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.

To be honest, I could easily see her using the threat as a marketing ploy* (not necessarily manufacturing it though), but the fact is she should not have been put in the position where it was possible.

Aka, she shouldn't be getting the threats, especially greatly specific ones like that.

*I mean, I'd do it.

Huh, I see Manchu deleted my previous post. Good job.

Anyway, I have no idea why you're compiling a list of arguments made by various people.

It's just a list of arguments to make instead of acknowledging that misogynistic violence is a real problem in this country and should be unacceptable.

Oh I forgot one:

(1) there was no real threat (or no "legit 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

(4) famous people should expect death threats

 Manchu wrote:
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.)

(5) third party trolls made the threat to get great amusement for little effort?

For what it's worth, I'd be surprised if she made the threat herself. If she did, she'd have more to gain by going through with the appearance and looking courageous in the face of adversity.

Unless she isn't very intelligent, which let's be honest is always a possibility. For everyone.

 Manchu wrote:
It's just a list of arguments to make instead of acknowledging that misogynistic violence is a real problem in this country and should be unacceptable.

The way you phrase that makes it sound like non-misogynistic violence isn't a real problem in this country and should be acceptable

Sining wrote:
The way you phrase that makes it sound like non-misogynistic violence isn't a real problem in this country and should be acceptable

No it doesn't. Please stop derailing the thread.

It's an honest question. Do you somehow think non-misogynistic violence is somehow different from misogynistic violence? Is that why you're separating the two?

 stanman wrote:
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.

1) You're changing the event and time period.

2) You're equating video game criticism with the Holocaust and Neo-Nazis, which is absurd.

Sining wrote:
It's an honest question. Do you somehow think non-misogynistic violence is somehow different from misogynistic violence? Is that why you're separating the two?

Violence can be motivated by various things.

This thread is specifically about violence motivated by misogyny.

So you would agree that violence in general is bad, no matter if its toward man/woman/animal correct?

 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

There was no strawman on my part, bad form of you to imply otherwise

 Manchu wrote:
As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?

Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?

 Ahtman wrote:
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.

Ad hominem

 Ahtman wrote:
Then why did you say "She refuses to speak because Campus Police have determined there is no actual threat"

Bolded to help you.

Oh no, you got me. I mis-phrased one thing, and then repeatedly quoted the actual words from the Campus Police. I guess you got me, you can ignore everything else that was in fact correct, focus on that one thing I mis-phrased, and give yourself a big ol' high five

 Ahtman wrote:
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).

You seem to confuse downplaying something with outright lying about it a la Comical Ali. If there is an actual threat it is not uncommon for LEOs to tell people to watch out for suspicious activity and report it, to exercise more caution under certain conditions.
Again, do you have anything for your assessment, such as it is, beyond mere suppositions?

Sining wrote:
So you would agree that violence in general is bad, no matter if its toward man/woman/animal correct?

Yes, I think that violence towards people, whether men or women, is bad and most forms of violence against animals are bad.

The subject of this thread is violence motivated by misogyny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?

Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?

What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.

More like a violent threat by a misogynist to intimidate her into not speaking, a true and earnest threat that will be followed, or trolls diving in and really going for the freak out

Only saying because a threat doesn't necessitate anything. Immature and stupid as hell or absolutely deranged. Either answer is bad but just to toss in some more complicated twists to it. Honestly I really can't tell what with the internet being, well, the internet.

Which I don't think anyone condones but not everyone believes.

Sining wrote:
Which I don't think anyone condones but not everyone believes.

Not everyone believe what?

Not everyone believes the threat were serious judging by the replies in this thread.

 Manchu wrote:
What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.

Just yes or no, please play fair.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.

Just yes or no, please play fair.

Fair is as fair does. You are welcome to answer the same question as Ensis did.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What kind of source are you looking for? Do you want a news article where the police say "we downplayed the true danger to avoid panic"? I don't have access to any SOP documents.

Just yes or no, please play fair.

Fair is as fair does. You are welcome to answer the same question as Ensis did.

So you cannot abide by the same behaviour that you demand from others. Interesting. So was that a yes or no?

Other than a discration from the question I do not see what legitimate purpose can be served by forcing me to answer a question about an argument I have not advanced

Your question is easy to answer: YES - it is completely logical that police would downplay a threat they have not or cannot confirm.

I doubt that's what you wanted to read, however, which is why I wanted to know what kind of back up you would find acceptable.

Also to be fair, you did not ask me a yes or no question; you phrased a question asking me to back up a statement as a yes or no question.

Now my question: do you think Sarkeesian should be willing to die over speaking about video games in public?

As to why I'd like to hear your answer, earlier ITT you thought it was important to qualify the threat.

 Manchu wrote:
Your question is easy to answer: YES - it is completely logical that police would downplay a threat they have not or cannot confirm.

Dreadclaw's question was "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?"
Your answer was "Yes" followed by idle speculation?

Actually, his question is easily answered with a yes or no, -then- followed by either linking of sources (yes), or a lack of linking of sources (no).

If you would then respond with "Well, that's more than just yes or no!" you're being needlessly pedantic for no real reason beyond being antagonistic.

sining, you're not helping anyone with gak posts like that, except providing easy targets for people of the opposing viewpoint (if a mod doesn't remove it, as they should, as it's needless flamebaiting).

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Dreadclaw's question was "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?"
Your answer was "Yes" followed by idle speculation?

My original statement was:

 Manchu wrote:
As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?

The statement itself is speculative. (Note I used the word "might." There's even a question mark -- you know, to prevent confusion.) The only sense that such a statement can be 'substantiated' is by logic.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Actually, his question is easily answered with a yes or no, -then- followed by either linking of sources (yes), or a lack of linking of sources (no).

As I mentioned, DreadClaw did not actually ask a Y/N question but I answered it as one all the same; in the interests of playing fair, or rather showing good sportsmanship. I am not really sure what kind of source I could provide to back up my original statement that the police could have downplayed the threat to avoid panic considering it wasn't actually a declaration that the police did downplay the threat. But that is after all why I initially asked DreadClaw what kind of source he was looking for (e.g., an example of police admitting to downplay threats in other situations).

I would say that the answer would then be no I think, as it was speculation on your part. It's certainly logical speculation I happily give you. There are reasons people/enforcement would downplay threats (avoiding panic is an excellent one).

The thing is, saying "no" isn't necessarily a bad thing. All you're doing is putting forth an opinion in a discussion. It's when you claim something as being "this is 100% what happened" that you should be going "SOURCE!".

Asking source for a speculative comment would be more right when it's a ridiculous speculation, for example, they'd downplay the threat because Obama might've been personally offended by Anita's hairstyle.

As per above - due to your 'yes' answer Manchu I was expecting evidence. Maybe a new article we hadn't seen yet, for example.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's when you claim something as being "this is 100% what happened" that you should be going "SOURCE!".

I quite agree but you see when people accuse you of posting "idle speculation" it's a kind of rhetorical tactic to insinuate you are talking nonsense without actually showing that is the case. Well, fair play -- I asked Dreadclaw what kind of source he wanted me substantiate a statement about why police might have done something I did not claim they did. Rather than owning up to using a bit of slimy rhetoric, he used some more and deliberately mis-phrased the question "what is your source" as a Y/N question in order to flame me for asking a Y/N question earlier in the thread. So as I said, fair enough, I will show a bit of sportsmanship and do what I can, knowing of course that it would become apparent that asking me to provide a source for the statement

 Manchu wrote:
As to why law enforcement might want to downplay a given threat -- to avoid causing panic?

is meaningless.

So here we are, showing exactly that.

Also, he did make a strawman argument against Ahtman by claiming Ahtman argued he (Ahtman) knew more than a variety of law enforcement agencies when Ahtman made no such claim.

I can understand where you're coming from, thanks.

 Manchu wrote:

Sining wrote:
The way you phrase that makes it sound like non-misogynistic violence isn't a real problem in this country and should be acceptable

No it doesn't. Please stop derailing the thread.

actually, that is part of the issue,

why is the threat against anita so much more important then similar threats against other groups, like the mens group in detroit?

you seem quite ready to cry out "mysogeny" in anitas case, but not misandry in the other.


why is someone who supposedly "fights the damsel trope" acting out the damsel trope herself?

why is she getting so much cash and publicity from the damsel trope while claiming to fight it at the same time?


why are a few nut jobs suddenly representative of mal gamers/men as a whole in this case, but radical feminists are not representative of feminism?

His answer will be 'because this is a thread about violence and misogyny'

 easysauce wrote:
why is the threat against anita so much more important then similar threats against other groups, like the mens group in detroit?

you seem quite ready to cry out "mysogeny" in anitas case, but not misandry in the other.

First, you are guilty of false equivalency in this post. The threat at issue ITT was from a man who said feminism ruined his life and claimed he would commit a massacre in imitation of a past one which was also motivated explicitly by hatred of women. So far as I know, from the scant sources available at least, nothing similar was the case as to the MRA event.

BUT -- assuming someone did threaten MRAs and made it completely clear that the basis of their threat was hatred of men and went so far as to even put it into the context of a history of public violence against men motivated by the desire to treat men unfairly because of their sex, to treat them as less than people just because they are men, well there is no question that such would be just as bad as what actually has happened in the circumstances we are discussing ITT.

So yes that hypothetical situation would be bad. And this actual situation is also bad. I mean, I am more concerned with the one that is actually happening, of course.