Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
But Sarkeesian wants death threats?

Meeep, wrong again. She WANTS (negative) emotional responses. Those CAN include death threats. Does that mean that she WANTS those? Nope. She CAUSES negative emotional responses, but she WANTS none of those.

"Huh? You can cause something you do not want?!"

Yes. Anita CAUSES those because she WANTS positive (emotional) responses for the most part. She ACCEPTS there being negative emotional responses because her MEANS to do so rely on PURPOSEFULLY provoking other people and PROVOKING other people CAUSES negative reactions.

It's the exact same argument misogynists use to shame rape victims. It's just as misogynistic when you use it here. Don't blame me for the argument you are using.

It is not, exactly as portrayed above. Since you have been told twice as to why this is offensive and downright wrong, at this point, you are willfully playing down rape and offending rape victims - which is gut-twistingly shocking, at least to me. Either continue to do so or use another comparison to make your point. It's your choice.

Furthermore, you start being sexist again. Anything goes against Anita immediately is misognistic. That's positive sexism.

The fact is that Anita purposefully provokes negative emotional responses. Hands down. If you think that this is misognistic, then you let your emotions, again, blind your clear sight.

 Manchu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
She's free to decide that the level of security doesn't meet her standards

 Crablezworth wrote:
but it's indeed worth pointing out that the school and authorities were ready to go.

This is really just one sentence but I quoted it in halves because I think these are BOTH extremely good points.

No one should confuse the fact that Sarkeesian felt forced to cancel; the school did not force her to cancel. ALSO no one should be be under the misapprehension that she claims the school forced her to cancel. She made an understandable request that the school could not oblige.

"I was forced not to eat lunch by a poorly constructed ham sandwich" vs "I chose not to eat lunch due to a poorly constructed ham sandwich" both statements are kind of absurd, I just prefer the second one because what's really being communicated is that someone's culinary standards are not being met, not some malevolent sandwich is forcing someone to starve. I've seen plenty of articles that went with the "anita chose to cancel due to threat" and I much prefer the accuracy of going that route.




I hope they catch the individual who made the threat. With that said, if we assume the threat is genuine and an individual intended to do exactly what they claimed in the letter, why make the threat at all? Why not simply attempt the attack/massacre? What does it say the the school and authorities still intended to allow the event in spite of the specific nature of the threat?

 Sigvatr wrote:
The fact is that Anita purposefully provokes negative emotional responses. Hands down. If you think that this is misognistic, then you let your emotions, again, blind your clear sight.

It's also worth pointing out that she just assumes all anonymous commentors ranging from the rude/inappropriate ones all the way up to the individuals sending actual threats along with negative comments are men.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What does it say the the school and authorities still intended to allow the event in spite of the specific nature of the threat?

To be fair, it's entirely her choice whether to attend and hold the speech or not. You should not be forced or pressured to give a speech when you do not feel safe.

Professionalism is another question, though. Her behavior is similar that of someone new to giving speeches and she already has some experience.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
What does it say the the school and authorities still intended to allow the event in spite of the specific nature of the threat?

To be fair, it's entirely her choice whether to attend and hold the speech or not. You should not be forced or pressured to give a speech when you do not feel safe.

Professionalism is another question, though. Her behavior is similar that of someone new to giving speeches and she already has some experience.

I'm not disputing that, she's free to decide if the level of security meets her standards.

 Sigvatr wrote:
She WANTS (negative) emotional responses. Those CAN include death threats. Does that mean that she WANTS those? Nope.

Here we are again -- where do you draw the line between negative reactions she wants and negative reactions she doesn't want?

And what makes you think you get to draw that line? On what basis do you draw it?

You blame Sarkeesian for receiving negative reactions (including death threats). You say she causes them -AND- you say she wants them (except maybe not the death threats, you get to draw a line for her on that for some reason).

 Manchu wrote:

You blame Sarkeesian for receiving negative reactions (including death threats). You say she causes them -AND- you say she wants them (except maybe not the death threats, you get to draw a line for her on that for some reason).

I don't think it's entirely impossible that she has positively benefited from negative online reaction. I can't speak to anita "wanting" threats, however from my perspective she kinda needs threats to stay relevant. That's my honest objective assessment, heroes need villains and it's no justification to threaten, really if anything it just points out that those threatening her are basically enabling her to stay in the spotlight and be considered relevant.

 Crablezworth wrote:
heroes need villains

This is a good point. I would phrase it as: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.

 Manchu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
heroes need villains

This is a good point. I would phrase it as: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.

I still have yet to understand how misogyny is the primary motivation here, especially seeing as it's pretty much always something one is inferring. That's the whitewash side of all of this, it's like saying people take issue with bill maher or sam harris because they hate men, could never possibly be a reaction to what they have to say or the broad brushes they seem to favor.

In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.

 Manchu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
heroes need villains

This is a good point. I would phrase it as: if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.

but there you go again,

stating that specific, individual cases of harrasment/threats is proof of widespread misogyny in the culture as a whole.

You keep stating that these specific individuals and their threats are representative of gaming and western culture as a whole.


you seem to comprehend that the actions of a few militant feminists does not define the culture as a whole, yet you seem unable to grasp how a few chauvanists dont describe the culture as a whole either.

I could easily say the same thing about misandry and mens groups

"if there was no misandy in Western culture more generally, nothing mens groups say would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats"

but would you agree with that statement? if not, why?


please answer:

why are the individuals who threatened anita, representitive of the cultre as a whole, when individuals who threaten mens groups are not representing the culture as a whole?

 easysauce wrote:
stating that specific, individual cases of harrasment/threats is proof of widespread misogyny in the culture as a whole

Sarkeesian has been the subject of sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time. And a lot of the abuse directed at her has been explicitly sexist and misogynistic. I believe this does indeed reflect that there are misogynistic attitudes at work in our society.

Easysauce, I have already explained to you that I have never claimed there are no misadric attitudes in our society.

I'm not sure how you can say this:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I still have yet to understand how misogyny is the primary motivation here

then in the same post say this:

 Crablezworth wrote:
In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.

You just defined misogyny. If you aren't sure here are three separate definitions from three different sources.

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.


noun
1.
a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.

n.
One who hates women.
adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

 stanman wrote:
In their statements the college did state they were taking extra precautions, Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms. She felt that despite the college adding extra security that it still did not meet her expectations of safety so she cancelled. . .Eagerly awaits Manchu's claim that I'm misreading things.

 Manchu wrote:
That would be charitable. What we can certainly say is that you conclusions have no basis in the evidence.

Yup, absolutely no basis in the evidence whatsoever. Except for Anita's Tweets of course

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say this:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I still have yet to understand how misogyny is the primary motivation here

then in the same post say this:

 Crablezworth wrote:
In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.

You just defined misogyny. If you aren't sure here are three separate definitions from three different sources.

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.


noun
1.
a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.

n.
One who hates women.
adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

If you dislike a particular women, for a reason other than her gender, is that misogynist?

Oh and the first quote is in reference to the negativity she receives, not the specific threat which is the topic of this thread. Mind you it was a long sentance, so by all means quote me out of context.

 Manchu wrote:
Correct, mostly. Here's an important point: the person who sent the threat identified themselves as a misogynist by reference to the 1989 massacre. They did not identify themselves as crazy or a troll.

Given that the threat was not viewed as credible can we still put faith in the claim that the person who issued it was in fact a misogynist? If I, as a pasty white Irish person, identify as a Japanese Samurai does that make it so or does it have to go beyond a mere claim?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yup, absolutely no basis in the evidence whatsoever. Except for Anita's Tweets of course

You think this

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.

says the same thing as this?

 stanman wrote:
Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Given that the threat was not viewed as credible can we still put faith in the claim that the person who issued it was in fact a misogynist?

Yes.

EDIT - almost got me there - it's another loaded question: You understand that we can't know "in fact" anything about the motivations of the person who sent the threat at this point because we don't know who the person is. We only know that they identified their own motivations as misogynistic.

 Manchu wrote:
No one should confuse the fact that Sarkeesian felt forced to cancel; the school did not force her to cancel. ALSO no one should be be under the misapprehension that she claims the school forced her to cancel. She made an understandable request that the school could not oblige.

I don't recall anyone seriously advancing the claim that the school caused her to cancel as an argument

 Crablezworth wrote:
If you dislike a particular women, for a reason other than her gender, is that misogynist?

Did you not read the threat? It wasn't aimed at just her.

 Ahtman wrote:
Did you not read the threat? It wasn't aimed at just her.

Even besides the prospective targets, the threat explicitly invoked another misogynistic massacre.

 Crablezworth wrote:
so by all means quote me out of context.

If that was the context it failed miserably on all fronts. Phrasing something poorly then shouting "out of context!" doesn't really work when something is not really put into proper context to begin with.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
If you dislike a particular women, for a reason other than her gender, is that misogynist?

Did you not read the threat? It wasn't aimed at just her.

My question has nothing to do with the incredibly specific threat I've already said was fair to infer "misogyny" from. What are you even debating?

The question you quoted is asking, in general, why would one assume that individuals who have a bone to pick with anita's politics/ideology fear or hate women?

 Crablezworth wrote:
In the context of the specific letter in the case of this threat, I think it's fair to say the individual who wrote that might just fear or hate women.

I don't like anita sarkeesian, does that make me a misogynist?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
so by all means quote me out of context.

If that was the context it failed miserably on all fronts. Phrasing something poorly then shouting "out of context!" doesn't really work when something is not really put into proper context to begin with.

You'd probably have to finish the sentance to understand the point it's making, I know, it's tough.

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
stating that specific, individual cases of harrasment/threats is proof of widespread misogyny in the culture as a whole

Sarkeesian has been the subject of sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time. And a lot of the abuse directed at her has been explicitly sexist and misogynistic. I believe this does indeed reflect that there are misogynistic attitudes at work in our society.

Easysauce, I have already explained to you that I have never claimed there are no misadric attitudes in our society.

i dont bring up misandry to assert you think there isnt any,

I bring it up because you would never use the example of one man being harrased and threatened (even repeatedly) as an indicator for the culture as a whole.

when you say society/cullture in general thats quite a different scope this last post where its just calling out attitudes (i presume you now mean of individuals, not society/culture in general, which implies everyone)

so do you mean its just "elements" within the culture (ie individuals) not the culture itself then when you call out the whole culture/society?

if you are going to claim that because *some* or a *lot* individuals threaten her mysogenistically, constantly, is indicative of widespread issues in society/culture,

then I can counter claim that "since the majority (some, or a lot) of people are either supporting or not actually threatening her, is a sign that society/culture is actually one that loves/accepts women."

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yup, absolutely no basis in the evidence whatsoever. Except for Anita's Tweets of course

You think this

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.

says the same thing as this?

 stanman wrote:
Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms.

Your selective quoting does you a dis-service as you. Please address what I said, and underlined. Not what you have misrepresented.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Given that the threat was not viewed as credible can we still put faith in the claim that the person who issued it was in fact a misogynist?

Yes.

EDIT - almost got me there - it's another loaded question: You understand that we can't know "in fact" anything about the motivations of the person who sent the threat at this point because we don't know who the person is. We only know that they identified their own motivations as misogynistic.

It is not a loaded question. It is a question to try and clarify the inherent contradiction in your post. You claim on the one hand that we don't know enough about their motivations because we don't know who sent it, or what their intentions were, but somehow we know enough to say that they are misogynist based on this same lack of evidence and not knowing who sent the threat

 easysauce wrote:
you would never use the example of one man being harrased and threatened (even repeatedly) as an indicator for the culture as a whole

Sure I would, if the motivation for the harassment and threats was misandric.

 Manchu wrote:
Here we are again -- where do you draw the line between negative reactions she wants and negative reactions she doesn't want?

Still not getting the difference. She wants negative emotional attention as she provokes people - and that's the entire aim of someone who provokes others. She (likely) doesn't want all the offensive responses she gets, including death threats.

And what makes you think you get to draw that line? On what basis do you draw it?

I don't draw any line here. If you actually read my posts, you'd have realized that a few pages (!) ago, I already said that all of those things I mentioned aren't appropriate reactions. You merely insist on the death threats because you desperately try to make a point and attempt to demonize me / convince by using purely emotional reasoning. This, fortunately, only works on a select bit of people, however.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Did you not read the threat? It wasn't aimed at just her.

Even besides the prospective targets, the threat explicitly invoked another misogynistic massacre.

The threat that was not credible. The same threat that you keep claiming is misogynistic in spite of its obvious lack of credibility

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you would never use the example of one man being harrased and threatened (even repeatedly) as an indicator for the culture as a whole

Sure I would, if the motivation for the harassment and threats was misandric.

thats just bad reasoning then



by your own logic, since the vast majority of people are supportive of anita (or at least neutral) that should be an indicator that sociaty/culture as a whole loves women.

if a few people get to determine society/culture as a whole, despite the majority not holding their views, thats a completly backwards way of defining culture/society...

its akin to calling a cherry pie, with two raisens in it a "raisen pie",

our cuture is defined by the majority/prevailent ideas, not the marginalized ones.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Your selective quoting does you a dis-service as you.

As I what? Anyway, I told stanman his conclusion that Sarkeesian canceled the events because she disagreed with people having the right to carry conceal had no basis in fact. It didn't and it doesn't.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
but somehow we know enough to say that they are misogynist based on this same lack of evidence and not knowing who sent the threat

I said the person who sent the letter identified their own motive as misogyny. Because they threatened to imitate another massacre that was motivated by misogyny. This is a simple point.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The same threat that you keep claiming is misogynistic in spite of its obvious lack of credibility

What does the credibility of a threat have to do with whether it is misogynistic?

 Manchu wrote:
Sarkeesian has been the subject of sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time. And a lot of the abuse directed at her has been explicitly sexist and misogynistic.

Discussion 101: If you use 1 singular case as an example to make a general statement, you're failing to make a point.

 easysauce wrote:
by your own logic, since the vast majority of people are supportive of anita (or at least neutral) that should be an indicator that sociaty/culture as a whole loves women

As I have explained to you several times, that is not my logic.

 Sigvatr wrote:
1 singular case

 Manchu wrote:
sustained harassment from a large number of people over a significant amount of time

We've also discussed the 1989 massacre referenced in the threat as well as Elliot Rodger's killing spree ITT. We have also discussed the misogynistic "she asked for it" argument that you and others have repeatedly made ITT.

Manchu before you ninjaed with an edit you suggested that Anita made a reasonable request for security that wasn't met, since when are security pat downs a "reasonable" request for those attending a low level college lecture?

I've been to a number of lectures where the speaker had death threats tossed at them prior to the event, yet had no such screenings. At what point do we place the speaker behind bullet proof glass, bring in bomb sniffing dogs and strip search every attendant?