Switch Theme:

'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in se
Regular Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
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.

I too have very little confidence they'll find the guy [edit] person. Internet death threats are excused to a way too large extent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 06:24:14


"Empty your pockets and don't move" 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran






Canberra

 Manchu wrote:
 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.
Eh, if none of us thank you, you'll never know you're appreciated.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Sarkeesian later announced on Twitter that she had been forced to cancel the appearance because of insufficient police protection against concealed weapons.

Forced to cancel hey?

Letter from USU President Albrecht and Provost Cockett:

President and Provost offer insights on USU's response to recent threatening email

Dear Students, Staff and Faculty,

As you are aware, several USU staff members received a threatening email at 10:15 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 13 regarding Anita Sarkeesian's talk scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 15. As you probably have read, this email threatened both Ms. Sarkeesian and those who attended her event.

The safety of our students, staff and USU community is paramount to us. USU police were contacted immediately, as were state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit.

Prior to the threat, USU police were already making preparations for security as Ms. Sarkeesian had received threats in the past. After receiving the email, USU police added heightened security measures, including securing the Taggart Student Center auditorium far in advance, ensuring her safety to and from the event, and bringing in additional uniformed and plain-clothed police officers.

Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.

The safety and protection of students and those who attend our events is our foremost priority at Utah State. But we are also an institution of higher learning. In this case, the Center for Women and Gender had invited a nationally known speaker to bring her perspective about an important topic to USU. After a full assessment of the situation, the USU administration, in consultation with law enforcement, chose to continue with the event.

When our law enforcement personnel spoke about security measures, she was concerned that state law prevented the university from keeping people with legal concealed firearm permits from entering the event, and chose to cancel. As a Utah public institution, we follow state law. The Utah law provides that people who legally possess a concealed firearm permit are allowed to carry a firearm on public property, like the USU campus.

We are disappointed that students and other community members did not benefit from her presentation. While we will always prioritize the safety of our community, no threat changes Utah State University's unwavering advocacy of academic freedom and free speech rights of everyone.

Sincerely,

Stan L. Albrecht, President

Noelle Cockett, Vice-President and Provost


I love the smell of facts in the morning...



This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 09:11:12


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Forced to cancel hey?


Yeah, time to nitpick that "not feeling safe enough to speak in a public place after receiving death threats and learning that state law does not allow banning guns in an event" isn't really being forced to cancel, because she was still given the opportunity to take the risk she wasn't comfortable with. Let's once again look for any possible excuse for why it's really her fault, and we should just ignore the "trolls".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote:
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.


There's a difference between discussing stuff and being unreasonably skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. Is there any credible reason to believe that she faked a massacre threat against herself just to get attention? No. So why act like the two possibilities are equal and we need to wait longer before assuming that someone did in fact send a threat?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 09:09:09


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

“This was direct, specific, credible threats that were specifically stating the types of weapons that they would use about a mass shooting.” - Anita Sarkeesian

"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. At no time was there any imminent threat.” - USU

The lady doth protest too much...


Death threats are terrible, and those that make them need to be found and punished, but Anita's continued and consistent use of her threats as a weapon to smash away any and all criticism (let alone debate) whilst simultaneously furthering the cause of her simply terrible "analysis" project is nothing short of dishonest (at best), and a con (at worst).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 09:14:09


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Prior to the threat, USU police were already making preparations for security as Ms. Sarkeesian had received threats in the past. After receiving the email, USU police added heightened security measures, including securing the Taggart Student Center auditorium far in advance, ensuring her safety to and from the event, and bringing in additional uniformed and plain-clothed police officers.

Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.


So they would have had extra police onsite and escorting her at all times, how much security does she need before she feels safe? Maybe she needs a detachment of secret service staff like the president has?

Would it need to be an all female escort? Surely she can't possibly be safe around male officers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 09:14:50


 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 Manchu wrote:
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 -- "Anything to substantiate that other than idle speculation?" can plainly be answered as a yes/no, it was phrased as a closed question. Had I asked "Please substantiate your claim" that would be asking you to back up your statement.
And you did answer yes, but not to the question posed. You may pretend otherwise but that does not make it so.

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

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
“This was direct, specific, credible threats that were specifically stating the types of weapons that they would use about a mass shooting.” - Anita Sarkeesian

"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. At no time was there any imminent threat.” - USU

The lady doth protest too much...


Did you actually read the threat letter? Because if you do you'll see that there were specific claims about weapons, mass shootings, etc, just like she said. The fact that the police later determined that they didn't believe the threat was a credible one does not mean that there is any inconsistency between your two quotes.

Death threats are terrible, and those that make them need to be found and punished, but Anita's continued and consistent use of her threats as a weapon to smash away any and all criticism (let alone debate) whilst simultaneously furthering the cause of her simply terrible "analysis" project is nothing short of dishonest (at best), and a con (at worst).


I don't see how it's smashing away any and all criticism, unless the only criticism you care about is "death threats are awesome". It's very easy to criticize the substance of her arguments about gender and gaming, and anyone attempting to dismiss that criticism with "BUT I GET DEATH THREATS" would instantly destroy their own credibility. The threats are only an effective argument because the debate has turned into an anti-SJW crusade based on personal attacks against Anita herself, not a reasonable discussion of gaming.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Major





 stanman wrote:
Prior to the threat, USU police were already making preparations for security as Ms. Sarkeesian had received threats in the past. After receiving the email, USU police added heightened security measures, including securing the Taggart Student Center auditorium far in advance, ensuring her safety to and from the event, and bringing in additional uniformed and plain-clothed police officers.

Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.


So they would have had extra police onsite and escorting her at all times, how much security does she need before she feels safe? Maybe she needs a detachment of secret service staff like the president has?

Would it need to be an all female escort? Surely she can't possibly be safe around male officers.


She doesn’t want to be safe. She wants to play the victim.

‘Anita Sarkeesian gives lecture at university’ doesn’t get many headlines. ‘Anita Sarkeesian being ‘forced’ to cancel an appearance after receiving threats’ on the other hand Guarantees sympatric coverage from the Huffington Post, Twitter and half of Tumblr.

Who cares if the threats where real or not? There’s publicity to be had!

"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!" 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 LuciusAR wrote:
She doesn’t want to be safe. She wants to play the victim.

‘Anita Sarkeesian gives lecture at university’ doesn’t get many headlines. ‘Anita Sarkeesian being ‘forced’ to cancel an appearance after receiving threats’ on the other hand Guarantees sympatric coverage from the Huffington Post, Twitter and half of Tumblr.

Who cares if the threats where real or not? There’s publicity to be had!


Oh good, more "blame the victim" nonsense. It can't possibly be the case that someone who just received a massacre threat and had the police say "sorry, bringing your machine gun everywhere you go is a sacred right in this state, we won't ban guns from your talk" might not feel very comfortable with the situation even though the police are willing to dismiss it as just an anonymous idiot who won't go beyond talk. It has to be that she just loves being a professional victim and wants more attention! Never mind that canceling events when you don't really have to feeds the trolls and encourages them to do it again (if it really was just trolling), TUMBLR SJWS FEMINISTS HATE MEN.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 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?


Let me answer this: yes. Most people I work with and I myself frequently receive several death threats when announcing a speech at a certain place. Letters and e-mails with people threatening to start a shooting, bomb the place, we already received letters filled with sugar etc.

The question is whether you want to give a speech to give a speech and talk about a topic or to be in the spotlight. In Anita's case, it's the latter, as she has no actual stuff to talk about. And if sth. else gets you more attention than having the speech itself, you go for that instead. Tadaa.
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote:
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.


There's a difference between discussing stuff and being unreasonably skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. Is there any credible reason to believe that she faked a massacre threat against herself just to get attention? No. So why act like the two possibilities are equal and we need to wait longer before assuming that someone did in fact send a threat?


Let me do a Manchu. I did not say she faked her massacre threat. Go read my posts again

My warmachine batrep & other misc stuff blog
http://sining83.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in gb
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers






preston

T'would be best if you could find a less .... abrasive ... way to express these sentiments. Please bear in mind we try to keep things around a PG-13 level on Dakka.
Thank you.

reds8
n



I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.

Still, release the White Knights!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 15:09:45


Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 master of ordinance wrote:
PS, I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.


Maybe once she's done telling us how we're all "meant" to drag the bodies of women about in Hitman, like that was somehow the aim of the game, then maybe she'll move into the internalised misogyny inherent in the BattleTech universe.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers






preston

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 master of ordinance wrote:
PS, I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.


Maybe once she's done telling us how we're all "meant" to drag the bodies of women about in Hitman, like that was somehow the aim of the game, then maybe she'll move into the internalised misogyny inherent in the BattleTech universe.


I do wonder how she'll handle characters like Natasha Kerensky.... Phallic objectified cannon perhaps

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 11:21:23


Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 master of ordinance wrote:
PS, I would love to see her try to trope Mechcommander or Mechwarrior 3/4-some of the best Mechwarriors you can hire out in these games are female.


Maybe once she's done telling us how we're all "meant" to drag the bodies of women about in Hitman, like that was somehow the aim of the game, then maybe she'll move into the internalised misogyny inherent in the BattleTech universe.


Let us pray that there aren't any weapons with "penetration rounds".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 11:40:25


   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Considering Manchu has gotten loads of flak over the speculation that police didn't want to upset the masses, how come "she's just faking it!" is still being put forth in one variation or another?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 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 concealed firearms on them, if I had received threats of death at said event.

Thats what security is for. Pat down searches? No freaking way. She aint the fething POTUS and I wouldn't do that for POTUS.


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Considering Manchu has gotten loads of flak over the speculation that police didn't want to upset the masses, how come "she's just faking it!" is still being put forth in one variation or another?


Because people have a weird need to believe in false flags. Besides, there are people faked threats (Brianna Wu springs to mind, given her behaviour), so it makes people doubt Anita. There's no reason to doubt that Anita received threats - she did, end of story, there's no debating that - but the severity of those threats, and how credible they were, and how much of a song and dance she makes them (always a full production, as one of the world's best professional victims is want to do), that's more interesting (and more frustrating).


EDIT: I keep writing "threads" rather than "threats". I blame Dakka. And Obama.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 12:37:23


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





I'm sorry, but is no one going to challenge the statement on this thread that male and female circumcision are in anyway comparable? The only thing they have in common is the misleading name. Please do some research on the subject.

As for the threat, the speaker did not feel safe doing the event. While some may believe that she was calling wolf, the level of vitriol she has received for talking about video games is ..excessive. I have yet to hear a reasonable statement about why she should not be afraid for her safety.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 13:16:04


 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 AdeptSister wrote:
I'm sorry, but is no one going to challenge the statement on this thread that male and female circumcision are in anyway comparable? The only thing they have in common is the misleading name. Please do some research on the subject.

As for the threat, the speaker did not feel safe doing the event. While some may believe that she was calling wolf, the level of vitriol she has received for talking about video games is ..excessive. I have yet to hear a reasonable statement about why she should not be afraid for her safety.


I'm sorry, I must have missed that, what was the exact quote?
They aren't comparable. One is the removal of excess skin, the other is the removal of flesh.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 13:40:53


What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





 easysauce wrote:
 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
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

 Manchu wrote:
Just to recap, the arguments are:
(1) there was no real threat
A misunderstanding? What details have been divulged is pretty clear of wanting to re-create the Montreal massacre.
What I find funny is the writer only wishes it would be like that: there would be undetermined armed people in attendance unlike in Canada.
(2) Sarkeesian or her supporters made the threat as a marketing ploy
Which would promptly get them arrested since the police were involved.
(3) if Sarkeesian really believes what she says about video games she should be ready to die for it
I would change that wording to: when obtaining celebrity status she should expect her risk from fringe elements to increase.
Just want to make sure I've got them all.
Basically her "comfort level" of risk was exceeded:

"Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches." - Anita 10:12 PM - 14 Oct 2014

Since the laws of the land allows weapons to be carried they could not enforce her needs.

She was on "private property" and could have arranged to make participation conditional of no weapons and have campus security enforce.
An added request of a police presence would still be allowed.
I am unsure why this avenue was not explored.
This requirement may preclude her from appearing in multiple states.

Just want to make sure I got this straight: she publishes snippets of the threatening letter then cancels her talk as per the letter writer's wishes. I think she now has guaranteed a dedicated pen pal and encouraged more!.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in gb
Hardened Veteran Guardsman




UK

Campus security I imagine is not quite the same as a state police force when it come to protecting people from gunman.

I mean - imagine it was you - backed up by campus security? - backed up by the police?

(on a separate not - its not clear this wasnt discussed - furthur would a Uni be chill with throwing campus security at this task - I mean I imagine if one of them 'got shot' - employment tribunals, insurance voids ect ect would come into play as this particular duty is probably not the express pervue of this role).

: 1000+
: 1000+
1500+ (they didnt have one for Bretonnians)
Also + BFG Fleets
Oh and now


Wanna play BFG in London? Send me a PM.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 AdeptSister wrote:
I'm sorry, but is no one going to challenge the statement on this thread that male and female circumcision are in anyway comparable? The only thing they have in common is the misleading name. Please do some research on the subject.

As for the threat, the speaker did not feel safe doing the event. While some may believe that she was calling wolf, the level of vitriol she has received for talking about video games is ..excessive. I have yet to hear a reasonable statement about why she should not be afraid for her safety.



You have a point with the first bit there...


As for your second, here's a reasonable statement about why she shouldn't be afraid for her safety, and it came from the law enforcement agencies at the school: "no credible threat"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Talizvar wrote:


An added request of a police presence would still be allowed.




I believe that this was actually a part of the police's plan... Basically, they came out saying there's no credible threat, but because threats for this event were sent to school officials, we're going to post additional security at the event to protect our staff and students.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 14:29:58


 
   
Made in ca
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Edmonton, Alberta

I hate the people who have been sending her death threats and sexual harassing letters.

Every time she gets one, she is able to point at it as proof her arguments are right. Why else would these men be reacting so strongly. Well her arguments are bunk, people actions proved her right.

To bad a bunch of over grown man children need to harass her to try and prove their pen is the biggest.

These and many over kinds of reactions has stereotyped online video gaming communities for a reason.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 15:12:33


 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





Ensis,

Thank you. I while I understand that police determined that the threat was not credible, I can totally understand why she did not feel safe. I totally get why she might not wish to speak at a site that allows concealed carry, based on the threats she has gotten in the past. Now one could argue that there should have been an agreement between her and the school that guns could not be allowed in for the event. It might have avoided this concern.

I am looking forward to the time that death and rape threats will not be so common. We have made progress (racial, ethnic, and sexuality-based slurs are a lot less acceptable than they were 10 years ago. Most hate is pretty coded) but it feels like we still have a way to go.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

 Lockark wrote:
I hate the people who have been sending her death threats and sexual harassing letters.
This is why no meaningful discussion can happen to attack her ideas.
Because of those willing to threaten attacking her directly, they can all be lumped in together and ignored.
Her entire means of communication is a monologue that will not allow for any means of interaction, a means to refute her work and get her to respond.
The threats can be used to her advantage as material to explain why feedback is turned away, generate new media buzz and garner no small measure of sympathy.
You could say she is such a huge target for frustration because there is no public dialogue to be had with her so that "issues" can be talked-out.
So if the more mild mannered of us are a wee bit peeved with her, imagine how the crazies are!

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

A person who is threatened with murder has every right to evaluate the credibility of that threat for her- or himself.

Sarkeesian has been subject to appalling harassment for a long time now. And this is not even the first death threat. Also, this is not the first death threat where Sarkeesian herself is only one of the intended targets. The one who threatened to come rape and kill her in her home also threatened to murder her family. In this case, the person threatened to kill not only her and her supporters but everyone who happened to be present.

Here we have a person who has been subjected to a steady stream of extremist vitriol, called everything from liar and thief to the most vile sexist slurs by thousands of complete strangers, and received what to any one of us would (if we're honest) be terrifying threats of rape and murder backed up by knowledge of personal information and reminders that other people have already been murdered for daring to speak about gender. For anyone with a shred of compassion, it should be easy to imagine the fear -- especially of walking into the threat of murder in an environment where he dominant culture insists on people being secretly armed with guns.

The very fact that this threat has triggered yet another personal referendum on Sarkeesian, rather than a discussion about the prevalence of threats of horrendous violence to suppress speech, is strikingly similar to the way report of a rape triggers a personal referendum on the victim. The "she should expect death threats" line is very similar to the "she was asking for it" line. The "she should be willing to die" line is very similar to the prejudice against rape victims who did not fight back for fear of their lives.

Knowing that several posters ITT have been confused by some of my posts, I want to preemptively clarify that I am not saying Sarkeesian receiving a death threat is the same thing as Sarkeesian actually being raped. What I am saying, however, is that the same misogynistic bias that blames rape victims for the crimes committed against them is at work in a conversation where a woman is blamed for threats of rape and murder leveled against her and her family and even against bystanders. It absolutely shocks the conscious, or at least it should do.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 17:03:13


   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Can you point to where in this thread people have actually said that the threats against her are justified?

   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: