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.

 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.

 Frankenberry wrote:

 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.

Man, the Alex-Jonesing of our society is the worst thing ever.

Thanks for the replies, gents.

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

Misogynist, the bigot of the 2010's .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

Personally, I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE women, so I welcome a softer voice or three on the other end of team speak.

Stop objectifying women cincy they are much more than just a voice *HUmph*

 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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Irrational hatred is not the sole domain of men like your kind would like the world to believe.

At no point did Melissia claim such a thing, and what is "her kind"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, don't answer that, it's offtopic anyway, sorry.

Can someone give examples of MRA receiving death threats?

This is a non-rhetorical question.

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.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/threats-of-violence-and-death-against-doubletree-hilton-in-detroit-over-mens-conference/

 lord_blackfang wrote:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/threats-of-violence-and-death-against-doubletree-hilton-in-detroit-over-mens-conference/

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/07/06/avfms-paul-elam-posts-attack-on-the-doubletree-fort-shelby-hotel-suggests-that-the-alleged-threats-to-the-hotel-were-phony/

Please try actually voicing an opinion, and recap of article links posted.

This is a discussion forum, and a rather important topic for life and culture in general.

Random link posts thrown into a discussion aren't really worth anything, especially in this day and age.

Summary:

MRA claim threats of violence, others claim threats are fake.

I acknowledge that hate exists on both sides. Extremists exist on all sides of every cause.

However, one of my biggest annoyances is when people throw out ideas like this as a false balance.

The false balance is that the level of hate, and extreme action, is equal on both sides.

This is not the case. It is especially not so in regards to anything involving women in media, especially gaming related media.

 Ouze wrote:

 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

 Manchu wrote:
Summary:

MRA claim threats of violence, others claim threats are fake.

We've seen plenty of claims that Anita's claims are fake, too.

My opinion is that these things should be handled by police, not internet warriors.

 Manchu wrote:
Can someone give examples of MRA receiving death threats?

This is a non-rhetorical question.

I always thought Moodys Ratings Analytics was a real pain in the ass but I never knew there were death threats against 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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Summary:

MRA claim threats of violence, others claim threats are fake.

We've seen plenty of claims that Anita's claims are fake, too.

My opinion is that these things should be handled by police, not internet warriors.

Even though your avatar is a cat (which means you're first against the wall when the revolution comes) I agree completely.

I'd wager the majority of the gakkers threatening her online wouldn't be able to even speak to her in person.

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?

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

When you're famous enough online, there will be some body who wants to hurt you

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.

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.

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.

 cincydooley wrote:

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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny
Word Origin
noun
1.
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Your spin is remarkable