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.

 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?

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

All that seems irrelevant.

Do you or do you not believe that Anita Sarkeesian must be willing to die in order to talk publicly about video games?

So lets see, how does one respond to being baited by a mod?


It'd be nice if you didn't try and put some offensive words in my mouth thank very you.

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?

 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?


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sarkeesian+fake+death+threats

 Manchu wrote:
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.

You forgot:

4) They made up the threat as Utah sucks, and no amount of money would make it worth visiting there

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

You forgot:

4) They made up the threat as Utah sucks, and no amount of money would make it worth visiting there

Any place with half point beer should be stricken from the planet.

 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?

What qualifies as a "legit threat"?

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Did MLK, and Malcolm X make public appearances where they were scheduled to, even after receiving death threats?

Yes.

Okay I answered your question. Now you answer mine.

Should Sarkeesian be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games?

Just yes or no, please play fair.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 easysauce wrote:
Why does she expect to not be threatened like everyone else is?

Everyone in the United States should expect not to be threatened with murder and rape for talking about video games.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

Should Sarkeesian be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games?

Just yes or no, please play fair.

Yes.

If you are not prepared to die for your beliefs, especially when those beliefs are your "money makers", can they really be considered beliefs?

Video games are so not worth dying over.

And I see Manchu is still trying to push his particular line of thinking.

Easily.

If someone threatened me with a knife and said "Gravity is a lie", well, I believe it exists.

I'm not gonna say that though if it means he'll stab me in the gut.

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

Well I'm glad that's all cleared up, looks like my list is accurate:

 Manchu wrote:
(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

Did you guys have any other arguments to add?

(I'm not including the one insulting the entire state of Utah.)