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

You claim that the only reason for why people hate her is her gender. Meeep, wrong. Again, you jump to wrong conclusions.

Your train of thought:

See that she is female => "[Female Dog]!" => "MISOGNY!"

How it most likely works:

Fall to her provocation => Get angry => "[Female Dog]!" => Not actual misogny. Unless you want to say that "Son of a [Female Dog]!" is misandristic. Do you?

We have also discussed the misogynistic "she asked for it" argument that you and others have repeatedly made ITT.

So you chose to keep downplaying rape / rape victims. Thumbs up, stay classy.

 Manchu wrote:

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

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

We're now pointing out errors in editing now? Remind me, is that a step above or below correcting someone's grammar?
You mis-quoted and mis-represented my argument, and now you are attempting to avoid it all together because the evidence from Anita herself shows that you are wrong

 Manchu wrote:

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

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

The threat was not credible. That is the simple point.
Just because someone self identifies as something does not make it so. That is the simple point
So if the threat to imitate a misogynistic massacre is in no way credible then why do you keep putting such faith in something that has been debunked?

 stanman wrote:
Manchu before you ninjaed with an edit you suggested that Anita made a reasonable request for security that wasn't met

I edited the word "reasonable" to "understandable" to avoid confusing the issue about what the law, which I wasn't talking about, and her point of view as someone who just received a death threat, which is what I was talking about. I made this change because I anticipated the word "reasonable" would be confusing and your question proves I was correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

We have also discussed the misogynistic "she asked for it" argument that you and others have repeatedly made ITT.

So you chose to keep downplaying rape / rape victims. Thumbs up, way to go.

Calling out your misogyny is not downplaying rape and rape victims.

 Manchu wrote:
Calling out your misogyny is not downplaying rape and rape victims.

I precisely told you why you are now willfully (!!) disrespecting rape victims, it's not because you make false claims because you can't defend your point with proper reasoning.

 Manchu wrote:

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

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

you say its not your logic,

but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole.

There is a disconnect there...


are the (possibly numerous) individuals, making mysogynistic threats to anita, indicators of issues in sociaty/culture as a whole?

I think you are saying "yes", would that be correct?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
now you are attempting to avoid it all together because the evidence from Anita herself shows that you are wrong

I argued that there was no evidence Sarkeesian canceled her appearance because she disagreed with the students' right to carry concealed. You have offered no evidence from any source proving that she canceled for that reason.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So if the threat to imitate a misogynistic massacre is in no way credible then why do you keep putting such faith in something that has been debunked?

No one has proved the threat was a hoax. The person who made the threat identified their motive as misogynistic. That has not been debunked.

 easysauce wrote:
but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole

No. I say it reflects that there are misogynistic attitudes in society.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Calling out your misogyny is not downplaying rape and rape victims.

I precisely told you why you are now willfully (!!) disrespecting rape victims, it's not because you make false claims because you can't defend your point with proper reasoning.

You blame the person who received the misogynistic threat for receiving it.

I am calling out your misogyny. Saying that is "disrespecting rape victims" is almost as shameful as blaming a person threatened with murder.

 Manchu wrote:

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

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

For somebody that loves to nit-pick apart quotes you seem to be selectively ignoring what Anita's own twitter posts stated.

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

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event.

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.

When university officials told Sarkeesian they could not stop concealed-weapon permit carriers from packing their handguns into the room where she was going to speak, Sarkeesian called it off and left town.

Backpacks would not have been allowed into the Taggert Student Center Auditorium, but Sarkeesian said USU declined to pat down students or post metal detectors at the doors.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58524629-78/sarkeesian-university-speech-video.html.csp


So in Anita's own words she chose not to attend because people might be exercising their rights to legally carry a firearm. It's not my random made up conclusion, but from direct statements made by Anita herself as to why she decided not to attend. The three quotes above are directly from Anita's account. Either your are ignoring her statements to fit your own agenda, or it flew over you head in which case I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole

No.

ok, so if you do not *mean* its indicative of society/culture as a whole,

 Manchu wrote:
if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.

then why say things like the above, as it factually, and literally, means you dont think she would be receiveing these threats if "if there was no misogyny in video games and western culture more generally"

you yourself said it applies to culture/society in general, hence why I think thats what you meant...

it seems like there is a huge disconnect between what you are saying, what you think it means, and what it literally means.

 Manchu wrote:


I am calling out your misogyny. Saying that is "disrespecting rape victims" is almost as shameful as blaming a person threatened with murder.

I'm fine with it. I told you that it's your decision and you chose to downplay rape and insult rape victims. If showing up your logical fallacies makes you resort to calling me a misognist, then fine, that's ok to me. I don't want to be affiliated with people who share such a shocking attitude to begin with.

 stanman wrote:
she chose not to attend because people might be exercising their rights to legally carry a firearm

This is a new argument. Here's your original one, that I said had no basis in fact:

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

 Sigvatr wrote:
I told you that it's your decision and you chose to downplay rape and insult rape victims.

This is a false dilemma.

 Manchu wrote:
This is a false dilemma.

It's a dilemma, 'tis we can agree on.

 Manchu wrote:

 stanman wrote:
she chose not to attend because people might be exercising their rights to legally carry a firearm

This is a new argument. Here's your original one, that I said had no basis in fact:

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

They're both the same, students might be armed which is protected by state law, a situation she didn't agree with so she canceled.

 stanman wrote:
They're both the same, students might be armed which is protected by state law, a situation she didn't agree with so she canceled.

She had been threatened with murder if she went to this event. She wanted the people attending not to be armed with guns. She did not say she canceled because she disagrees with the laws allowing them to carry conceal.

 stanman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 stanman wrote:
she chose not to attend because people might be exercising their rights to legally carry a firearm

This is a new argument. Here's your original one, that I said had no basis in fact:

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

They're both the same, students might be armed which is protected by state law, a situation she didn't agree with so she canceled.

From my very rudimentary understanding of this (forgive me if I'm mistaken) police in utah enforce the law of their state and as such could not prevent people from attending with firearms they are permitted to carry.

 Crablezworth wrote:
From my very rudimentary understanding of this (forgive me if I'm mistaken) police in utah enforce the law of their state and as such could not prevent people from attending with firearms they are permitted to carry.

That's my understanding as well. They could not legally comply with her request.

 Manchu wrote:

 stanman wrote:
They're both the same, students might be armed which is protected by state law, a situation she didn't agree with so she canceled.

She had been threatened with murder if she went to this event. She wanted the people attending not to be armed with guns. She did not say she canceled because she disagrees with the laws allowing them to carry conceal.

She along with any feminist in attendance was threatened. What if one of the individuals who planned to attend identified as a feminist and wanted to protect themselves with their legally owned firearm, is that bad?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
From my very rudimentary understanding of this (forgive me if I'm mistaken) police in utah enforce the law of their state and as such could not prevent people from attending with firearms they are permitted to carry.

That's my understanding as well. They could not legally comply with her request.

Small distinction but it seems anita claimed police would not, rather than could not.

"Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches. "

 Crablezworth wrote:
What if one of the individuals who planned to attend identified as a feminist and wanted to protect themselves with their legally owned firearm, is that bad?

So FYI I am not opposed to carry conceal laws but this isn't a thread about gun control.

On topic, yeah as far as I can tell she did not want anyone there to be armed except for security/police. I think that is a perfectly understandable position to take.

 Manchu wrote:

On topic, yeah as far as I can tell she did not want anyone there to be armed except for security/police. I think that is a perfectly understandable position to take.

As a non-American, isn't that basically asking to give up a fundamental right?

 Sigvatr wrote:
As a non-American, isn't that basically asking to give up a fundamental right?

Carry conceal is not actually a constitutional right (is that what you mean by fundmental?) although it is of course premised on one, the right to privately own (some kinds of) firearms (under certain conditions). Where you can carry (openly or concealed) is a different matter. You cannot carry firearms into most government buildings in many states, for example.

So again -- while this is not a gun thread -- I think the point is that Sarkeesian's request is not absolutely far-fetched but it seems that the university and police could not in this instance comply because of state law.

 easysauce wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but in fact you are asserting that the individuals who threatened anita represent society/culture as a whole

No.

ok, so if you do not *mean* its indicative of society/culture as a whole,

 Manchu wrote:
if there was no misogyny in video games and Western culture more generally, nothing Sarkeesian says would be relevant enough to merit discussion much less harassment and death threats.

then why say things like the above, as it factually, and literally, means you dont think she would be receiving these threats if "if there was no misogyny in video games and western culture more generally"

you yourself said it applies to culture/society in general, hence why I think thats what you meant...

it seems like there is a huge disconnect between what you are saying, what you think it means, and what it literally means.

still dont see how you can make broad claims as above yet not be making broad claims manchu

I adore this thread.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I adore this thread.

It is rather fascinating to watch the forum warfare having evolved into Manchu 1v5ing.

I have seen my own views on feminism develop as I have watched various videos and arguments here, but ultimately I agree more with Melissia and Manchu than with Sigvatr/Dreadclaw/easysauce/stanman/HBMC/Crablezworth.

There is a lot of disagreement but I think there is still at least some common ground:

Death threats are unacceptable no matter who they are directed at or why.

And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.

 Manchu wrote:
There is a lot of disagreement but I think there is still at least some common ground:

Death threats are unacceptable no matter who they are directed at or why.

And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.

Indeed, and that is the most important part.

Edit: I just found a great video on the topic of feminism. Now to just wait for a good time to link it - I wonder what people would say about it.

 Manchu wrote:
There is a lot of disagreement but I think there is still at least some common ground:

Death threats are unacceptable no matter who they are directed at or why.

And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.

Not too be too much of a buzz kill, but agreeing that death threats are bad isn't really that hard.

nomotog wrote:
Not too be too much of a buzz kill, but agreeing that death threats are bad isn't really that hard.

Considering how many people seen to casually make them or imply that they are justified around the web, I'd say it doesn't hurt to point out that almost all Dakkanauts agree death threats are not acceptable/justified.

 Manchu wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Not too be too much of a buzz kill, but agreeing that death threats are bad isn't really that hard.

Considering how many people seen to casually make them or imply that they are justified around the web, I'd say it doesn't hurt to point out that almost all Dakkanauts agree death threats are not acceptable/justified.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suported the use of death threats against Sarkeesian...

 Manchu wrote:
And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.

Yea the thing is, good luck with that. An article I just read on slate talks about this: A Former FBI Agent On Why It’s So Hard to Prosecute Gamergate Trolls

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There is a lot of disagreement but I think there is still at least some common ground:

Death threats are unacceptable no matter who they are directed at or why.

And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.

Indeed, and that is the most important part.

Edit: I just found a great video on the topic of feminism. Now to just wait for a good time to link it - I wonder what people would say about it.

Check out Factual Feminist if you haven't yet. Reasonable claims, wide knowledge and..well..relies on facts. I liker her way of talking. Not for our resident Anita fanboys, though - FF is about facts ;D

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There is a lot of disagreement but I think there is still at least some common ground:

Death threats are unacceptable no matter who they are directed at or why.

And I think everyone wants the person who sent the threat found and appropriately punished, regardless of why he or she did it.

Indeed, and that is the most important part.

Edit: I just found a great video on the topic of feminism. Now to just wait for a good time to link it - I wonder what people would say about it.

Check out Factual Feminist if you haven't yet. Reasonable claims, wide knowledge and..well..relies on facts. I liker her way of talking. Not for our resident Anita fanboys, though - FF is about facts ;D

Attitudes like yours is exactly why I am so cautious. You have more passive-agressiveness stuffed into your post than in the average Sverigedemokraterna political manifesto.