irritating that we can be so petty. 50/50 as per usual with an assumption it is a baseless threat which is already bad enough. On the off chance that it is true, revolting. Either way it should be looked into as stuff like that whilst unlikely to occur should never be just acceptable to happen because of the inherent risk it might occur.
The thing that I will never fully understand about any of this is:
Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
I get it that most of this really isn't about video games; the games and "gaming culture" (those are sarcastic quotes, by the way) are just being used as an outlet by people on both "sides."
Goddammit, I miss the pre-Internet days when our source of video game information was Nintendo Power and GamePro and people weren't going on Twitter rants about "video game journalism ethics" and threatening to kill each other.
Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
I get it that most of this really isn't about video games; the games and "gaming culture" (those are sarcastic quotes, by the way) are just being used as an outlet by people on both "sides."
Goddammit, I miss the pre-Internet days when our source of video game information was Nintendo Power and GamePro and people weren't going on Twitter rants about "video game journalism ethics" and threatening to kill each other.
That's the fun part about the internet. You can't even be sure that people do care! For all we know, 90% of these rants are made up by people so they can be offended by or rail against them. There's no real way to know!
Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
I get it that most of this really isn't about video games; the games and "gaming culture" (those are sarcastic quotes, by the way) are just being used as an outlet by people on both "sides."
Goddammit, I miss the pre-Internet days when our source of video game information was Nintendo Power and GamePro and people weren't going on Twitter rants about "video game journalism ethics" and threatening to kill each other.
That's the fun part about the internet. You can't even be sure that people do care! For all we know, 90% of these rants are made up by people so they can be offended by or rail against them. There's no real way to know!
StarTrotter wrote: ...to lying that she likes games when she has no interest in them.
Yay! This thing again! You got any proof to back up the assertion? (hint: a single video from four years ago, the first time she played games, isn't really that good as evidence that she hates video games)
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
Because video games apparently aren't going away anytime soon and huge part of the culture, both East and West. It isn't as if there hasn't be interest in film, music, television, painting, novels, comics ect. It would be stranger if people didn't care or take notice.
StarTrotter wrote: ...to lying that she likes games when she has no interest in them.
Yay! This thing again! You got any proof to back up the assertion? (hint: a single video from four years ago, the first time she played games, isn't really that good as evidence that she hates video games)
Well, see not having any interest in video games and hating them are two different things. I would say her not actually producing any evidence that she played any of the games she uses as examples in her videos would be relevant towards showing that she has no interest in video games in and of themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean she hates video games.
My personal guess she hates video games in about the same capacity as a mining concern hates mountains. They don't but they sure have to bust 'em up to make a living.
Guys, the focus is less whether we think Anita is a valid critic or just someone who's shamelessly 'gaming' the system but on the bomb threat. I don't like her but let's just leave it at 'bomb threats are bad mmkay' can we?
The issue appears to be, as it is often represented in any kind of argument, that the extremely small minority of vocal nut jobs represents the majority of reasonable people.
Unfortunately, again as is often the case, those being targeted by these nut jobs are generally quite happy to use those attacks to further their case by painting the reasonable majority with the nut case brush.
Though I do think that the extreme hatred reserved for some of the individuals involved in this issue seems to be originating mostly from America - just from my own (limited) observation of some of the people speaking out on the subject. I am sure that if they elected to take on speaking roles here in the UK they would encounter a much more relaxed atmosphere.
I think any bomb or shooting threat has to be followed up as a matter of principle. Regardless of whether it has been invented by someone on either side it's a serious claim, and the person at the root of it should still be charged with making threats or wasting police time. Even if it's Sarkeesian herself making it up, it should be investigated and its authenticity verified.
Well, the possibilities are what? That it's a genuine threat or that it's merely a PR stunt. Either way I'm sure the police will get it sorted. And, as much as I hate to say this, there is no such thing as bad publicity...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
Because video games apparently aren't going away anytime soon and huge part of the culture, both East and West. It isn't as if there hasn't be interest in film, music, television, painting, novels, comics ect. It would be stranger if people didn't care or take notice.
Perhaps I should have clarified that at bit better because it was a rhetorical question.
Besides there is a huge difference between interest in something (which I have, because I own hundreds of video games from multiple generations) and making it the lens through which you view the entire world (to the point where when you feel someone is "attacking" what you love, you lash out with what is being displayed by the people involved in this controversy). The fact that people are threatening (hollow or nor) to massacre people at a college because someone they don't like is going to speak there is so far beyond ludicrous.
Assuming people are doing so cause they love games and not because they're internet trolls. Or stupid.
And uh, why not? I mean you are on a gaming website and it's kind of strange to go 'why do people feel so strongly about games' on a gaming website like dakka where people can argue endlessly about GW and WH40k don't you think?
Sining wrote: Assuming people are doing so cause they love games and not because they're internet trolls. Or stupid.
And uh, why not? I mean you are on a gaming website and it's kind of strange to go 'why do people feel so strongly about games' on a gaming website like dakka where people can argue endlessly about GW and WH40k don't you think?
Then you aren't understanding the point I was making.
There is a big difference between enjoying something and letting it dominate your life.
So is there some approved list of things people should feel so strongly about then?
And you aren't understanding my point either. You're assuming the person who sent in the bomb threat does it cause he/she likes games and not because they're internet trolls or just psychotic in the first place.
Sining wrote: So is there some approved list of things people should feel so strongly about then?
And you aren't understanding my point either. You're assuming the person who sent in the bomb threat does it cause he/she likes games and not because they're internet trolls or just psychotic in the first place.
You still aren't getting it...
Feeling strongly about something and the kind of ridiculousness going on here (harassment, threats of violence, etc.) are two entirely different things. This entire controversy started because a group of people felt like something they love was under attack and nothing justifies this kind of response.
And yeah, I am going to assume that the person who sent this threatening letter feels pretty strongly about feminism and what Anita represents because all known facts point to that being the case.
Nothing? I'm sure in the span of human experiences, there are events that would make people feel strongly about gaming. But I wasn't aware you were omniscient with the ability to be able straight away be able to tell that NOTHING justifies this kind of response. My fault, I didn't realise I was arguing with a god
SilverMK2 wrote: The issue appears to be, as it is often represented in any kind of argument, that the extremely small minority of vocal nut jobs represents the majority of reasonable people.
Unfortunately, again as is often the case, those being targeted by these nut jobs are generally quite happy to use those attacks to further their case by painting the reasonable majority with the nut case brush.
Though I do think that the extreme hatred reserved for some of the individuals involved in this issue seems to be originating mostly from America - just from my own (limited) observation of some of the people speaking out on the subject. I am sure that if they elected to take on speaking roles here in the UK they would encounter a much more relaxed atmosphere.
What you say about the nut jobs is right, however remember the furore around the suggestion that Jane Austen's portrait should be put on the new £10 note?
Someone is actually doing time right now for threats he issued against the woman who backed the idea.
Perhaps the UK would not be such a relaxed place after all.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I give it 50/50 between trolling and Sarkeesian making more false threats. Gotta keep the cash rolling in.
On the one hand, I'm with you... As I believe the previous threats via that Twitter "screen shot" were completely fake, and completely done up for the purpose of marketing and creating a "scandal"
This however.... I dunno. Depending on the source, if they even trace it, could be more of the same, but I'd probably put it more at like, 70/30 genuine?? 60/40 maybe?
Whether it's genuine or not, it obviously has to be taken seriously by the authorities..
Then again, who really wants to go to Utah?? That there is Mormon country, and that is a whole brand of crazy all on its own
Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
I get it that most of this really isn't about video games; the games and "gaming culture" (those are sarcastic quotes, by the way) are just being used as an outlet by people on both "sides."
Goddammit, I miss the pre-Internet days when our source of video game information was Nintendo Power and GamePro and people weren't going on Twitter rants about "video game journalism ethics" and threatening to kill each other.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry with millions and millions of active participants/employees/consumers across the entire world. I'd say it's pretty darn important to those people, especially the people who do it for a living.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry with millions and millions of active participants/employees/consumers across the entire world. I'd say it's pretty darn important to those people, especially the people who do it for a living.
I think you missed where I later clarified that this was a rhetorical question.
I'm well aware of the scope of the video game industry. It just pains me to see something that use to be "what you do" because "what you are," if that makes sense.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Why the feth do people care this much about video games and "gamer culture?"
Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry with millions and millions of active participants/employees/consumers across the entire world. I'd say it's pretty darn important to those people, especially the people who do it for a living.
I think you missed where I later clarified that this was a rhetorical question.
I'm well aware of the scope of the video game industry. It just pains me to see something that use to be "what you do" because "what you are," if that makes sense.
You mean something that happens naturally in hobbies? We have people arguing over 40k whether or not people are "wargamers" if they don't paint for example.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I give it 50/50 between trolling and Sarkeesian making more false threats. Gotta keep the cash rolling in.
On the one hand, I'm with you... As I believe the previous threats via that Twitter "screen shot" were completely fake, and completely done up for the purpose of marketing and creating a "scandal"
This however.... I dunno. Depending on the source, if they even trace it, could be more of the same, but I'd probably put it more at like, 70/30 genuine?? 60/40 maybe?
Whether it's genuine or not, it obviously has to be taken seriously by the authorities..
Then again, who really wants to go to Utah?? That there is Mormon country, and that is a whole brand of crazy all on its own
cincydooley wrote: Is there like, a readers digest version of why this lady is important?
She had the temerity to have an opinion on feminist representation in video games which drove some people indiscriminately insane. She also asked for a small amount of money on KS ($6000) to fund a series about it and got lots of threats which boosted the money higher, which made the people throwing fits complain even more. In truth she doesn't say anything all that unexpected but because she put herself out there she became a lightning rod of internet hate. Even from this thread you can see some of the goofiness surrounding the mole hill.
Thats it, bomb threat for you!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think any bomb or shooting threat has to be followed up as a matter of principle. Regardless of whether it has been invented by someone on either side it's a serious claim, and the person at the root of it should still be charged with making threats or wasting police time. Even if it's Sarkeesian herself making it up, it should be investigated and its authenticity verified.
Agreed on all points. I've never heard of this person, but you have to take threats seriously. How you handle those threats is a separate issue and should be fully pursued.
I would not have cancelled though. If you give in, then you give in to those who wish to take our First Amendment away.
cincydooley wrote: Is there like, a readers digest version of why this lady is important?
She purposefully mispresents information / games to get attention, publishes poorly researched and extremely biased videos and most likely is a femina...female supremist.
In this case, my bet's on a /b/tard making the call because it's "cool and so funny".
/e: And just for the lesser internet-savvy people out there: /b/tard is not an insult, it's the official term for people hanging out on the 4chan forum /b/.
SilverMK2 wrote: The issue appears to be, as it is often represented in any kind of argument, that the extremely small minority of vocal nut jobs represents the majority of reasonable people.
Unfortunately, again as is often the case, those being targeted by these nut jobs are generally quite happy to use those attacks to further their case by painting the reasonable majority with the nut case brush.
Though I do think that the extreme hatred reserved for some of the individuals involved in this issue seems to be originating mostly from America - just from my own (limited) observation of some of the people speaking out on the subject. I am sure that if they elected to take on speaking roles here in the UK they would encounter a much more relaxed atmosphere.
What you say about the nut jobs is right, however remember the furore around the suggestion that Jane Austen's portrait should be put on the new £10 note?
Someone is actually doing time right now for threats he issued against the woman who backed the idea.
Perhaps the UK would not be such a relaxed place after all.
Frazzled wrote: . If you give in, then you give in to those who wish to take our First Amendment away.
While I agree she should not have cancelled, I also feel compelled to point out that the first amendment does not work this way. The first amendment only restrains the government from interfering with protected speech, not other private citizens (obviously, it's not legal to threaten someone, but that's criminal, not civil).
Exactly. One of them even thinks dragging the bodies of dead women around a level is what players are "meant" to be doing in Hitman.
Part of the attraction of sandbox games is the ability to do things with bits of the environment that do not necessarily directly relate to the linear kind of mission that is more familiar in video games.
From that angle, what players are "meant" to do and what they are allowed to do are actually the same thing.
What I mean is that the dragging of bodies may fulfil a legitimate in game function, such as blocking a door open, but it also allows the player to play around with dead bodies. The blocking function could actually have been fulfilled by some other in game mechanism. The game designers made a choice to use dead bodies rather than say fire extinguishers.
Whether this is misogynistic in intent is a matter of interpretation. The whole game is extremely realistic and violent and the designers no doubt thought the body dragging was in keeping with the overall tone of the piece.
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?
Kilkrazy wrote: Part of the attraction of sandbox games is the ability to do things with bits of the environment that do not necessarily directly relate to the linear kind of mission that is more familiar in video games.
From that angle, what players are "meant" to do and what they are allowed to do are actually the same thing.
Yeah... no. The game actively penalises you for doing that. You're not "meant" to do that at all.
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?
Or it could just be some other jerk using the current media war as an "excuse" to post something that will cause even more chaos. Basically, trolls be everywhere. Especially when social media and anonymity is involved.
Frazzled wrote: . If you give in, then you give in to those who wish to take our First Amendment away.
While I agree she should not have cancelled, I also feel compelled to point out that the first amendment does not work this way. The first amendment only restrains the government from interfering with protected speech, not other private citizens (obviously, it's not legal to threaten someone, but that's criminal, not civil).
technically correct. I'll clarify. If you give in, then you give in to those who wish to take our freedom away.
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.
So much easier getting them from you than trawling through the gak creek that is the video game internet, especially when it comes to an issue like this.
Personally, I don't quite understand why people get so bent out of shape about this. To me, the reason video games (in their, lets be honest about this, VERY short history) are so male dominated now is because, for the first 25 years of its life as a "culture" it was a nearly exclusively male hobby. I don't see that as bad thing.
It's also pretty easy to ascertain that (and I'm generalizing) most, if not all, of the misogynistic hate being thrown at her is coming from a culture of over-entitled man-boys that have either never been told no (by anyone) or have never ventured to actually meet women. It's a real problem.
Personally, I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE women, so I welcome a softer voice or three on the other end of team speak.
Whether this is misogynistic in intent is a matter of interpretation. The whole game is extremely realistic and violent and the designers no doubt thought the body dragging was in keeping with the overall tone of the piece.
I don't believe it is a matter of interpretation.If you can drag both genders bodies around then it cannot be construed as sexist let alone misogynist. In fact i'd argue that the female dead bodies demand equal opportunities for post death involuntary ambulatory opportunities in the work place.
Melissia wrote: More violence by misogynists whom are mad at women for having opinions-- we've had a number of spree shooters motivated by hatred of women in the past few years, so I'm not surprised they're taking it quite seriously. Threats are nothing new, sadly-- I've had threats directed at me, too... not surprised at all.
Sadly, a lot of people make excuses for this kind of violence or threats thereof, which makes them little better than the ones actually committing it in the end.
Hotels hosting men's rights activist events get the same sort of letters from misandrists. Irrational hatred is not the sole domain of men like your kind would like the world to believe.
Yeah I was just googling that. I found an oblique reference on a message board but I haven't dug far enough yet.
The closest I can find is this, and the headline is sort of at odds with the actually story - not unusual for this source. The actual police in that story claim no threats were reported.
Frazzled wrote: technically correct. I'll clarify. If you give in, then you give in to those who wish to take our freedom away.
Yes, On that I agree. I think it's best to stand up to that kind of nonsense.
On the other hand, I don't think I'd be willing to catch a hot one for video games, either. So in her shoes, I probably would have cancelled.
But if you look at the OP, it was the school in Utah that received the threats, not Sarkeesian. Based on that, I would probably suggest that it was either the school, or a mutual decision to cancel the appearance.
I do agree with you, I like video games, and I LOOOVE Freedom of Speech. As VG are a form of 1st Amendment rights, I support and defend them (and by extension the ability of those who dont like them to speak out against them), but this isn't an issue that I'd be willing to take a bullet for either.
Although, if you did get shot "for your beliefs"... say, in the shoulder, or leg (somewhere not vital or serious), imagine the press you could get out of it
Vertrucio wrote: one of my biggest annoyances is when people throw out ideas like this as a false balance
I have no idea what you mean by "false balance."
I will say this: I have no doubt there are people who want to physically hurt Anita Sarkeesian. By contrast, I don't think hardly anyone knows or cares who Paul Elam is.
I will say this: I have no doubt there are people who want to physically hurt Anita Sarkeesian. By contrast, I don't think hardly anyone knows or cares who Paul Elam is.
I'm pretty there are people who want to physically hurt both genders, male and female. I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that somehow Anita is somehow special cause people want to hurt her?
Vertrucio wrote: one of my biggest annoyances is when people throw out ideas like this as a false balance
I have no idea what you mean by "false balance."
I will say this: I have no doubt there are people who want to physically hurt Anita Sarkeesian. By contrast, I don't think hardly anyone knows or cares who Paul Elam is.
Why would someone want to hurt this person? Is this publicly known or something? The only thing I've seen on this thread is she complains about video games.
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?
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
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
I think its pretty silly to claim his shooting rampage wasn't spurned by his misogyny. Unless his manifesto was total BS.
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
I think its pretty silly to claim his shooting rampage wasn't spurned by his misogyny. Unless his manifesto was total BS.
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.
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.
nomotog wrote: I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.
Not being american, I'm not sure but can't you carry guns normally in America?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
nomotog wrote: I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.
Not being american, I'm not sure but can't you carry guns normally in America?
nomotog wrote: I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.
Not being american, I'm not sure but can't you carry guns normally in America?
Generally speaking yes. There are some states that have no laws against open carry of a firearm. some require a permit to legally carry (with ammunition). Most of the time there are legal, "Gun Free Zones" which disallow people from carrying within that area. Elementary, middle and high schools are the prime example of this, as are banks.
Some colleges allow people who are legally "allowed" to carry, to do so on campus, and apparently the venue that Anita was supposed to speak at is one such place.
Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.
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.
As for "spin" -- Women make up roughly half of the population. Just considering the ratio, women are clearly inestimably important to the constitution of society. A point of view that despises women for being women is hostile to society generally as a matter of logic.
The real "victim" in all this is the inability to have a rational discussion or heaven forbid, a debate in this charged environment.
We have media "celebrities" with polarizing viewpoints acting as lightening rods for anti-social fanatics (on either side you choose).
If I criticize Anita's work as being too simplistic and painting things in large strokes I can be labeled as a "hater" since she is in need of support of these personal attacks.
If I agree that there are many instances of what Anita pointed out that are "exactly" as she indicated and are "wrong" = in need of change, am I in the right?
Like with taking on any controversial topic, debate, discussion, finding a middle ground is usually what is needed.
Unfortunately Anita's more radical opponents would like to silence her end of the discussion and she and Zoe have had to prevent comments or discussions of various media they have control over.
The discussions are not going to happen, just a lot of yelling from the soapbox.
Anita was about to be able to get her message out with a university talk, the radicals feeling jealous, threaten her (and possibly meant to back it up with real action) since I guess they had no better means to get press time.
I wonder if Anita signed-on for a debate of what would be the best means of "reforming" the gaming industry: getting at root cause if the threats would have happened?
I am a fan of lively discussion, give and take, passively taking-in an Anita "appearance" is just another one-sided preach-fest which is getting frightfully boring on both sides.
Talizvar wrote: The real "victim" in all this is the inability to have a rational discussion or heaven forbid, a debate in this charged environment.
We have media "celebrities" with polarizing viewpoints acting as lightening rods for anti-social fanatics (on either side you choose).
If I criticize Anita's work as being too simplistic and painting things in large strokes I can be labeled as a "hater" since she is in need of support of these personal attacks.
If I agree that there are many instances of what Anita pointed out that are "exactly" as she indicated and are "wrong" = in need of change, am I in the right?
Like with taking on any controversial topic, debate, discussion, finding a middle ground is usually what is needed.
Unfortunately Anita's more radical opponents would like to silence her end of the discussion and she and Zoe have had to prevent comments or discussions of various media they have control over.
The discussions are not going to happen, just a lot of yelling from the soapbox.
Anita was about to be able to get her message out with a university talk, the radicals feeling jealous, threaten her (and possibly meant to back it up with real action) since I guess they had no better means to get press time.
I wonder if Anita signed-on for a debate of what would be the best means of "reforming" the gaming industry: getting at root cause if the threats would have happened?
I am a fan of lively discussion, give and take, passively taking-in an Anita "appearance" is just another one-sided preach-fest which is getting frightfully boring on both sides.
I think Anita would have an easier time of getting her point across if there wasn't so much bias; even going back to her kickstarter, she was putting the conclusion before the research ("I will show how", instead of "I will see if", for instance). Doing such paints a target on your back faster than most things you can do.
I for one would be incredibly happy if Anita were to stop talking, but not like this. These sorts of means (The threats) are just absolutely despicable.
Before anyone says anything, I want Anita to stop talking because she's wrong, not because she shouldn't have a voice.
If anything, the only reason there is now a public discussion of the issue is because of Anita Sarkeesian. So, kind of have to pick which you prefer. A cluster feth discussion about an issue, or no discussion at all.
Manchu wrote: Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.
Not in the state of Utah! We're freakin' backwards, and it's pathetic.
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that U of U made literally no effort, at all, to try and create a safe environment for their speakers. Just in general. It's Utah. It's legal to carry a concealed weapon pretty much anywhere in the entire state, even on private property you do not own. Frankly I am not surprised there hasn't been a death on a Utah collegiate/university from a controversial speaker yet.
Though now that the cat is out of the bag because this is gaining enough traction nationwide, I'm sure some sycophant will capitalize on it.
Manchu wrote: Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.
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.
As for "spin" -- Women make up roughly half of the population. Just considering the ratio, women are clearly inestimably important to the constitution of society. A point of view that despises women for being women is hostile to society generally as a matter of logic.
Ah yes, because your definition is special isn't it and that's the one that should be followed instead of what's actually written in whats the most commonly used reference guide for the language and the meaning of its words. I guess in the future, when struggling non-english speaking people learn english for the first time, they'll learn of misogyny as the being a hatred for society.
Also point A doesn't follow point B even logically. If it was, it would be the SAME WORD, not different. And you might as well lump misandrist into that new word you're considering making up as well since by that logic, people who hate men hate society as well. Since you're so open to creating new meanings, maybe you want to have the honor of creating this new word
nomotog wrote: I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.
You do know that the majority of US states are now CHL states right? I doubt some angry neckbeard has even heard of a CHL much less have one.
The saddest part of this thread is how dismissive some people have become to the idea of an innocent person (who you may or may not agree with,) being murdered for believing in something and wanting to talk about it.
Manchu wrote: Let's stay on topic please. The details of gun ownership throughout the US is probably best covered in another thread. As far as it concerns this thread, people can be legally limited from entering onto property (private or in some case public) for carrying a firearm.
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.
As for "spin" -- Women make up roughly half of the population. Just considering the ratio, women are clearly inestimably important to the constitution of society. A point of view that despises women for being women is hostile to society generally as a matter of logic.
Ah yes, because your definition is special isn't it and that's the one that should be followed instead of what's actually written in whats the most commonly used reference guide for the language and the meaning of its words. I guess in the future, when struggling non-english speaking people learn english for the first time, they'll learn of misogyny as the being a hatred for society.
Also point A doesn't follow point B even logically. If it was, it would be the SAME WORD, not different. And you might as well lump misandrist into that new word you're considering making up as well since by that logic, people who hate men hate society as well. Since you're so open to creating new meanings, maybe you want to have the honor of creating this new word
Definition does not always equal meaning, and many words have uses outside of the simplistic definitions in the dictionary. Sorry.
And even worse, I recall my professor calling it the 'beginners guide to English', as the language as a whole is so complicated and evolves so frequently that what is contained inside is almost constantly outdated but for what has become static information.
I'm pretty sure all of the people in the thread condemn the threat even if they don't care for the individual
Automatically Appended Next Post: Definition pretty much means meaning. You can have your own definitions, your own special meanings but at some point, when you want to have a rational discourse with someone, there must be a common framework and it does not come when one person has their own special meanings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes, language evolves over time but as I've said, you need a common framework and the idea of misogyny = hatred of society as Manchu would like to claim isn't a widespread idea or even a common idea.
Sining wrote: because your definition is special isn't it
To the extent that I have done so ITT, I have defined misogyny as hatred of women. As a separate matter, I am saying that misogyny is bad for all of society, not just women. The Elliot massacre example is relevant: this is a guy who was angry at everyone in society because he viewed women as things that he should get to possess.
Threatening women with violence because they want to speak publicly about misogyny is another good example of how misogyny is bad for all of society.
Sining wrote: I'm pretty sure all of the people in the thread condemn the threat even if they don't care for the individual
Automatically Appended Next Post: Definition pretty much means meaning. You can have your own definitions, your own special meanings but at some point, when you want to have a rational discourse with someone, there must be a common framework and it does not come when one person has their own special meanings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes, language evolves over time but as I've said, you need a common framework and the idea of misogyny = hatred of society as Manchu would like to claim isn't a widespread idea or even a common idea.
And pretty much doesn't mean it does. :| Not in English, French, Spanish, or much anything else. If your theory were true, Google translate would be an impenetrable wall of language goodness.
I also never said anyone condoned it. I said they were dismissive. Go count the amount of 'lol probs hoax' posts. If you didn't think it was real and yet thought it was an issue, wouldn't you come into a thread about it to say more than you think it's a hoax?
No it doesn't. For examnple, dictionary definitions try to capture denotative meaning and often do not address connotative meaning.
Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to all of society -- not just women.
I have no idea. You'd have to ask the people who made the comments because I can't read their minds, including if they were dismissive of the idea or not.
Okay, let me put it this way, Definition MEANS meaning. And I don't understand what you mean by an impenetrable wall of language goodness. Again, this might be due to lacking a common framework.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
I'm sorry I must have misunderstood you then. Considering misogyny is a hatred of women and you just claimed it's anti-everyone instead I would have assumed you meant it was a hatred of everyone. Although again though, I would point out that A doesn't necessarily follow B
Sining wrote: I have no idea. You'd have to ask the people who made the comments because I can't read their minds, including if they were dismissive of the idea or not.
Okay, let me put it this way, Definition MEANS meaning. And I don't understand what you mean by an impenetrable wall of language goodness. Again, this might be due to lacking a common framework.
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is hating women.
Women = 50% of the population
Misogyny is hating 50% of the population
Misogyny is bad for the population
nomotog wrote: I wanted to look more into the open carry thing. Apparently she canceled because guns would have been allowed. I would have canceled it too.
You do know that the majority of US states are now CHL states right? I doubt some angry neckbeard has even heard of a CHL much less have one.
All states allowed concealed carry actually. The details of who can get permits or where you can go armed varies though.
Sining wrote: I have no idea. You'd have to ask the people who made the comments because I can't read their minds, including if they were dismissive of the idea or not.
Okay, let me put it this way, Definition MEANS meaning. And I don't understand what you mean by an impenetrable wall of language goodness. Again, this might be due to lacking a common framework.
Ever type a French or Spanish sentence into Google translate and tried to send it to someone who speaks it natively?
It's not the same. The word's definitions are not what they always really mean.
Regardless, this isn't on topic, so I'll be letting this go, as you seem to be far more inclined to fight over semantics than ideas. It's not the opposing party's fault if you can't grasp abstract ideas, and they have no need to come "down to your level."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there IS a difference between grammar and dictionary definitions. Google translate has little to no issues (I in fact want to say no issues with translating individual words since I haven't had a trouble) with translating individual words, which would support the supposition that definitions are static. Yet it has trouble when you chain a bunch of words together.
I can grasp that certain people would like to argue that their definitions are just as valid in their arguments. But really, lol no.
Manchu wrote: Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to society.
You really didn't make that clear with the post Sining is referring to:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
Your meaning is vague, and your second point is the problem. Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"? If hate is hostile to society (which I agree it is) why specifically link misogyny, which is understood to mean hate of women, to include men and women? It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.
From a statistical standpoint I am 'dismissive' of threats against Anita's life. There have arguably been thousands of death threats made against her, and a grand total of zero of them have actually been carried out.
Sining wrote: Nothing? I'm sure in the span of human experiences, there are events that would make people feel strongly about gaming. But I wasn't aware you were omniscient with the ability to be able straight away be able to tell that NOTHING justifies this kind of response. My fault, I didn't realise I was arguing with a god
I cannot think of a single opinion you might express that would justify threats of violence and sexual assault against you and those around you. While I'm not 100% up to date on these allegedly/possibly faked or exaggerated threats of late, people *were* making "beat up Anita" games around the time of the KS, and some of the comments made on videos I saw about her were truly vile. Like, 'made the average Youtube comments look good and eloquent' kinda garbage.
Purely as an example;
"I disagree with your opinions and feel you are misrepresenting a complicated issue." is one thing.
"I WANT TO RAPE YOU UNTIL YOU DIE AND THEN DO IT SOME MORE" is another.
People have pointed out that all public figures deal with risks of harassment and threats. I doubt many male public figures deal with remotely the same threats of sexual violence against them. Which is, in fact, not entirely tangential to some of the issues that her works are trying to address.
Full disclosure, I backed the KS and while I've fallen a bit behind on the video releases (spread out as they are), even if I disagree with some of her statements, I do agree with many of the general points made.
Bromsy wrote: From a statistical standpoint I am 'dismissive' of threats against Anita's life. There have arguably been thousands of death threats made against her, and a grand total of zero of them have actually been carried out.
Those are pretty strong numbers.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure that helps her sleep at night. "None of these nutbars have actually managed to violate or kill me yet, clearly it's not that big a deal."
Manchu wrote: Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to society.
You really didn't make that clear with the post Sining is referring to:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
I did not anticipate that Sining or you or anyone else here would confuse a definition with an argument or vice versa. I stand by the argument that misogyny is anti-society.
Because this thread deals with misogyny. If the thread dealt with racism, I would have posted
Racism is not just anti-(Black, Hispanic, White, etc); it is anti-everyone. Hatred of people based on race is hostile to society generally.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.
I dispute there is anything at all confusing about the statement that misoyny is hostile to society generally. Sining's strawman argument about me mis-defining the term misogyny is a red herring.
It doesn't really matter that the death threats won't be carried out. It matters that they were made.
The efforts to silence Sarkesian are bad because there should be no problem with letting her speak to people who want to listen to her, or make videos for people who want to watch them. She is not advocating genocide or violence that I have seen, so what's the harm? You may disagree with her and find her videos poorly made and poorly argued, that's fine. Feel free to ignore her. Silencing her is not required, nor should it be desired.
I mean, I hesitate to wade into the whole debate, but I am just surprised that people can have such an extreme reaction to someone pointing out that video games often portray women in a negative light, or develop female characters less than male characters. I would have thought that was obvious. Picking on the specific examples and getting angry over how the arguments are made seems to be like missing the woods for the trees here.
I have no idea why I'm being quoted at all in Forars post but I'm going to put it this way. I'm not justifying threats made on Anita. If you're quoting me, you'll notice I was responding to Scooty saying nothing should make people this obsessed with video games. Now keep in mind, this in a world where people can end up taking some pretty dark paths, so to use the definitive 'nothing' is kinda ludicrous, especially on a gaming forum where most people here feel somewhat strongly about gaming; but no where near strongly enough to threaten each other over.
If people can be driven to murder each other for stupid reasons, why can't video games be one of that reasons.
Whatever happened to people embracing the freedom to express ones self? Of freedom of speech? Of "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it!"?
It always baffles me how threatened some people can get over someone saying something like "Gee, maybe it'd be nice if there were more non-sex kitten female characters in games."
I consider myself a gamer, I love going to Video Games Live, contributing to a forum based on a gaming webcomic, but it is not impossible to step back and look critically at the very industry that provides me so much entertainment. And y'know what? Yeah, a little diversity would be nice. Not practically every (note, hyperbole present) lead character needs to be a grizzled white guy with short brown hair (/Yahtzee). There is room to embrace a broader/more diverse spectrum of humanity in gaming, and perhaps help draw in more people to the medium.
Efforts like this (*sigh* allegedly, at least) to silence that critical voice speaks poorly of the mind so afraid of someone simply providing a contrary opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote: I have no idea why I'm being quoted at all in Forars post but I'm going to put it this way. I'm not justifying threats made on Anita. If you're quoting me, you'll notice I was responding to Scooty saying nothing should make people this obsessed with video games. Now keep in mind, this in a world where people can end up taking some pretty dark paths, so to use the definitive 'nothing' is kinda ludicrous, especially on a gaming forum where most people here feel somewhat strongly about gaming; but no where near strongly enough to threaten each other over.
If people can be driven to murder each other for stupid reasons, why can't video games be one of that reasons.
People being unhinged or unhealthy is not justification.
There is NO *opinion* that should lead to threats against your safety. Calling someone a donkey cave is one thing. Threatening to find them and harm them is another.
Some people being crazy (in terms of serious mental illness or just being terrible people) doesn't change that this is unacceptable behaviour. Not uncommon or surprising, but unacceptable all the same.
Manchu wrote: Again, I don't define misogyny as hatred of society. I define misogyny as hatred of women and I am arguing that misogyny is destructive to society.
You really didn't make that clear with the post Sining is referring to:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
I did not anticipate that Sining or you or anyone else here would confuse a definition with an argument or vice versa. I stand by the argument that misogyny is anti-society.
Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.
Because this thread deals with misogyny. If the thread dealt with racism, I would have posted
Racism is not just anti-(Black, Hispanic, White, etc); it is anti-everyone. Hatred of people based on race is hostile to society generally.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.
I dispute there is anything at all confusing about the statement that misoyny is hostile to society generally. Sining's strawman argument about me mis-defining the term misogyny is a red herring.
No, Sining's argument about your misconstruing the word misogyny is about you misconstruing the word misogyny despite your attempts to spin it. A red herring about what?
Sining wrote: I have no idea why I'm being quoted at all in Forars post but I'm going to put it this way. I'm not justifying threats made on Anita. If you're quoting me, you'll notice I was responding to Scooty saying nothing should make people this obsessed with video games. Now keep in mind, this in a world where people can end up taking some pretty dark paths, so to use the definitive 'nothing' is kinda ludicrous, especially on a gaming forum where most people here feel somewhat strongly about gaming; but no where near strongly enough to threaten each other over.
If people can be driven to murder each other for stupid reasons, why can't video games be one of that reasons.
I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.
People being unhinged or unhealthy is not justification.
There is NO *opinion* that should lead to threats against your safety. Calling someone a donkey cave is one thing. Threatening to find them and harm them is another.
Some people being crazy (in terms of serious mental illness or just being terrible people) doesn't change that this is unacceptable behaviour. Not uncommon or surprising, but unacceptable all the same.
I'm not really sure what you would consider justification. No sane person would make threats against another person just cause of an opinion. But the fact is insane people do exist. Their behavior is unacceptable and I agree with you on that if it wasn't clear.
But again,crazy people exist in real life and sometimes they get attached to video games. I'm not sure, am I supposed to pretend this isn't possible?
Sining wrote: Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.
The fact that you continue to claim I mis-defined misogyny despite several clarifications is just more evidence that your argument is a strawman and a red herring.
You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
Bromsy wrote: I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.
Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.
Bromsy wrote: I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.
Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.
Your meaning is vague, and your second point is the problem. Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"? If hate is hostile to society (which I agree it is) why specifically link misogyny, which is understood to mean hate of women, to include men and women? It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.
How is that a problem? Why does someone's argument need to be defined more broadly in order for it to be a valid opinion?
Specifically we're talking misogyny because it's relevant to the topic at hand. This is a thread tackling that specific issue, therefore that specific issue is going to be utilized when people make or refute points.
What is the point of your questioning? Legitimately curious how you think the answers to anything there would matter, in any way, shape, and form. I don't get how you, or anyone, could be confused about this.
Sining wrote: Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.
The fact that you continue to claim I mis-defined misogyny despite several clarifications is just more evidence that your argument is a strawman and a red herring.
You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
Bromsy wrote: I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.
Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
You did mis-define misogyny. There isn't any real claim about it.
You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:
And what is your actual argument? That misogyny is anti-society? I'm curious here, because 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.
Sining wrote: Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.
The fact that you continue to claim I mis-defined misogyny despite several clarifications is just more evidence that your argument is a strawman and a red herring.
You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
Bromsy wrote: I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.
Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
You did mis-define misogyny. There isn't any real claim about it.
You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:
And what is your actual argument? That misogyny is anti-society? I'm curious here, because 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.
You two arguing about the definition of misogyny is frankly hitting troll level. Build a bridge and get over it already. Besides a more important issue has arisen. Was Ben Kenobi secretly a rival Sith Lord?
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:
Spoiler:
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?
Frazzled wrote: You two arguing about the definition of misogyny is frankly hitting troll level.
Frazzled, you live under glass bridge. Please don't throw stones.
Frazzle? The truth is before you. Why do you think that Luke went dark for a moment in the final episode?
Anyways, to the threats I don't think it's just quite crazy people. The catch is, I think most people are generally adjusted. But then you toss in puberty, the mess that is personal opinions, the fact that people polarize into my group and everyone else, tensions flair, and everything escalates. People take things they shouldn't take personal and go absolutely nuts about it because, in part it's what humans do. We'll flip out over the most trivial of things. Toss in a bit of anonimity? Things get even worse.
Why am I dismissive of it? Because I'm frankly cynical. There's already been many death threats to that individual just as per the usual drama that hits the fans, trolls are in it, people that are just swept along are doing it, and people post stupid stuff all the time. Granted there are some people that are earnestly screwed in the head like Elliot (although I'd argue he hated pretty much everybody but himself. The dude had mental problems medically and it was more I'm perfect, all other dudes are barbaric dogs, and women are the bones. Thanks for reminding me how twisted that was), lots of SJWs, and so on. At that point, it's not that I'm pleased and if it earnestly occurred, I'd be upset even if I think that her analysis is wrong in its premise, execution, and manipulation of events like politicians do. Honestly on this one, this is a bit too extreme for even myself and it should be checked into just in case. It's very possibly a troll but just in case, cops certainly should check in on this one.
I don't like what she'd say but if, by some convoluted chance it somehow twists into positive development, I'll be glad to toss away the grizzled brown haired rugged white man and, for the love of everything, to have stories that are good and characters that aren't bland carbon cut outs.
Your meaning is vague, and your second point is the problem. Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"? If hate is hostile to society (which I agree it is) why specifically link misogyny, which is understood to mean hate of women, to include men and women? It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.
How is that a problem? Why does someone's argument need to be defined more broadly in order for it to be a valid opinion?
Specifically we're talking misogyny because it's relevant to the topic at hand. This is a thread tackling that specific issue, therefore that specific issue is going to be utilized when people make or refute points.
What is the point of your questioning? Legitimately curious how you think the answers to anything there would matter, in any way, shape, and form. I don't get how you, or anyone, could be confused about this.
Vagueness is a problem with communication, especially written forms of communication. Manchu wrote something that at least one other poster on here understood to change the meaning of a definition of a word. It caused confusion and created a side conversation about definitions and meanings. I was simply clarifying where Manchu's statement was vague and caused confusion.
As for your other points I am not sure I follow. What do you think I don't understand? What misogyny is? I understand what misogyny is. I did not understand what Sining and possibly other readers thought was Manchu's revised definition of misogyny which was "hate of men and women". Manchu later clarified that that definition is not what he thinks misogyny means, but rather that misogyny like other forms of hate are detrimental to society. But his initial wording seemed to modify the definition of misogyny to include not just women but everyone. That is what I was addressing in the post you quoted. I am not disputing the validity of misogyny being discussed in this thread, as it is relevant. I was addressing where vague wording threw the conversation into a tangent. It seems you misunderstood my post entirely.
Manchu wrote: Manchu's revised definition of misogyny which was "hate of men and women"
False.
Please quote the full sentence for context. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I did not understand what Sining and possibly other readers thought was Manchu's revised definition of misogyny which was "hate of men and women".
My problem is I can't help feeling that Anita has "cherry picked" in the past threats or just general rude responses to disallow any discussion with her on the credibility of her arguments.
It is like the boy who cried wolf: where has it passed from it being "managed" to her benefit to now out of control.
She wanted money, she got it, she wanted the ear of the masses, she got it, now she also caught the eye of the great unwashed and she is not liking it.
I admit there is this guilty pleasure of wanting to say to her: "It comes with the territory: you want attention, you get the crazies too! The "famous" have had to adapt, so must you. ".
I always felt anything worth having has some cost to it, how many people would trade to be where she is with all the good and bad that goes with it?
I think not many people would pass on that chance.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Please quote the full sentence for context. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth.
My bad on not quoting the full sentence.
What I want to get across is that my argument was not and is not vague.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: admit there is this guilty pleasure of wanting to say to her: "It comes with the territory: you want attention, you get the crazies too! The "famous" have had to adapt, so must you. "
This is perilously close to justifying death threats. At the very least it assumes famous people necessarily receive death threats.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Please quote the full sentence for context. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth.
My bad on not quoting the full sentence.
What I want to get across is that my argument was not and is not vague.
It is vague if it leads people to come to the wrong conclusions about your argument. The last page or so of posts between you and Sining might indicate that your argument caused some confusion. But keep on keeping on. You think your argument is crystal clear even though some people are left scratching their heads wondering how you could argue X means Y, when that isn't even your argument in the first place.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: It is vague if it leads people to come to the wrong conclusions about your argument.
Sometimes people just do not understand an argument regardless of its clarity.
The full record of the argument is in fact available. I have reposted it. I guess I will also summarize it:
It started because I brought up that there has been a recent mass shooting driven by misogyny but none driven by misandry. Sining responded that Elliot Rodger killed more men than women so that could not have been about misogyny. I responded that Elliot Rodger killed men out of jealousy based on his misogynistic belief that women are possessions that he deserves to own more than other men.
In the course of this exchange, I posted that misogyny is not just anti-woman but also anti-society -- this was side by side with the example of Elliot Rodger killing both men and women because of his misogyny.
To me, this actually is crystal clear. If someone who insists all meaning in language can be found in a dictionary thought that was confusing, I really don't think it is because of the words I used.
Moreover, the fact that we are still arguing about the argument despite loads of subsequent clarification shows hesitance to deal with the actual point I made:
Misogyny is bad for everyone in society. Threatening people's lives because they want to criticize gender in video games is the opposite of civilization.
Talizvar wrote: My problem is I can't help feeling that Anita has "cherry picked" in the past threats or just general rude responses to disallow any discussion with her on the credibility of her arguments.
It is like the boy who cried wolf: where has it passed from it being "managed" to her benefit to now out of control.
Well, by your own definition, it's like the little boy who only mentioned the biggest wolves when there actually were lots of wolves to chose from.
The problem isn't that she used the worst of the vitriol as a useful example, the problem was she had giant piles of vitriol to choose from in the first place. I mean, I've seen this "point" come up several times in previous threads and it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Da Boss wrote: It doesn't really matter that the death threats won't be carried out. It matters that they were made.
The efforts to silence Sarkesian are bad because there should be no problem with letting her speak to people who want to listen to her, or make videos for people who want to watch them. She is not advocating genocide or violence that I have seen, so what's the harm? You may disagree with her and find her videos poorly made and poorly argued, that's fine. Feel free to ignore her. Silencing her is not required, nor should it be desired.
I mean, I hesitate to wade into the whole debate, but I am just surprised that people can have such an extreme reaction to someone pointing out that video games often portray women in a negative light, or develop female characters less than male characters. I would have thought that was obvious. Picking on the specific examples and getting angry over how the arguments are made seems to be like missing the woods for the trees here.
Word.
The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.
But they aren't. There is a sad core of bitter truth in what she says despite some loose threads of her tapestry like the treatment of male and female bodies in Hitman X.
Everybody knows there is a significant strand of misogyny in gamer and internet culture (as in society and human life as a whole). The real difference is whether people think that is an acceptable position. Obviously misogynists do, and therefore fight against people who fight against it.
The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.
Even with facts many people still often don't believe in the truth, just what their ideology says is right.
The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.
Just to get this straight: everyone can agree on her purposefully mispresenting information to fit her needs as demonstrated in her videos.
The thing is that she already is considered a joke, even by the industry. For people not familiar with the role such people take, it's sort of a figurehead. You pick a person to speak on a matter that's "in" in order to show that your company totally cares for the popular topic. People think "Wow, they really care for the topic!" and like the company more. In truth, noones cares the tiniest bit for what said person says. It's a PR thing and it happens in all areas with PR involved. It's a very cheap and effective strategy.
On this specific matter, keep in mind that most people following Anita do not follow her for her integrity or journalistic efforts, they follow her because they're SJW and / or looking for self-affirmation. Or, less specific, they just want to hop on the hypetrain. Those people do not care for facts, else they would not be following to begin with. Choo choo!
Everybody knows there is a significant strand of misogyny in gamer and internet culture (as in society and human life as a whole). The real difference is whether people think that is an acceptable position. Obviously misogynists do, and therefore fight against people who fight against it.
I think that, while this is all true, there isn't enough of a voice of that minority in whatever meetings are held at the big game companies to determine what games get made... I mean, from an economic position, how many studios are going to make a Duke Nuke'em game, where they replace The Duke with "Princess Peach" ?? (actually, that would be a completely badass game... princess peach carrying around giant guns, driving monster trucks, rocket launchers etc.... all to save the hapless Italian Plumber who keeps thinking that she's been kidnapped )
We obviously won't know how many "pro-women" game ideas have been bandied about in these meetings but get shelved for CoD 300: Waterloo in Space.
This isn't me saying "just get over it" it's more me saying that, I think that there are people in charge who, either out of ignorance, or willful neglect, make decisions regarding their game companies that a rather large segment of our population perceive as being hurtful to them. It's a bit of a meme up in Dakka Discussions, but the whole "vote with your wallet" trope that gets used up there, sadly also does not really work in video games precisely because "so many" people are still happy with whatever latest Call of Duty game has come out, and will come out next year. Personally, the Assassin's Creed thing has been played out (though they are still successful economically), and I would be VERY happy to play another AC game where the main character that the player controls is female, provided they maintained the same level of story and game design quality that previous editions have had.
The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.
Just to get this straight: everyone can agree on her purposefully mispresenting information to fit her needs as demonstrated in her videos.
The thing is that she already is considered a joke, even by the industry. For people not familiar with the role such people take, it's sort of a figurehead. You pick a person to speak on a matter that's "in" in order to show that your company totally cares for the popular topic. People think "Wow, they really care for the topic!" and like the company more. In truth, noones cares the tiniest bit for what said person says. It's a PR thing and it happens in all areas with PR involved. It's a very cheap and effective strategy.
On this specific matter, keep in mind that most people following Anita do not follow her for her integrity or journalistic efforts, they follow her because they're SJW and / or looking for self-affirmation. Or, less specific, they just want to hop on the hypetrain. Those people do not care for facts, else they would not be following to begin with. Choo choo!
Frazzled wrote: . If you give in, then you give in to those who wish to take our First Amendment away.
Battle of the Rights. She refuses to speak because Campus Police have determined there is no actual threat, and will not violate the Second Amendment rights of others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: I think its pretty silly to claim his shooting rampage wasn't spurned by his misogyny. Unless his manifesto was total BS.
You seem to have forgotten half his victims were stabbed to death with a knife
Talizvar wrote: admit there is this guilty pleasure of wanting to say to her: "It comes with the territory: you want attention, you get the crazies too! The "famous" have had to adapt, so must you. "
This is perilously close to justifying death threats.
How do you infer I am justifying death threats??
I DO justify that it is to be EXPECTED, big difference.
Which leads into your next point:
At the very least it assumes famous people necessarily receive death threats.
There are many instances documented of famous people who have complete strangers wish them harm only just because they are famous, never mind if they stand for anything.
There is no "assume" here at all, as many "facts" as you wish to find.
Some easily found bits on the internet:
Anita Sarkeesian is in not all that unique a situation for anyone who stands up and points out something ugly with the status-quo: the volume of negativity is in direct proportion to the size of the audience.
Famous people also receive death threats because more people simply notice them.
The more people you know, the higher chance of knowing a crazy, and vice versa, the more who know you, the higher chance one or more of those who know you is going to be crazy.
Also a higher chance one or more will be a misogynist, religious, or a racist, and so will react accordingly to views you have.
You seem to have forgotten half his victims were stabbed to death with a knife
Touche, good sir. Touche. I did forget!
I'll still hold serve on the idea that the majority of these little spunk stains making anonymous internet threats wouldn't even be able to talk to her if they saw her in person.
Additionally, people that make threats of rape deserve to be punched in the dong by a mule.
MrDwhitey wrote: Famous people also receive death threats because more people simply notice them.
Sure, in practice visibility equals vulnerability. But that is a problem with our society not just something we should accept as "comes with the territory." I mean, it's not even as simple as visibility equaling vulnerability. Male and female celebrities are not just attacked because they are famous; they seem to be attacked and threatened in different ways.
The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.
Just to get this straight: everyone can agree on her purposefully mispresenting information to fit her needs as demonstrated in her videos.
The thing is that she already is considered a joke, even by the industry. For people not familiar with the role such people take, it's sort of a figurehead. You pick a person to speak on a matter that's "in" in order to show that your company totally cares for the popular topic. People think "Wow, they really care for the topic!" and like the company more. In truth, noones cares the tiniest bit for what said person says. It's a PR thing and it happens in all areas with PR involved. It's a very cheap and effective strategy.
On this specific matter, keep in mind that most people following Anita do not follow her for her integrity or journalistic efforts, they follow her because they're SJW and / or looking for self-affirmation. Or, less specific, they just want to hop on the hypetrain. Those people do not care for facts, else they would not be following to begin with. Choo choo!
So why do you care?
...because I like video games and hate pretentious liars?
MrDwhitey wrote: Famous people also receive death threats because more people simply notice them.
The more people you know, the higher chance of knowing a crazy, and vice versa, the more who know you, the higher chance one or more of those who know you is going to be crazy.
Also a higher chance one or more will be a misogynist, religious, or a racist, and so will react accordingly to views you have.
This is true. Lots of Hollywood types get stalkers. Hell I've had a stalker and I'm famous only for the amount of nose hair.
MrDwhitey wrote: Famous people also receive death threats because more people simply notice them.
Sure, in practice visibility equals vulnerability. But that is a problem with our society not just something we should accept as "comes with the territory." I mean, it's not even as simple as visibility equaling vulnerability. Male and female celebrities are not just attacked because they are famous; they seem to be attacked and threatened in different ways.
Yup, however it's one thing to understand it's liable to come with the territory, it's another entirely to condone/accept it as fine. Understanding it is fine, accepting/condoning it is not.
This is why I feel whoever did this should be caught and punished to the full extent possible.
MrDwhitey wrote: This is why I feel whoever did this should be caught and punished to the full extent possible.
Whether the threat is sincere or a hoax, I really do hope the person is caught and punished. Too many of these threats are going around these days and there needs to be some deterrence.
I agree. There comes a point when you should not be able to hoax things and get away with it*. When you get caught for saying you're going to burn down an orphanage (A worthy goal for decreasing surplus population, though slightly morally wrong), and you go "I never meant to, it was a joke!", well, feth you.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: She refuses to speak because Campus Police have determined there is no actual threat, and will not violate the Second Amendment rights of others.
The police couldn't do anything due to the states concealed carry laws not because no threat was determined.
MrDwhitey wrote: Famous people also receive death threats because more people simply notice them.
Sure, in practice visibility equals vulnerability.
Or just plain statistical odds due to exposure to a wider variety of people.
But that is a problem with our society not just something we should accept as "comes with the territory."
Why not?
Everyone feels envy when someone has something they want.
We just expect more civilized behavior and keep being surprised.
But do not worry, I am happy to frown on bad behavior until human nature changes.
I mean, it's not even as simple as visibility equaling vulnerability. Male and female celebrities are not just attacked because they are famous; they seem to be attacked and threatened in different ways.
It is called an "excuse".
The celebrity status catches the attention and then look around for a reason to drag them down, how they do not "deserve" their status.
It is much easier to get people on-side if you establish some common cause, dragging out the gender wars is a tried and true method practiced by both sexes for centuries.
I just find dismissing these death threats as being abnormal elements of fame is rather... ummm... naïve.
For centuries people have been willing to kill each other for the most tenuous of reasons.
People crave fame in this electronic facebook, "like" (me!), world and getting noticed is a double-whammy to get the great unhinged ready to plot your demise or at the very least try to scare you and feel famous in turn when they affect your actions.
<edit> It is more likely to receive MORE death threats if it is shown they have had an impact. That is why in most cases to not acknowledge publicly the threats and actions take,n is the way to go.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: She refuses to speak because Campus Police have determined there is no actual threat, and will not violate the Second Amendment rights of others.
The police couldn't do anything due to the states concealed carry laws not because no threat was determined.
You are correct that the university could not disregard the State's laws on concealed carry, I may have conflated the two issues after reading one of Ms. Sarkeesian's tweets (I know, I'm as shocked as everyone else that she would post sympathetic rather than correct information) . However, the point remains that Campus Police have determined that there is no imminent threat;
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179
POLICE: NO RISK TO STUDENTS
Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2014
Following a disturbing email received late Monday evening, Utah State University police and administrators have been working throughout the day to assess any level of risk to students or to a speaker scheduled to visit. USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued.
The safety of our students and visitors is always the university’s first priority. At no time was there any imminent threat. The investigation is continuing.
The speaker, Anita Sarkeesian, canceled the presentation. She was concerned about the fact that state law prevented the university from keeping people with a legal concealed firearm permit from entering the event. University police were prepared and had a plan in place to provide extra security measures at the presentation.
All university business will be conducted as scheduled Wednesday.
I do have to wonder what those "extra security measures" would entail if they weren't going to search people coming in. What could they actually do if one or more random audience member(s) pulled out a gun and started shooting beyond hoping that their security guys were both faster and better shots? Set up a bullet-proof booth for Sarkeesian? Either way, I can sympathize with not wanting to speak in front of an audience full of people who are expressly allowed to have concealed firearms on them, if I had received threats of death at said event.
RatBot wrote: I do have to wonder what those "extra security measures" would entail if they weren't going to search people coming in. What could they actually do if one or more random audience member(s) pulled out a gun and started shooting beyond hoping that their security guys were both faster and better shots? Set up a bullet-proof booth for Sarkeesian? Either way, I can sympathize with not wanting to speak in front of an audience full of people who are expressly allowed to have conceal firearms on them, if I had received threats of death at said event.
Prior to the threat, Utah State University police were already making preparations for security as the speaker had received similar threats in the past. Enhanced security measures were scheduled to be in place, including prohibiting backpacks and any large bags.
Otherwise I'd imagine that they would have increased the number of LEOs at the event, including plain clothes officers, and spent a lot of time monitoring the crowd. Most people who are up to something shady will give visual clues, such as paying more attention to the security detail than the speaker
'Imminent threat' is not the same as no threat at all, which we know there was, and they have every reason in the world to downplay it and none to make it worse.
'Imminent threat' is not the same as no threat at all, which we know there was, and they have every reason in the world to downplay it and none to make it worse.
Thank you for that strawman. I'm pretty sure it has been well established that a threat was indeed made. I don't think that anyone is trying to claim otherwise. Some may have questioned whether it was a genuine threat, but I do not believe that anyone here has disputed the existence of a threat.
I can't understand why local and Federal agencies would downplay any threat, but if you know better than USU police, the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit then I might defer to your expert analysis. Until then I will rely upon their expertise and their judgement based on an examination of the evidence available, rather than your unsubstantiated speculation.
Bad form to call someone out on making a strawman argument and then post this kind of thing:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: but if you know better than USU police, the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit
As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?
Manchu wrote: Bad form to call someone out on making a strawman argument and then post this kind of thing:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: but if you know better than USU police, the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit
As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?
Don't worry Ebola is here for us to flip out about
Since you are using that wrong I have to assume you don't know what it actually means but heard it once and just sometimes repeat it in a bid to sound more knowledgeable.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm pretty sure it has been well established that a threat was indeed made.
Then why did you say "She refuses to speak because Campus Police have determined there is no actual threat"
Bolded to help you.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I can't understand why local and Federal agencies would downplay any threat, but if you know better than USU police, the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit then I might defer to your expert analysis. Until then I will rely upon their expertise and their judgement based on an examination of the evidence available, rather than your unsubstantiated speculation.
You seem to confuse downplaying something and lying about it. None of those organizations are going to tell people to freak out and that an idiot is going to kill them and that they have no idea what is going to happen or who he is. You reassure the populace that they aren't in any immediate danger, that you have things under control, and are looking into the situation. Which is what they did and also why they specifically state 'imminent threat' and not "there is no threat". 'Imminent threat' isn't some casual conversation they accidentally dropped but describes a specific event(s).
I've attended lectures at numerous different colleges and not once did I ever have to go through any sort of security screening, or pat downs for weapons, and somehow all of them managed to be incident free.
I think she's over inflating the situation (again) to draw attention to herself.
The college has thousands of students there daily without screenings and likely dozens if not hundreds of speakers in a year and it's likely none of which require any special precautions even when it's highly probably that there are at least a few students on campus that are armed (on a daily basis). Just because somebody is armed doesn't mean they are a trigger happy psycho, lots of people carry guns under CC and it doesn't cause issues whatsoever. (particularly when nobody knows they have them, hence the point of CC)
She uses the threats as staging material for gathering sympathy and attention. She always makes sure to spend part of her lectures talking about the threats she's received. Supposedly she's subject to an endless stream of them, but only ever cites a small handful at best, none of which can ever be verified. It's a way of hyping up her self importance.
stanman wrote: I've attended lectures at numerous different colleges and not once did I ever have to go through any sort of security screening, or pat downs for weapons, and somehow all of them managed to be incident free.
Did you ever go to one where someone had written in beforehand that he had a personal grudge against the topic of the talk, that the ideas to be talked about ruined his life, and that he plans to attend and murder as many people as possible in a way similar to an event where the same thing has actually happened before?
stanman wrote: I've attended lectures at numerous different colleges and not once did I ever have to go through any sort of security screening, or pat downs for weapons, and somehow all of them managed to be incident free.
Did you ever go to one where someone had written in beforehand that he had a personal grudge against the topic of the talk, that the ideas to be talked about ruined his life, and that he plans to attend and murder as many people as possible in a way similar to an event where the same thing has actually happened before?
Only one I ever attended that needed a screening was when it was part of Obama's campaign stop.
I've been to a quite few that the speakers had far more serious death threats given, several of which were Jewish speakers who got numerous threats from white supremist groups and Arabic extremists. At some of them audience members have told the speaker to their face that they want to wipe their whole race from the planet, murder their families, and other very extreme stuff.
But somehow a bunch of elderly Jewish guys (and ladies) have the courage to stand up for what they believe in, but maybe that's part of the issue, it's likely even Anita doesn't believe the crap she's shoveling so why should she actually stand up for it?
She's a drama queen that doesn't care for any of it beyond the attention and money she makes.
Maybe she needs to realize that these "death threats" that like so many other things posted on the internet particularly from juvenile teenage boys, are largely BS and chest beating.
If she wants to lead the crusade for social change and be out front and center then she needs so show some conviction. People do sometimes become a target for unsound individuals (like Martin Luther King) but it's a rarity and it's really, really doubtful to come from the corner of the internet that's populated by the rumblings of online teenage gamer geeks.
stanman wrote: If she wants to lead the crusade for social change and be out front and center then she needs so show some conviction.
Again, are you saying Sarkeesian should be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games?
So you're saying that she should back down from every situation just because an internet random calls in a threat? That'd end her speaking career fast as by her own accounting she has an endless number of internet-randoms threatening her.
Also the campus did not consider it a legit security risk, so she's basically running from a random "see you after school, Simpson" type bully threat.
stanman wrote: So you're saying that she should back down from every situation just because an internet random calls in a threat? That'd end her speaking career fast as by her own accounting she has an endless number of internet-randoms threatening her.
I'm saying no one should have to be willing to die to talk about video games in public.
stanman wrote: So you're saying that she should back down from every situation just because an internet random calls in a threat? That'd end her speaking career fast as by her own accounting she has an endless number of internet-randoms threatening her.
I'm saying no one should have to be willing to die to talk about video games in public.
The world is a stupid place, you could theoretically get killed for talking about kittens and puppies. Exceedingly unlikely but in theory anything an happen. Are there any instances anywhere of people being shot over discussing video games before?
Can you show me instances of a murder over a heated debate about Halo being better than CoD? I'm sure it happens all the type...
Heck I'll even accept references to a good 'ole stabbing over video games.
Manchu wrote: The only thing I am baiting you into doing is explaining you own post:
stanman wrote: If she wants to lead the crusade for social change and be out front and center then she needs so show some conviction.
Are you saying Sarkeesian should be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games?
Seems more than just a bit unnecessary and loaded there.
Can you point me to an actual legit threat against her life for speaking? Even one threat that the college campus considered potentially troublesome enough to warrant security? If there aren't any, then how is there any risk of her being hurt (much less dying) for speaking?
stanman wrote: Seems more than just a bit unnecessary and loaded there.
Here's the question: Are you saying Sarkeesian should be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games? If you are not saying that, then answer "no" and then you can tell me what you really meant by Sarkeesian needing to show "moral conviction."
But if you do think she should have to be willing to die in order to talk about video games then why not say that's what you meant?
stanman wrote: Can you point me to an actual legit threat against her life for speaking?
I've never been one to doubt the reality of people receiving threats on the internet. It happens, (the aforementioned John Gabriel G.I.F.T) and there are indeed some seriously disturbed individuals out there who could and have done horrible things.
In saying that, having received plenty of online threats in my time, including some from, lets say, middlishly disturbed individuals (you'll be surprised at how much online games can be srs bizness for some people).
However, they've always seemed rather sortable into likelihood of actually doing something. - I do have real examples of this, that I started typing out but decided against doing so.
In any case, it seems to me, that a particularly intelligent person due to speak at a seminar could receive one of these threats. They could then make a personal judgement about the likelihood of the... - I'm sorry, the best word can't quite come to mind. I'd say serious, but all threats really are serious and are bad things to do. Maybe 'risk' can do for now? My apologies if that offends anyone.
Anyway. They receive this threat, I can see this person judge it to be a 'low risk' threat. However, I can also see a person making another judgement call that is. "I believe this is an incredibly Low Risk threat (keeping in mind what I've said about the threats are still a Bad Thing), however it does contain strongly emotive words with lots of imagery in them that could bring in enough doubt to make others see it as a High Risk threat."
I could then see a person making a judgement saying. "If I perform well at this Seminar, I will influence X people. However, if I cancel this Seminar, publicly portraying myself as believing this Low Risk threat as being a High Risk threat, I can influence "X^Lots" people more, which will match my aims even more."
However, I am a particularly cynical person.
Edit: It also seems to me, that a police department, especially if it's suffering some negative PR (which, as far as I know, seems to account for most Police Departments in America), would consider dealing strongly with an online threat quite enthusiastically, especially if it's potentially a 'quick win' that can gain it some interesting -and potentially positive- press locally.
Moral conviction would be standing for and defending your position against to your detractors which she doesn't do. She gives her video statement (which claims to be backed by studies and research, but offers no citations) and allows no room for debate on the subject much less for anyone to correct her on her false or misleading statements. If she truly felt she was in the right she'd take on her detractors rather than hide from them. One can claim that she's disabled the comments because of trolling which may be part of it but it just so handily prevents people from exposing her and calling her on all the flawed BS she's spouting.
Her work is so full of holes that she won't even acknowledge her online and verbal critics in any fashion as she knows they will tear her to shreds. That's where she is not showing any measure of conviction.
stanman wrote: Moral conviction would be standing for and defending your position against to your detractors which she doesn't do. She gives her video statement (which claims to be backed by studies and research, but offers no citations) and allows no room for debate on the subject much less for anyone to correct her on her false or misleading statements. If she truly felt she was in the right she'd take on her detractors rather than hide from them. One can claim that she's disabled the comments because of trolling which may be part of it but it just so handily prevents people from exposing her and calling her on all the flawed BS she's spouting.
Her work is so full of holes that she won't even acknowledge her online and verbal critics in any fashion as she knows they will tear her to shreds. That's where she is not showing any measure of conviction.
Honestly I can't quite agree with you on this one or not. On the one hand, the wording used is highly charged emotionally, on the other hand it's unlikely to actually occur. The catch is that it's still a possibility nonetheless.
My only real criticism is I question "a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." being capable of being carried in. The semi-auto is probably a no go, especially if security is prepared so I can't help but feel it's likely just trolling. Still, there's always the possibility the threat is real and, no matter what, I really can't complain that somebody might drop it for this. Some post like "I'll kill you blah blah blah", wave away. This though, it's a step further even if its still the same shaky anonymous possibly likely a troll.
stanman wrote: Moral conviction would be standing for and defending your position against to your detractors which she doesn't do.
If she is threatened with murder and the murder of numerous others if she appears at a place, should she go to that place anyway?
I think this is important. I mean, it is one thing to disable comments on YT because you don't want to give trolls and misogynists another platform. It is another thing to go to a place where someone has promised to murder you.
stanman wrote: Moral conviction would be standing for and defending your position against to your detractors which she doesn't do.
If she is threatened with murder and the murder of numerous others if she appears at a place, should she go to that place anyway?
I think this is important. I mean, it is one thing to disable comments on YT because you don't want to give trolls and misogynists another platform. It is another thing to go to a place where someone has promised to murder you.
Did MLK, and Malcolm X make public appearances where they were scheduled to, even after receiving death threats?
Manchu wrote: and the murder of numerous others if she appears at a place
I think people forget that it wasn't just her that was threatened; anyone who showed up, even if to be critical, was listed as a target; this isn't just about Anita.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Did MLK, and Malcolm X make public appearances where they were scheduled to, even after receiving death threats?
Who thinks Civil Rights and video game culture are somehow equivalent? Black people were being marginalized, beaten, and killed whereas gamers are not dealing with any of those issues in any sense.
Edit: The two figures you mentioned were also gunned down at an event so it doesn't make a good argument on that front either.
stanman wrote: If she wants to lead the crusade for social change and be out front and center then she needs so show some conviction.
Again, are you saying Sarkeesian should be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games?
the same way pretty much any political groups, politicians, celebrities, ect, are "prepared to die" when they are all threatened and do their thing regardless?
sarkeesian preaches about tropes like the damsel in distress, yet she expects free protection, no one else gets the extra security for free if they get death threats, why does she expect it?
Why does she expect to not be threatened like everyone else is?
Why should we be treating her threats like they are more special/worse then everyone elses threats?
A mens group in detroit recently received similar threats, and simply raised more money for security and "are prepared to die" for speaking their opinions as well.
where were the cries of misandry there?
no one *should* get threats, but they all do, the difference is that real role models like hilarry clinton keep doing stuff that matters anyways, and people like anita keep doing ?????? and getting a lot of publicity over it.
stanman wrote: Moral conviction would be standing for and defending your position against to your detractors which she doesn't do.
If she is threatened with murder and the murder of numerous others if she appears at a place, should she go to that place anyway?
I think this is important. I mean, it is one thing to disable comments on YT because you don't want to give trolls and misogynists another platform. It is another thing to go to a place where someone has promised to murder you.
It'd depend on how strongly the person believed in their principles. The only way to prevail against hate and persecution is by proving you are above it, not to cower to it.
Lots of people have been told if you come here or do this you'll be beaten or killed, etc. But there were some pretty strong people that didn't turn away and had the gall to say "do your worst" and they've managed to changed the world. Sometimes to make the world right you need to take a stand, although that choice is certainly not for everybody.
I do find it odd that somebody that portrays themselves as a "Social Justice Warrior" would run from any sort of conflict, as it's certainly not showing much of a "warrior" spirit.
easysauce wrote: Why does she expect to not be threatened like everyone else is?
Everyone in the United States should be expected not to be threatened with murder and rape for talking about video games.
anyone who talks about anything, in a public forum, with any kind of controversy, heck even non controversial stuff, can expect some threats on the internet.
it is very much to be expected, as with the internet having millions of people on it, you will ALWAYS have people who cross the line and make threats.
that she expects NOT to be threatened is expecting to be treated differently from every other person who grabs the public eye and is threatened.
stanman wrote: It'd depend on how strongly the person believed in their principles.
That is flat out false. You can believe in something and also believe in security. Getting a bunch of innocents killed over your thoughts about video games is ridiculous as well.
stanman wrote: The only way to prevail against hate and persecution is by proving you are above it, not to cower to it.
There are all sorts of ways to deal with criminals and terrorists without getting shot and getting others shot. You keep presenting false choice fallacies left and right, as if the only options are to be a coward or prepare for martyrdom.
stanman wrote: It'd depend on how strongly the person believed in their principles.
That is flat out false. You can believe in something and also believe in security. Getting a bunch of innocents killed over your thoughts about video games is ridiculous as well.
stanman wrote: The only way to prevail against hate and persecution is by proving you are above it, not to cower to it.
There are all sorts of ways to deal with criminals and terrorists without getting shot and getting others shot. You keep presenting false choice fallacies left and right, as if the only options are to be a coward or prepare for martyrdom.
If the people attending know that there's been a threat made then one would assume that if they did still attend they did so in support of the speaker or topic. Both the speaker and audience would be protesting the threats and hatred by showing that they won't be dissuaded. (and those threats are nil anyways)
Seems to me there were a lot of people back in the 60's that heard "hippies go home or we'll shoot", or "darkies go home or we'll shoot" and they stayed in order to protest. Because of that things got changed.
BTW it's Manchu who wants to twist things so it's dealing in white/black absolutes of dying for a cause. I think people dying over video games is really stupid and never going to happen, but we don't all live his world. Taking the stand for actual social injustice is another matter.
stanman wrote: If the people attending know that there's been a threat made then one would assume that if they did still attend they did so in support of the speaker or topic. Both the speaker and audience would be protesting the threats and hatred by showing that they won't be dissuaded. (and those threats are nil anyways)
How being critical of video games has morphed into some life and death ideal is a bit perplexing and sad really. The attempt to frame this as a discussion worth getting shot over and getting your audience shot over is over the top and a red herring.
stanman wrote: Seems to me there were a lot of people back in the 60's that heard "hippies go home or we'll shoot", or "darkies go home or we'll shoot" and they stayed in order to protest. Because of that things got changed.
The people threatening the hippies and minorities were the authorities, the guy threatening to kill her and the audience was not.
The people threatening the hippies and minorities were the authorities, the guy threatening to kill her and the audience was not.
Not always, lots of ordinary citizens actively fought against civil right activists. Skinheads or other extremist that make threats against holocaust lectures aren't authorities, but when those meetings go ahead as planned it's a very strong statement that they won't bow to pressure and threats.
But again I really doubt any of the threats were sincere, considering they were reviewed by the school (and likely police) and they found no situation for concern.
To be honest, I could easily see her using the threat as a marketing ploy* (not necessarily manufacturing it though), but the fact is she should not have been put in the position where it was possible.
Aka, she shouldn't be getting the threats, especially greatly specific ones like that.
It's just a list of arguments to make instead of acknowledging that misogynistic violence is a real problem in this country and should be unacceptable.
Oh I forgot one:
(1) there was no real threat (or no "legit threat")
(2) Sarkeesian or her supporters made the threat as a marketing ploy
(3) if Sarkeesian really believes what she says about video games she should be ready to die for it
(2) Sarkeesian or her supporters made the threat as a marketing ploy
(3) if Sarkeesian really believes what she says about video games she should be ready to die for it
Did you guys have any other arguments to add?
(I'm not including the one insulting the entire state of Utah.)
(5) third party trolls made the threat to get great amusement for little effort?
For what it's worth, I'd be surprised if she made the threat herself. If she did, she'd have more to gain by going through with the appearance and looking courageous in the face of adversity.
Unless she isn't very intelligent, which let's be honest is always a possibility. For everyone.
Manchu wrote: It's just a list of arguments to make instead of acknowledging that misogynistic violence is a real problem in this country and should be unacceptable.
The way you phrase that makes it sound like non-misogynistic violence isn't a real problem in this country and should be acceptable
It's an honest question. Do you somehow think non-misogynistic violence is somehow different from misogynistic violence? Is that why you're separating the two?
stanman wrote: Not always, lots of ordinary citizens actively fought against civil right activists. Skinheads or other extremist that make threats against holocaust lectures aren't authorities, but when those meetings go ahead as planned it's a very strong statement that they won't bow to pressure and threats.
1) You're changing the event and time period.
2) You're equating video game criticism with the Holocaust and Neo-Nazis, which is absurd.
Sining wrote: It's an honest question. Do you somehow think non-misogynistic violence is somehow different from misogynistic violence? Is that why you're separating the two?
Violence can be motivated by various things.
This thread is specifically about violence motivated by misogyny.
Manchu wrote: Bad form to call someone out on making a strawman argument and then post this kind of thing:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: but if you know better than USU police, the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit
There was no strawman on my part, bad form of you to imply otherwise
Manchu wrote: As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?
Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?
Ahtman wrote: Since you are using that wrong I have to assume you don't know what it actually means but heard it once and just sometimes repeat it in a bid to sound more knowledgeable.
Ad hominem
Ahtman wrote: Then why did you say "She refuses to speak because Campus Police have determined there is no actual threat"
Bolded to help you.
Oh no, you got me. I mis-phrased one thing, and then repeatedly quoted the actual words from the Campus Police. I guess you got me, you can ignore everything else that was in fact correct, focus on that one thing I mis-phrased, and give yourself a big ol' high five
Ahtman wrote: You seem to confuse downplaying something and lying about it. None of those organizations are going to tell people to freak out and that an idiot is going to kill them and that they have no idea what is going to happen or who he is. You reassure the populace that they aren't in any immediate danger, that you have things under control, and are looking into the situation. Which is what they did and also why they specifically state 'imminent threat' and not "there is no threat". 'Imminent threat' isn't some casual conversation they accidentally dropped but describes a specific event(s).
You seem to confuse downplaying something with outright lying about it a la Comical Ali. If there is an actual threat it is not uncommon for LEOs to tell people to watch out for suspicious activity and report it, to exercise more caution under certain conditions.
Again, do you have anything for your assessment, such as it is, beyond mere suppositions?
Manchu wrote: As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?
Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?
What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.
More like a violent threat by a misogynist to intimidate her into not speaking, a true and earnest threat that will be followed, or trolls diving in and really going for the freak out
Only saying because a threat doesn't necessitate anything. Immature and stupid as hell or absolutely deranged. Either answer is bad but just to toss in some more complicated twists to it. Honestly I really can't tell what with the internet being, well, the internet.
Manchu wrote: What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.
Manchu wrote: What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.
Just yes or no, please play fair.
Fair is as fair does. You are welcome to answer the same question as Ensis did.
Manchu wrote: What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.
Just yes or no, please play fair.
Fair is as fair does. You are welcome to answer the same question as Ensis did.
So you cannot abide by the same behaviour that you demand from others. Interesting. So was that a yes or no?
Other than a discration from the question I do not see what legitimate purpose can be served by forcing me to answer a question about an argument I have not advanced
Actually, his question is easily answered with a yes or no, -then- followed by either linking of sources (yes), or a lack of linking of sources (no).
If you would then respond with "Well, that's more than just yes or no!" you're being needlessly pedantic for no real reason beyond being antagonistic.
sining, you're not helping anyone with gak posts like that, except providing easy targets for people of the opposing viewpoint (if a mod doesn't remove it, as they should, as it's needless flamebaiting).
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Dreadclaw's question was "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?" Your answer was "Yes" followed by idle speculation?
My original statement was:
Manchu wrote: As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?
The statement itself is speculative. (Note I used the word "might." There's even a question mark -- you know, to prevent confusion.) The only sense that such a statement can be 'substantiated' is by logic.
MrDwhitey wrote: Actually, his question is easily answered with a yes or no, -then- followed by either linking of sources (yes), or a lack of linking of sources (no).
As I mentioned, DreadClaw did not actually ask a Y/N question but I answered it as one all the same; in the interests of playing fair, or rather showing good sportsmanship. I am not really sure what kind of source I could provide to back up my original statement that the police could have downplayed the threat to avoid panic considering it wasn't actually a declaration that the police did downplay the threat. But that is after all why I initially asked DreadClaw what kind of source he was looking for (e.g., an example of police admitting to downplay threats in other situations).
I would say that the answer would then be no I think, as it was speculation on your part. It's certainly logical speculation I happily give you. There are reasons people/enforcement would downplay threats (avoiding panic is an excellent one).
The thing is, saying "no" isn't necessarily a bad thing. All you're doing is putting forth an opinion in a discussion. It's when you claim something as being "this is 100% what happened" that you should be going "SOURCE!".
Asking source for a speculative comment would be more right when it's a ridiculous speculation, for example, they'd downplay the threat because Obama might've been personally offended by Anita's hairstyle.
MrDwhitey wrote: It's when you claim something as being "this is 100% what happened" that you should be going "SOURCE!".
I quite agree but you see when people accuse you of posting "idle speculation" it's a kind of rhetorical tactic to insinuate you are talking nonsense without actually showing that is the case. Well, fair play -- I asked Dreadclaw what kind of source he wanted me substantiate a statement about why police might have done something I did not claim they did. Rather than owning up to using a bit of slimy rhetoric, he used some more and deliberately mis-phrased the question "what is your source" as a Y/N question in order to flame me for asking a Y/N question earlier in the thread. So as I said, fair enough, I will show a bit of sportsmanship and do what I can, knowing of course that it would become apparent that asking me to provide a source for the statement
Manchu wrote: As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?
is meaningless.
So here we are, showing exactly that.
Also, he did make a strawman argument against Ahtman by claiming Ahtman argued he (Ahtman) knew more than a variety of law enforcement agencies when Ahtman made no such claim.
easysauce wrote: why is the threat against anita so much more important then similar threats against other groups, like the mens group in detroit?
you seem quite ready to cry out "mysogeny" in anitas case, but not misandry in the other.
First, you are guilty of false equivalency in this post. The threat at issue ITT was from a man who said feminism ruined his life and claimed he would commit a massacre in imitation of a past one which was also motivated explicitly by hatred of women. So far as I know, from the scant sources available at least, nothing similar was the case as to the MRA event.
BUT -- assuming someone did threaten MRAs and made it completely clear that the basis of their threat was hatred of men and went so far as to even put it into the context of a history of public violence against men motivated by the desire to treat men unfairly because of their sex, to treat them as less than people just because they are men, well there is no question that such would be just as bad as what actually has happened in the circumstances we are discussing ITT.
So yes that hypothetical situation would be bad. And this actual situation is also bad. I mean, I am more concerned with the one that is actually happening, of course.
Sining wrote: Not everyone believes the threat were serious judging by the replies in this thread.
Yes, No, something. I won't say your wrong. You kind of right that people don't take this threat serious, but this is something I complain about from time to time. I think we might be too OK with threats. Someone threatening a mass killing isn't a good thing, it isn't a neutral thing, it's very much a bad thing and wish people would be more bothered by it.
Manchu wrote: Your question is easy to answer: YES - it is completely logical that police would downplay a threat they have not or cannot confirm.
Except that wasn't the question. The question, which you quoted, was "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?"
Manchu wrote: I doubt that's what you wanted to read, however, which is why I wanted to know what kind of back up you would find acceptable.
Answering a question I did not pose, now accusations of bad faith. Interesting
Manchu wrote: Also to be fair, you did not ask me a yes or no question; you phrased a question asking me to back up a statement as a yes or no question.
So the question "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?" is not what you would consider something that could be answered as yes or no, but "Should Sarkeesian be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games?" is a yes or no question. Strange
Manchu wrote: Now my question: do you think Sarkeesian should be willing to die over speaking about video games in public?
I do not see what legitimate purpose can be served by forcing me to answer a question about an argument I have not advanced
Manchu wrote: As to why I'd like to hear your answer, earlier ITT you thought it was important to qualify the threat.
Quantify? Do you mean when I was repeating what the Campus Police and other law enforcement agencies determined?
Manchu wrote: Also, he did make a strawman argument against Ahtman by claiming Ahtman argued he (Ahtman) knew more than a variety of law enforcement agencies when Ahtman made no such claim.
Speaking of poor sportsmanship
You would be correct, but only if you actually mis-read my words, specifically the phrase "if you know better". At no stage did I say that he knew better. Ignoring that qualifying remark changes the point I was advancing, and mis-represents my argument.
Sining wrote: Not everyone believes the threat were serious judging by the replies in this thread.
Yes, No, something. I won't say your wrong. You kind of right that people don't take this threat serious, but this is something I complain about from time to time. I think we might be too OK with threats. Someone threatening a mass killing isn't a good thing, it isn't a neutral thing, it's very much a bad thing and wish people would be more bothered by it.
It's amazing what humans will get used to if exposed to it enough.
DreadClaw -- asking me to back up a statement is not a Y/N question. And of you want to pretend you only asked me if I could back up the statement I made, the answer remains yes. I already answered it. And you have not answered my question.
easysauce wrote: why is the threat against anita so much more important then similar threats against other groups, like the mens group in detroit?
you seem quite ready to cry out "mysogeny" in anitas case, but not misandry in the other.
First, you are guilty of false equivalency in this post. The threat at issue ITT was from a man who said feminism ruined his life and claimed he would commit a massacre in imitation of a past one which was also motivated explicitly by hatred of women. So far as I know, from the scant sources available at least, nothing similar was the case as to the MRA event.
BUT -- assuming someone did threaten MRAs and made it completely clear that the basis of their threat was hatred of men and went so far as to even put it into the context of a history of public violence against men motivated by the desire to treat men unfairly because of their sex, to treat them as less than people just because they are men, well there is no question that such would be just as bad as what actually has happened in the circumstances we are discussing ITT.
So yes that hypothetical situation would be bad. And this actual situation is also bad. I mean, I am more concerned with the one that is actually happening, of course.
its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical.
they received threats, on their lives, because they are presenting their opinion just the same. The difference is that they just happened to pay for the extra security at their event, instead of expecting it for free, or turning it into a PR stunt.
anita is a woman who tried to present her opinion in a public forum, and was threatened with violence.
the mens group wanted to present their opinion in a public forum, they were also threatened with violence.
the mens groups threats are directed at their ideology/gender just as much as hers, to treat them differently is a double standard.
Manchu wrote: The threat at issue ITT was from a man who said feminism ruined his life and claimed he would commit a massacre in imitation of a past one which was also motivated explicitly by hatred of women.
We don't know the gender of who sent the threat.
Hence my first post:
I sincerely hope they catch the person or persons behind this
Manchu wrote: As to why I'd like to hear your answer, earlier ITT you thought it was important to qualify the threat.
Quantify?
Try again -- qualify.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Do you mean when I was repeating what the Campus Police and other law enforcement agencies determined?
To jog your memory: you suggested that there was conflict between First and Second Amendment rights; Ahtman corrected you -- the police were restrained by the state's concel carry law. You acknowledged your mistake (by blaiming it on Sarkeesian) and the re-focused your argument thusly:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: the point remains that Campus Police have determined that there is no imminent threat
Ahtman then criticized you for distinguishing between a threat and an imminent threat.
This distinction is interesting to me. Is the threat of being murdered a good enough reason to cancel? Or must the threat be "imminent"?
And more importantly: do you think Sarkeesian should be prepared to die in order to speak publicly on video games?
easysauce wrote: its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical
So you acknowledge the cases are in fact different? That means the ought to be treated differently. So as to this
easysauce wrote: to treat them differently is a double standard.
Treating different things differently isn't really a double standard.
True. My assumption is based on the fact that this person compared him- or herself to the Montreal killer and that I have never heard of a woman going on a killing spree because feminism "ruined" her life. But yeah, it is certainly possible the person who sent the threat is a man or woman.
easysauce wrote: its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical
So you acknowledge the cases are in fact different? That means the ought to be treated differently. So as to this
easysauce wrote: to treat them differently is a double standard.
Treating different things differently isn't really a double standard.
Both involve threats of violence to shut down discussion. They are remarkably equivalent. The gender of the individual/s has nothing to do with the issue.
Haemonculus wrote: Both involve threats of violence to shut down discussion. They are remarkably equivalent. The gender of the individual/s has nothing to do with the issue.
It's actually very important because there is in reality a history of mass killings motivated by misogyny and the the person who sent the threat explicitly invoked that history. That's not the case in the MRA threat. If it was the case, if there was that history and if it was being evoked, then we would be dealing with equivalent cases.
And more importantly: do you think Sarkeesian should be prepared to die in order to speak publicly on video games?
Do you think loaded questions are good for debates?
What about this question is loaded? An actual loaded question contains an assumption that must be accepted in order to answer it. There is no such assumption in my question. My question does not force the person answering it to assume any position whatsoever. It's either yes, she should have to be willing to put her life on the line or no she should not have to risk her life to talk about video games.
I mean, I can understand why a decent person would hesitate to publicly say a woman should be willing to die to talk about video games. Because why should anyone have to be willing to die just to talk about video games? In fact, why should anyone have to be willing to die to talk about anything in this country where we have freedom of speech?
Haemonculus wrote: Both involve threats of violence to shut down discussion. They are remarkably equivalent. The gender of the individual/s has nothing to do with the issue.
It's actually very important because there is in reality a history of mass killings motivated by misogyny and the the person who sent the threat explicitly invoked that history. That's not the case in the MRA threat. If it was the case, if there was that history and if it was being evoked, then we would be dealing with equivalent cases.
I understand, but it's still a threat to kill regardless of the motivation. They are still equivalent because both involve the threat to end several lives simply because someone (or a group) do not agree with the message. While I think misogyny is deplorable, I also happen to consider implied misandry equally bad (which, less face it, is exactly what happened with the MRA conference). When you bring it down to, "Oh, Sarkeesian threats were motivated with misogyny" you are essentially stating that it's functionally more threatening than misandry, which is simply incorrect.
Manchu wrote: What I am saying is, the kind of thing threatened in this case is something that has happened. It is a fact about our society.
By contrast, there really isn't a history of misandric killing sprees.
Thank you, but it does not make the threat worse or less worse. There's also a greater history of men being massacred simply because it's more 'socially acceptable' to kill men. So any threat to kill men is taken more seriously. So on that basis, was the threat to kill the MRAs worse than that to kill Sarkeesian? Of course not.
Now, I need to make one thing clear. There's been a lot of nasty and vicious things said about her, but no more than many internet personalities. The internet is an ugly place, and I feel sorry for her.
I can't think of any other internet personality who felt compelled to cancel a lecture at a university because someone threatened to murder her and as many other people who show up as possible.
I can't think of any other internet personality who felt compelled to cancel a lecture at a university because someone threatened to murder her and as many other people who show up as possible.
Well, the MRA meeting venue changed due to the amount and seriousness of the threats. That's one.
I can't think of any other internet personality who felt compelled to cancel a lecture at a university because someone threatened to murder her and as many other people who show up as possible.
Well, the MRA meeting venue changed due to the amount and seriousness of the threats. That's one.
The MRA people were threatened by someone or more than one person who said they would show up and murder everyone there if possible?
And the people who made those threats explicitly referenced imitating things that have actually occurred?
Ah, so people speaking out publicly about the rights of a disadvantaged group are being threatened with violence. Some things never change about humanity.
Manchu wrote: The MRA people were threatened by someone or more than one person who said they would show up and murder everyone there if possible?
And the people who made those threats explicitly referenced imitating things that have actually occurred?
Yes, absolutely. Serious threats to the attendees and hotel staff were made. As I noted earlier.
Well, yes. Given that similar things have happened to men (and women) in the past. A threat is a threat is a threat. Sure, I can accept you think that Anita's threat is somehow worse (I still am not convinced), but you're shrouding the seriousness of times others have also been threatened. They're equivalent simply because people perceive being threatened. Anita is not perceiving it worse.
Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree You have made some good points!
easysauce wrote: its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical
So you acknowledge the cases are in fact different? That means the ought to be treated differently. So as to this
easysauce wrote: to treat them differently is a double standard.
Treating different things differently isn't really a double standard.
yes, the two situations are not identical, I NEVER claimed they were the same, no two situations are identical, but they are close enough for a legitimate comparison to be made.
that does not mean we should treating an attack on a woman activist differently then an attack on male ones.
Its actually the same justification I hear from many pro male-circumcision but anti female-circumcision people, that one is ok the other is not, cause, they are different, because one is cutting a females gentials for religious/bogus medical reasons/???, and the other is cutting a mans for religious/bogus medical/aesthetic/???? reasons. Both are "different" in the literal sense, but close enough that if you were being fair you would see there is a valid comparison.
If I can only ever compare identical solutions, then there is nothing to compare with anything really.
Sure but I do think we agree to a substantial degree. We seem to agree that threatening violence against anyone, man or woman or any other gender, to prevent them from speaking publicly is not acceptable. And I think that is ultimately the most important thing.
Our disagreement comes down to whether it is important that there is a history of killing sprees motivated by misogyny and no history of killing sprees motivated by miandry. To me, it is extremely important that the person making the threat could even specifically invoke a similar event that already happened that had the same motives as the one he (or possibly she) was claiming.
easysauce wrote: no two situations are identical, but they are close enough for a legitimate comparison to be mades
Go back to my original answer:
Manchu wrote: BUT -- assuming someone did threaten MRAs and made it completely clear that the basis of their threat was hatred of men and went so far as to even put it into the context of a history of public violence against men motivated by the desire to treat men unfairly because of their sex, to treat them as less than people just because they are men, well there is no question that such would be just as bad as what actually has happened in the circumstances we are discussing ITT.
So yes that hypothetical situation would be bad. And this actual situation is also bad. I mean, I am more concerned with the one that is actually happening, of course.
Our disagreement comes down to whether it is important that there is a history of killing sprees motivated by misogyny and no history of killing sprees motivated by miandry. To me, it is extremely important that the person making the threat could even specifically invoke a similar event that already happened that had the same motives as the one he (or possibly she) was claiming.
Even if there is no history of killing sprees influenced by misandry (lazy to google at the moment, if someone wants to prove me wrong, please do), it doesn't mean that it can't happen. I'm curious as to why you keep bringing it up.
Except you keep mentioning it's important to note that there is no history of killings inspired by misandry. This is a strange point to keep mentioning. Instead of just going 'death threats are bad', for some reason we're arguing about misogyny, misandry, whether misogyny causes women to receive more death threats, the history of killing sprees cause by misandry/misogyny etc. We're dragging more political buzzwords and divisiveness into this thread when really, we all can agree death threats are bad and people who are famous tend to receive them.
This isn't a case of "dragging" misogyny into a thread about death threats.
This is a case of an explicitly misogynistic death threat: one that fits into a well-established pattern of similar incidents -- both in terms of threats and killing sprees; so much so, in fact, that the threat itself invoked that history.
You see, that's the difference. You see a misogynist issuing a death threat. I see a whackjob issuing a death threat.
Also, until they catch the guy, we really have clue what his or her stance is, if they're misogynistic or not. It's very possible that person is not misogynistic but did it for the attention or to troll.
Sining wrote: You see a misogynist issuing a death threat. I see a whackjob issuing a death threat.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
And really, which is a better explanation here:
1) The person who wrote the letter believes what they said (which would make them a misogynist), but may not have been willing to take it all the way to actually murdering people.
or
2) The person who wrote the letter doesn't believe any of it and just wanted to troll people.
Given how obvious #1 is I really don't see why we're wasting any time in a desperate attempt to present this threat as anything other than what it first appears to be.
Sining wrote: You see a misogynist issuing a death threat. I see a whackjob issuing a death threat.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
And really, which is a better explanation here:
1) The person who wrote the letter believes what they said (which would make them a misogynist), but may not have been willing to take it all the way to actually murdering people.
or
2) The person who wrote the letter doesn't believe any of it and just wanted to troll people.
Given how obvious #1 is I really don't see why we're wasting any time in a desperate attempt to present this threat as anything other than what it first appears to be.
Because the purpose of forums is to discuss stuff and not blindly echo each other? And to be honest, who knows the truth now. Who would have believed the whole threat to leak Emma Watsons nude photos was started by a PR firm to talk about how bad leaking nude photos is. Saying it's option 1 is the safest most plausible answer but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I'm sure we'll find out more once they catch the person involved.
Are you sure you want to thank the staff for threads like this?
In all seriousness, the thread has been mostly in keeping with the rules. I firmly believe we can have discussion on serious and sensitive topics here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote: I'm sure we'll find out more once they catch the person involved.
You know I just realized I have pretty much no confidence this person will be found. I don't know if that is a realistic position. But it is a depressing one. Because really, as nomotog posted I think, we are just a bit too comfortable with death threats like this. This is really a heinous crime whether it is a sincere threat or hoax.
Sining wrote: I'm sure we'll find out more once they catch the person involved.
You know I just realized I have pretty much no confidence this person will be found. I don't know if that is a realistic position. But it is a depressing one. Because really, as nomotog posted I think, we are just a bit too comfortable with death threats like this. This is really a heinous crime whether it is a sincere threat or hoax.
I too have very little confidence they'll find the guy [edit] person. Internet death threats are excused to a way too large extent.
Are you sure you want to thank the staff for threads like this?
In all seriousness, the thread has been mostly in keeping with the rules. I firmly believe we can have discussion on serious and sensitive topics here.
Eh, if none of us thank you, you'll never know you're appreciated.
Sarkeesian later announced on Twitter that she had been forced to cancel the appearance because of insufficient police protection against concealed weapons.
Forced to cancel hey?
Letter from USU President Albrecht and Provost Cockett:
President and Provost offer insights on USU's response to recent threatening email
Dear Students, Staff and Faculty,
As you are aware, several USU staff members received a threatening email at 10:15 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 13 regarding Anita Sarkeesian's talk scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 15. As you probably have read, this email threatened both Ms. Sarkeesian and those who attended her event.
The safety of our students, staff and USU community is paramount to us. USU police were contacted immediately, as were state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit.
Prior to the threat, USU police were already making preparations for security as Ms. Sarkeesian had received threats in the past. After receiving the email, USU police added heightened security measures, including securing the Taggart Student Center auditorium far in advance, ensuring her safety to and from the event, and bringing in additional uniformed and plain-clothed police officers.
Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.
The safety and protection of students and those who attend our events is our foremost priority at Utah State. But we are also an institution of higher learning. In this case, the Center for Women and Gender had invited a nationally known speaker to bring her perspective about an important topic to USU. After a full assessment of the situation, the USU administration, in consultation with law enforcement, chose to continue with the event.
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. As a Utah public institution, we follow state law. The Utah law provides that people who legally possess a concealed firearm permit are allowed to carry a firearm on public property, like the USU campus.
We are disappointed that students and other community members did not benefit from her presentation. While we will always prioritize the safety of our community, no threat changes Utah State University's unwavering advocacy of academic freedom and free speech rights of everyone.
Yeah, time to nitpick that "not feeling safe enough to speak in a public place after receiving death threats and learning that state law does not allow banning guns in an event" isn't really being forced to cancel, because she was still given the opportunity to take the risk she wasn't comfortable with. Let's once again look for any possible excuse for why it's really her fault, and we should just ignore the "trolls".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote: Because the purpose of forums is to discuss stuff and not blindly echo each other? And to be honest, who knows the truth now. Who would have believed the whole threat to leak Emma Watsons nude photos was started by a PR firm to talk about how bad leaking nude photos is. Saying it's option 1 is the safest most plausible answer but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I'm sure we'll find out more once they catch the person involved.
There's a difference between discussing stuff and being unreasonably skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. Is there any credible reason to believe that she faked a massacre threat against herself just to get attention? No. So why act like the two possibilities are equal and we need to wait longer before assuming that someone did in fact send a threat?
“This was direct, specific, credible threats that were specifically stating the types of weapons that they would use about a mass shooting.” - Anita Sarkeesian
"USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued. At no time was there any imminent threat.” - USU
The lady doth protest too much...
Death threats are terrible, and those that make them need to be found and punished, but Anita's continued and consistent use of her threats as a weapon to smash away any and all criticism (let alone debate) whilst simultaneously furthering the cause of her simply terrible "analysis" project is nothing short of dishonest (at best), and a con (at worst).
Prior to the threat, USU police were already making preparations for security as Ms. Sarkeesian had received threats in the past. After receiving the email, USU police added heightened security measures, including securing the Taggart Student Center auditorium far in advance, ensuring her safety to and from the event, and bringing in additional uniformed and plain-clothed police officers.
Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.
So they would have had extra police onsite and escorting her at all times, how much security does she need before she feels safe? Maybe she needs a detachment of secret service staff like the president has?
Would it need to be an all female escort? Surely she can't possibly be safe around male officers.
Manchu wrote: DreadClaw -- asking me to back up a statement is not a Y/N question. And of you want to pretend you only asked me if I could back up the statement I made, the answer remains yes. I already answered it. And you have not answered my question.
Manchu -- "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?" can plainly be answered as a yes/no, it was phrased as a closed question. Had I asked "Please substantiate your claim" that would be asking you to back up your statement.
And you did answer yes, but not to the question posed. You may pretend otherwise but that does not make it so.
Again, I do not see what legitimate purpose can be served by forcing me to answer a question about an argument I have not advanced
H.B.M.C. wrote: “This was direct, specific, credible threats that were specifically stating the types of weapons that they would use about a mass shooting.” - Anita Sarkeesian
"USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued. At no time was there any imminent threat.” - USU
The lady doth protest too much...
Did you actually read the threat letter? Because if you do you'll see that there were specific claims about weapons, mass shootings, etc, just like she said. The fact that the police later determined that they didn't believe the threat was a credible one does not mean that there is any inconsistency between your two quotes.
Death threats are terrible, and those that make them need to be found and punished, but Anita's continued and consistent use of her threats as a weapon to smash away any and all criticism (let alone debate) whilst simultaneously furthering the cause of her simply terrible "analysis" project is nothing short of dishonest (at best), and a con (at worst).
I don't see how it's smashing away any and all criticism, unless the only criticism you care about is "death threats are awesome". It's very easy to criticize the substance of her arguments about gender and gaming, and anyone attempting to dismiss that criticism with "BUT I GET DEATH THREATS" would instantly destroy their own credibility. The threats are only an effective argument because the debate has turned into an anti-SJW crusade based on personal attacks against Anita herself, not a reasonable discussion of gaming.
Prior to the threat, USU police were already making preparations for security as Ms. Sarkeesian had received threats in the past. After receiving the email, USU police added heightened security measures, including securing the Taggart Student Center auditorium far in advance, ensuring her safety to and from the event, and bringing in additional uniformed and plain-clothed police officers.
Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.
So they would have had extra police onsite and escorting her at all times, how much security does she need before she feels safe? Maybe she needs a detachment of secret service staff like the president has?
Would it need to be an all female escort? Surely she can't possibly be safe around male officers.
She doesn’t want to be safe. She wants to play the victim.
‘Anita Sarkeesian gives lecture at university’ doesn’t get many headlines. ‘Anita Sarkeesian being ‘forced’ to cancel an appearance after receiving threats’ on the other hand Guarantees sympatric coverage from the Huffington Post, Twitter and half of Tumblr.
Who cares if the threats where real or not? There’s publicity to be had!
LuciusAR wrote: She doesn’t want to be safe. She wants to play the victim.
‘Anita Sarkeesian gives lecture at university’ doesn’t get many headlines. ‘Anita Sarkeesian being ‘forced’ to cancel an appearance after receiving threats’ on the other hand Guarantees sympatric coverage from the Huffington Post, Twitter and half of Tumblr.
Who cares if the threats where real or not? There’s publicity to be had!
Oh good, more "blame the victim" nonsense. It can't possibly be the case that someone who just received a massacre threat and had the police say "sorry, bringing your machine gun everywhere you go is a sacred right in this state, we won't ban guns from your talk" might not feel very comfortable with the situation even though the police are willing to dismiss it as just an anonymous idiot who won't go beyond talk. It has to be that she just loves being a professional victim and wants more attention! Never mind that canceling events when you don't really have to feeds the trolls and encourages them to do it again (if it really was just trolling), TUMBLR SJWS FEMINISTS HATE MEN.
stanman wrote: I've attended lectures at numerous different colleges and not once did I ever have to go through any sort of security screening, or pat downs for weapons, and somehow all of them managed to be incident free.
Did you ever go to one where someone had written in beforehand that he had a personal grudge against the topic of the talk, that the ideas to be talked about ruined his life, and that he plans to attend and murder as many people as possible in a way similar to an event where the same thing has actually happened before?
Let me answer this: yes. Most people I work with and I myself frequently receive several death threats when announcing a speech at a certain place. Letters and e-mails with people threatening to start a shooting, bomb the place, we already received letters filled with sugar etc.
The question is whether you want to give a speech to give a speech and talk about a topic or to be in the spotlight. In Anita's case, it's the latter, as she has no actual stuff to talk about. And if sth. else gets you more attention than having the speech itself, you go for that instead. Tadaa.
Sining wrote: Because the purpose of forums is to discuss stuff and not blindly echo each other? And to be honest, who knows the truth now. Who would have believed the whole threat to leak Emma Watsons nude photos was started by a PR firm to talk about how bad leaking nude photos is. Saying it's option 1 is the safest most plausible answer but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I'm sure we'll find out more once they catch the person involved.
There's a difference between discussing stuff and being unreasonably skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. Is there any credible reason to believe that she faked a massacre threat against herself just to get attention? No. So why act like the two possibilities are equal and we need to wait longer before assuming that someone did in fact send a threat?
Let me do a Manchu. I did not say she faked her massacre threat. Go read my posts again
T'would be best if you could find a less .... abrasive ... way to express these sentiments. Please bear in mind we try to keep things around a PG-13 level on Dakka.
Thank you.
reds8n
I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.
master of ordinance wrote: PS, I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.
Maybe once she's done telling us how we're all "meant" to drag the bodies of women about in Hitman, like that was somehow the aim of the game, then maybe she'll move into the internalised misogyny inherent in the BattleTech universe.
master of ordinance wrote: PS, I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.
Maybe once she's done telling us how we're all "meant" to drag the bodies of women about in Hitman, like that was somehow the aim of the game, then maybe she'll move into the internalised misogyny inherent in the BattleTech universe.
I do wonder how she'll handle characters like Natasha Kerensky.... Phallic objectified cannon perhaps
master of ordinance wrote: PS, I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.
Maybe once she's done telling us how we're all "meant" to drag the bodies of women about in Hitman, like that was somehow the aim of the game, then maybe she'll move into the internalised misogyny inherent in the BattleTech universe.
Let us pray that there aren't any weapons with "penetration rounds".
Considering Manchu has gotten loads of flak over the speculation that police didn't want to upset the masses, how come "she's just faking it!" is still being put forth in one variation or another?
RatBot wrote: I do have to wonder what those "extra security measures" would entail if they weren't going to search people coming in. What could they actually do if one or more random audience member(s) pulled out a gun and started shooting beyond hoping that their security guys were both faster and better shots? Set up a bullet-proof booth for Sarkeesian? Either way, I can sympathize with not wanting to speak in front of an audience full of people who are expressly allowed to have concealed firearms on them, if I had received threats of death at said event.
Thats what security is for. Pat down searches? No freaking way. She aint the fething POTUS and I wouldn't do that for POTUS.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Considering Manchu has gotten loads of flak over the speculation that police didn't want to upset the masses, how come "she's just faking it!" is still being put forth in one variation or another?
Because people have a weird need to believe in false flags. Besides, there are people faked threats (Brianna Wu springs to mind, given her behaviour), so it makes people doubt Anita. There's no reason to doubt that Anita received threats - she did, end of story, there's no debating that - but the severity of those threats, and how credible they were, and how much of a song and dance she makes them (always a full production, as one of the world's best professional victims is want to do), that's more interesting (and more frustrating).
EDIT: I keep writing "threads" rather than "threats". I blame Dakka. And Obama.
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.
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.
easysauce wrote: its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical
So you acknowledge the cases are in fact different? That means the ought to be treated differently. So as to this
easysauce wrote: to treat them differently is a double standard.
Treating different things differently isn't really a double standard.
yes, the two situations are not identical, I NEVER claimed they were the same, no two situations are identical, but they are close enough for a legitimate comparison to be made.
that does not mean we should treating an attack on a woman activist differently then an attack on male ones.
Its actually the same justification I hear from many pro male-circumcision but anti female-circumcision people, that one is ok the other is not, cause, they are different, because one is cutting a females gentials for religious/bogus medical reasons/???, and the other is cutting a mans for religious/bogus medical/aesthetic/???? reasons. Both are "different" in the literal sense, but close enough that if you were being fair you would see there is a valid comparison.
If I can only ever compare identical solutions, then there is nothing to compare with anything really.
Manchu wrote: Just to recap, the arguments are:
(1) there was no real threat
A misunderstanding? What details have been divulged is pretty clear of wanting to re-create the Montreal massacre.
What I find funny is the writer only wishes it would be like that: there would be undetermined armed people in attendance unlike in Canada.
(2) Sarkeesian or her supporters made the threat as a marketing ploy
Which would promptly get them arrested since the police were involved.
(3) if Sarkeesian really believes what she says about video games she should be ready to die for it
I would change that wording to: when obtaining celebrity status she should expect her risk from fringe elements to increase.
Just want to make sure I've got them all.
Basically her "comfort level" of risk was exceeded:
"Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches." - Anita 10:12 PM - 14 Oct 2014
Since the laws of the land allows weapons to be carried they could not enforce her needs.
She was on "private property" and could have arranged to make participation conditional of no weapons and have campus security enforce.
An added request of a police presence would still be allowed.
I am unsure why this avenue was not explored.
This requirement may preclude her from appearing in multiple states.
Just want to make sure I got this straight: she publishes snippets of the threatening letter then cancels her talk as per the letter writer's wishes. I think she now has guaranteed a dedicated pen pal and encouraged more!.
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).
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.
You have a point with the first bit there...
As for your second, here's a reasonable statement about why she shouldn't be afraid for her safety, and it came from the law enforcement agencies at the school: "no credible threat"
An added request of a police presence would still be allowed.
I believe that this was actually a part of the police's plan... Basically, they came out saying there's no credible threat, but because threats for this event were sent to school officials, we're going to post additional security at the event to protect our staff and students.
I hate the people who have been sending her death threats and sexual harassing letters.
Every time she gets one, she is able to point at it as proof her arguments are right. Why else would these men be reacting so strongly. Well her arguments are bunk, people actions proved her right.
To bad a bunch of over grown man children need to harass her to try and prove their pen is the biggest.
These and many over kinds of reactions has stereotyped online video gaming communities for a reason.
Thank you. I while I understand that police determined that the threat was not credible, I can totally understand why she did not feel safe. I totally get why she might not wish to speak at a site that allows concealed carry, based on the threats she has gotten in the past. Now one could argue that there should have been an agreement between her and the school that guns could not be allowed in for the event. It might have avoided this concern.
I am looking forward to the time that death and rape threats will not be so common. We have made progress (racial, ethnic, and sexuality-based slurs are a lot less acceptable than they were 10 years ago. Most hate is pretty coded) but it feels like we still have a way to go.
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!
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.
