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.

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

Yes, No, something. I won't say your wrong. You kind of right that people don't take this threat serious, but this is something I complain about from time to time. I think we might be too OK with threats. Someone threatening a mass killing isn't a good thing, it isn't a neutral thing, it's very much a bad thing and wish people would be more bothered by it.

 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.

Except that wasn't the question. The question, which you quoted, was "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?"

 Manchu wrote:
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.

Answering a question I did not pose, now accusations of bad faith. Interesting

 Manchu wrote:
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.

So the question "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?" is not what you would consider something that could be answered as yes or no, but "Should Sarkeesian be prepared to die if she wants to speak publicly about video games?" is a yes or no question. Strange

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

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

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

Quantify? Do you mean when I was repeating what the Campus Police and other law enforcement agencies determined?

 Manchu wrote:
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.

Speaking of poor sportsmanship
You would be correct, but only if you actually mis-read my words, specifically the phrase "if you know better". At no stage did I say that he knew better. Ignoring that qualifying remark changes the point I was advancing, and mis-represents my argument.

nomotog wrote:

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

Yes, No, something. I won't say your wrong. You kind of right that people don't take this threat serious, but this is something I complain about from time to time. I think we might be too OK with threats. Someone threatening a mass killing isn't a good thing, it isn't a neutral thing, it's very much a bad thing and wish people would be more bothered by it.

It's amazing what humans will get used to if exposed to it enough.

DreadClaw -- asking me to back up a statement is not a Y/N question. And of you want to pretend you only asked me if I could back up the statement I made, the answer remains yes. I already answered it. And you have not answered my question.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical.

they received threats, on their lives, because they are presenting their opinion just the same. The difference is that they just happened to pay for the extra security at their event, instead of expecting it for free, or turning it into a PR stunt.

anita is a woman who tried to present her opinion in a public forum, and was threatened with violence.

the mens group wanted to present their opinion in a public forum, they were also threatened with violence.

the mens groups threats are directed at their ideology/gender just as much as hers, to treat them differently is a double standard.

 Manchu wrote:
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.

We don't know the gender of who sent the threat.

Hence my first post:

I sincerely hope they catch the person or persons behind this

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

Quantify?

Try again -- qualify.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do you mean when I was repeating what the Campus Police and other law enforcement agencies determined?

To jog your memory: you suggested that there was conflict between First and Second Amendment rights; Ahtman corrected you -- the police were restrained by the state's concel carry law. You acknowledged your mistake (by blaiming it on Sarkeesian) and the re-focused your argument thusly:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
the point remains that Campus Police have determined that there is no imminent threat

Ahtman then criticized you for distinguishing between a threat and an imminent threat.

This distinction is interesting to me. Is the threat of being murdered a good enough reason to cancel? Or must the threat be "imminent"?

And more importantly: do you think Sarkeesian should be prepared to die in order to speak publicly on video games?

 easysauce wrote:
its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical

So you acknowledge the cases are in fact different? That means the ought to be treated differently. So as to this

 easysauce wrote:
to treat them differently is a double standard.

Treating different things differently isn't really a double standard.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
We don't know the gender of who sent the threat.

True. My assumption is based on the fact that this person compared him- or herself to the Montreal killer and that I have never heard of a woman going on a killing spree because feminism "ruined" her life. But yeah, it is certainly possible the person who sent the threat is a man or woman.

 Manchu wrote:

And more importantly: do you think Sarkeesian should be prepared to die in order to speak publicly on video games?

It's absurd that it's even potentially the case. Meh. gakky.

 Manchu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical

So you acknowledge the cases are in fact different? That means the ought to be treated differently. So as to this

 easysauce wrote:
to treat them differently is a double standard.

Treating different things differently isn't really a double standard.

Both involve threats of violence to shut down discussion. They are remarkably equivalent. The gender of the individual/s has nothing to do with the issue.

And more importantly: do you think Sarkeesian should be prepared to die in order to speak publicly on video games?

Do you think loaded questions are good for debates?

 Haemonculus wrote:
Both involve threats of violence to shut down discussion. They are remarkably equivalent. The gender of the individual/s has nothing to do with the issue.

It's actually very important because there is in reality a history of mass killings motivated by misogyny and the the person who sent the threat explicitly invoked that history. That's not the case in the MRA threat. If it was the case, if there was that history and if it was being evoked, then we would be dealing with equivalent cases.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And more importantly: do you think Sarkeesian should be prepared to die in order to speak publicly on video games?

Do you think loaded questions are good for debates?

What about this question is loaded? An actual loaded question contains an assumption that must be accepted in order to answer it. There is no such assumption in my question. My question does not force the person answering it to assume any position whatsoever. It's either yes, she should have to be willing to put her life on the line or no she should not have to risk her life to talk about video games.

I mean, I can understand why a decent person would hesitate to publicly say a woman should be willing to die to talk about video games. Because why should anyone have to be willing to die just to talk about video games? In fact, why should anyone have to be willing to die to talk about anything in this country where we have freedom of speech?

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
And more importantly: do you think Sarkeesian should be prepared to die in order to speak publicly on video games?

It's absurd that it's even potentially the case. Meh. gakky.

You are 100% correct.

 Manchu wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
Both involve threats of violence to shut down discussion. They are remarkably equivalent. The gender of the individual/s has nothing to do with the issue.

It's actually very important because there is in reality a history of mass killings motivated by misogyny and the the person who sent the threat explicitly invoked that history. That's not the case in the MRA threat. If it was the case, if there was that history and if it was being evoked, then we would be dealing with equivalent cases.

I understand, but it's still a threat to kill regardless of the motivation. They are still equivalent because both involve the threat to end several lives simply because someone (or a group) do not agree with the message. While I think misogyny is deplorable, I also happen to consider implied misandry equally bad (which, less face it, is exactly what happened with the MRA conference). When you bring it down to, "Oh, Sarkeesian threats were motivated with misogyny" you are essentially stating that it's functionally more threatening than misandry, which is simply incorrect.

What I am saying is, the kind of thing threatened in this case is something that has happened. It is a fact about our society.

By contrast, there really isn't a history of misandric killing sprees.

So while sending death threats to MRAs is not acceptable at all, it really is not the same thing as the present case.

 Manchu wrote:
What I am saying is, the kind of thing threatened in this case is something that has happened. It is a fact about our society.

By contrast, there really isn't a history of misandric killing sprees.

Thank you, but it does not make the threat worse or less worse. There's also a greater history of men being massacred simply because it's more 'socially acceptable' to kill men. So any threat to kill men is taken more seriously. So on that basis, was the threat to kill the MRAs worse than that to kill Sarkeesian? Of course not.

Now, I need to make one thing clear. There's been a lot of nasty and vicious things said about her, but no more than many internet personalities. The internet is an ugly place, and I feel sorry for her.

 Haemonculus wrote:
but no more than many internet personalities

I can't think of any other internet personality who felt compelled to cancel a lecture at a university because someone threatened to murder her and as many other people who show up as possible.

 Manchu wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
but no more than many internet personalities

I can't think of any other internet personality who felt compelled to cancel a lecture at a university because someone threatened to murder her and as many other people who show up as possible.

Well, the MRA meeting venue changed due to the amount and seriousness of the threats. That's one.

 Haemonculus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
but no more than many internet personalities

I can't think of any other internet personality who felt compelled to cancel a lecture at a university because someone threatened to murder her and as many other people who show up as possible.

Well, the MRA meeting venue changed due to the amount and seriousness of the threats. That's one.

The MRA people were threatened by someone or more than one person who said they would show up and murder everyone there if possible?

And the people who made those threats explicitly referenced imitating things that have actually occurred?

Ah, so people speaking out publicly about the rights of a disadvantaged group are being threatened with violence. Some things never change about humanity.

 Manchu wrote:
The MRA people were threatened by someone or more than one person who said they would show up and murder everyone there if possible?

And the people who made those threats explicitly referenced imitating things that have actually occurred?

Yes, absolutely. Serious threats to the attendees and hotel staff were made. As I noted earlier.

Well, yes. Given that similar things have happened to men (and women) in the past. A threat is a threat is a threat. Sure, I can accept you think that Anita's threat is somehow worse (I still am not convinced), but you're shrouding the seriousness of times others have also been threatened. They're equivalent simply because people perceive being threatened. Anita is not perceiving it worse.

Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree You have made some good points!

 Manchu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
its not hypothetical, and its not false equivelency, I am comparing similar events, not claiming they are identical

So you acknowledge the cases are in fact different? That means the ought to be treated differently. So as to this

 easysauce wrote:
to treat them differently is a double standard.

Treating different things differently isn't really a double standard.

yes, the two situations are not identical, I NEVER claimed they were the same, no two situations are identical, but they are close enough for a legitimate comparison to be made.

that does not mean we should treating an attack on a woman activist differently then an attack on male ones.

Its actually the same justification I hear from many pro male-circumcision but anti female-circumcision people, that one is ok the other is not, cause, they are different, because one is cutting a females gentials for religious/bogus medical reasons/???, and the other is cutting a mans for religious/bogus medical/aesthetic/???? reasons. Both are "different" in the literal sense, but close enough that if you were being fair you would see there is a valid comparison.

If I can only ever compare identical solutions, then there is nothing to compare with anything really.


edit to fix quotes

 Haemonculus wrote:
nyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree

Sure but I do think we agree to a substantial degree. We seem to agree that threatening violence against anyone, man or woman or any other gender, to prevent them from speaking publicly is not acceptable. And I think that is ultimately the most important thing.

Our disagreement comes down to whether it is important that there is a history of killing sprees motivated by misogyny and no history of killing sprees motivated by miandry. To me, it is extremely important that the person making the threat could even specifically invoke a similar event that already happened that had the same motives as the one he (or possibly she) was claiming.

 easysauce wrote:
no two situations are identical, but they are close enough for a legitimate comparison to be mades

Go back to my original answer:

 Manchu wrote:
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.

 Manchu wrote:

Our disagreement comes down to whether it is important that there is a history of killing sprees motivated by misogyny and no history of killing sprees motivated by miandry. To me, it is extremely important that the person making the threat could even specifically invoke a similar event that already happened that had the same motives as the one he (or possibly she) was claiming.

Even if there is no history of killing sprees influenced by misandry (lazy to google at the moment, if someone wants to prove me wrong, please do), it doesn't mean that it can't happen. I'm curious as to why you keep bringing it up.

The answer is in the same post you quoted.

Except you keep mentioning it's important to note that there is no history of killings inspired by misandry. This is a strange point to keep mentioning. Instead of just going 'death threats are bad', for some reason we're arguing about misogyny, misandry, whether misogyny causes women to receive more death threats, the history of killing sprees cause by misandry/misogyny etc. We're dragging more political buzzwords and divisiveness into this thread when really, we all can agree death threats are bad and people who are famous tend to receive them.

This isn't a case of "dragging" misogyny into a thread about death threats.

This is a case of an explicitly misogynistic death threat: one that fits into a well-established pattern of similar incidents -- both in terms of threats and killing sprees; so much so, in fact, that the threat itself invoked that history.

You see, that's the difference. You see a misogynist issuing a death threat. I see a whackjob issuing a death threat.

Also, until they catch the guy, we really have clue what his or her stance is, if they're misogynistic or not. It's very possible that person is not misogynistic but did it for the attention or to troll.

Sining wrote:
You see a misogynist issuing a death threat. I see a whackjob issuing a death threat.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

And really, which is a better explanation here:

1) The person who wrote the letter believes what they said (which would make them a misogynist), but may not have been willing to take it all the way to actually murdering people.

or

2) The person who wrote the letter doesn't believe any of it and just wanted to troll people.

Given how obvious #1 is I really don't see why we're wasting any time in a desperate attempt to present this threat as anything other than what it first appears to be.

By the by, kudos to Manchu for not baning us all and salting the earth where this thread used to be

Thanks for allowing the discussion, mods

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
You see a misogynist issuing a death threat. I see a whackjob issuing a death threat.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

And really, which is a better explanation here:

1) The person who wrote the letter believes what they said (which would make them a misogynist), but may not have been willing to take it all the way to actually murdering people.

or

2) The person who wrote the letter doesn't believe any of it and just wanted to troll people.

Given how obvious #1 is I really don't see why we're wasting any time in a desperate attempt to present this threat as anything other than what it first appears to be.

Because the purpose of forums is to discuss stuff and not blindly echo each other? And to be honest, who knows the truth now. Who would have believed the whole threat to leak Emma Watsons nude photos was started by a PR firm to talk about how bad leaking nude photos is. Saying it's option 1 is the safest most plausible answer but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I'm sure we'll find out more once they catch the person involved.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Thanks for allowing the discussion, mods

Are you sure you want to thank the staff for threads like this?



In all seriousness, the thread has been mostly in keeping with the rules. I firmly believe we can have discussion on serious and sensitive topics here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sining wrote:
I'm sure we'll find out more once they catch the person involved.

You know I just realized I have pretty much no confidence this person will be found. I don't know if that is a realistic position. But it is a depressing one. Because really, as nomotog posted I think, we are just a bit too comfortable with death threats like this. This is really a heinous crime whether it is a sincere threat or hoax.