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:
. 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

 Manchu wrote:

 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:
Your reply was perilously close to condescension.

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.

There is no law of physics that being famous = receiving violent threats.

Famous people receive threats because of ideas (like misogyny) that undermine our civilization.

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


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.

I think that's all I've got on this subject.

 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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

*Example: SWATing.

 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.

For a different perspective from my favorite rag to read:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/feminist-speakers-cancellation-spurs-protest-of-misogyny-in-video-gaming/88003

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

There was no threat to them after the event was cancelled.

 Ahtman wrote:
There was no threat to them after the event was cancelled.

It bears repeating;
"At no time was there any imminent threat. "
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

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.

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

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

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
There was no threat to them after the event was cancelled.

It bears repeating;
"At no time was there any imminent threat. "
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

That makes me think of this:



'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.

To be fair, both Anita and Zoe have been known to cry Wolf. Am NOT saying that's what happened here, I don't know all the details.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
There was no threat to them after the event was cancelled.

It bears repeating;
"At no time was there any imminent threat. "
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

That makes me think of this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r1cWwg5Dl0w/TY_SL3p5crI/AAAAAAAARb8/N2_Kdu7K0e4/s1600/blog+212.jpg

'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

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Thank you for that strawman.

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?

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Just to recap, the arguments are:

(1) there was no real 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

Just want to make sure I've got them all.

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.