'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance

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.

**Manchu**

Manchu wrote:
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.

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

I did not claim anyone said the threats are justified.

**master of ordinance**

Talizvar wrote:
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!

Exalted, I dont think I could have said better myself

**Sigvatr**

The thread's concensus is that the death threats against her are bad and need to be taken seriously, although chances that they are actually being looked into are slim.

Your rape comparison is bad. Blaming the victim in a rape situation usually refers to "She should have expected to be raped wearing that short skirt!" and usually refers to women dressing up in a sexualized way either to fit expectations she feels having to fulfill or because she wants to get laid with a partner of her choice.

The Anita case is very different. Anita is purposefully stirring up hatred by mispresenting information and lying in order to get attention. This is very different. It would be, roughly, similar if it targetted an actual feminist who just did her work. Since Anita isn't (as portrayed above), this isn't comparable.

Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down. Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.

We cannot say if the death threats are actually serious - we've gotten a lot and are still going with not a single incident so far. Apart from protesters, but alas, that's a different kind of harassment. They should be taken seriously, and they are, but if you will always back off anything because of such a threat, then it quickly becomes a question of professionalism.

**Manchu**

Sigvatr wrote:
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.

Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.

Sigvatr wrote:
Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.

This is the "she was asking for it" argument.

**Sigvatr**

Manchu wrote:
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.

As above. She didn't ask for death threats. She intentionally asked for emotional responses.

**easysauce**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
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.

skin is flesh, they are directly comparable if you are being fair/honest.

and that is the EXACT kind of misandrist double standard I was talking about.

that standard being:
Its NOT ok to cut off 4 grams of skin of a womans privates, its not ok to cut ANY skin off a womans privates.

its totally ok to cut off 2 grams of skin off a mans privates.

Or would you be ok if someone removes the skin of a womans vagina, without her consent, as a baby for religious/false medical/???? reasons then?

**Manchu**

Maybe part of the issue is the word "expect."

"Expect" can connote something that should be the case:

Example - "I expect my son to do his best in school"

"Expect" can also connote something that probably will be the case:

Example - "I expect the sun will come up tomorrow"

In the first sense -- no one should have to expect death threats because of speaking in public.

In the second sense -- it is realistic for Sarkeesian to expect death theats in a misogynistic culture.

**AlmightyWalrus**

easysauce wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
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.

skin is flesh, they are directly comparable if you are being fair/honest.

and that is the EXACT kind of misandrist double standard I was talking about.

that standard being:
Its NOT ok to cut off 4 grams of skin of a womans privates, its not ok to cut ANY skin off a womans privates.

its totally ok to cut off 2 grams of skin off a mans privates.

Or would you be ok if someone removes the skin of a womans vagina, without her consent, as a baby for religious/false medical/???? reasons then?

As someone who thinks all sorts of circumcision is wrong, female circumcision is much, much worse.

**Manchu**

Sigvatr wrote:
She didn't ask for death threats. She intentionally asked for emotional responses.

So do you think the email at issue was a "death threat" or an "emotional response"?

It seems a lot of people believe it was actually just an emotional response -- not a "real," "legit," "imminent," or "credible" death threat.

**easysauce**

Manchu wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote:
Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.

no, it is not a "she was asking for it"

the irony that someone who preaches against female tropes in games, like the damsel in distress, is now practicing being the damsel in distress, and receiving special treatment.

The mens group didnt get all the free extra securuty (which still wasnt enough for anita), the mens group had to pay for it.

anita expects more then the extra security they provided her for some reason.

in addition to this, she is painting with a wide brush, a large group of people (male gamers/men) due to the actions of one or two internet trolls who may not even be men.

**Manchu**

Please take the circumcision discussion to a different thread.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote:
Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.

Harassment of a public figure is not illegal. Threats of crimes of course, are.

**easysauce**

Edited by Manchu -- Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic

where a mens group is threatened, doesnt get free security, and pays for it and moves on without using the event for publicity.

and anita, who was threatened, got extra security for free, says its not enough, and experiences a PR windfall... again... while playing the very trope she claims to be against.

**Manchu**

easysauce wrote:
the irony that someone who preaches against female tropes in games, like the damsel in distress, is now practicing being the damsel in distress, and receiving special treatment

The damsel trope is about disempowerment, not special treatment. A character is a damsel because she cannot do anything meaningful regarding her circumstances. Sarkeesian is not a damsel because she has the choice to go to the conference or not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote:
Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.

Harassment of a public figure is not illegal. Threats of crimes of course, are.

I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what you quoted.

**Relapse**

I have just been reading through this thread from time to time, and I must say it's taking some interesting twists and turns.

Please don't spam the forum ~ Thanks ~ Manchu

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
easysauce wrote:
the irony that someone who preaches against female tropes in games, like the damsel in distress, is now practicing being the damsel in distress, and receiving special treatment
The damsel trope is about disempowerment, not special treatment. A character is a damsel because she cannot do anything meaningful regarding her circumstances. Sarkeesian is not a damsel because she has the choice to go to the conference or not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Any sort of death threat isn't justified by any means. It's a criminal act. Hands down.
Yes -- I think this is our common ground. We definitely agree here.
Sigvatr wrote:
Saying that she should not expect to be harassed after purposefully provoking emotional responses from people is driving with your car, at 250 mph, at night, drunk.
This is the "she was asking for it" argument.

Harassment of a public figure is not illegal. Threats of crimes of course, are.
I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what you quoted.

There was an argument made about "she asked for it" and harassment. I'd proffer any public figure "asked for it," by merely being a public figure. Then I noted that said harassment is not illegal.

**Relapse**

Relapse wrote:
I have just been reading through this thread from time to time, and I must say it's taking some interesting twists and turns.

Please don't spam the forum ~ Thanks ~ Manchu

Not spamming, just noting something. No need to get sensitive. It's interesting that this lady is making all of these comments and then getting worked up and creating about getting threats because some people don't like them. Does this come as a surprise to her that this would happen?

**Sigvatr**

Manchu wrote:
...

If something is going to realistically happen to a high degree of probability, it is to be expected.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
There was an argument made about "she asked for it" and harassment. I'd proffer any public figure "asked for it," by merely being a public figure.

Being famous is not the same thing as wanting to be harassed. Famous people do not consent to being harassed.

Frazzled wrote:
Then I noted that said harassment is not illegal.

That's incorrect, depending on what is meant by harassment. But more importantly, how do you think legality of an immoral act relevant here?

Relapse wrote:
It's interesting that this lady is making all of these comments and then getting worked up and creating about getting threats because some people don't like them. Does this come as a surprise to her that this would happen?

Yep, that's the "she was asking for it" argument.

**Frankenberry**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frankenberry wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
In your view the director of the faculty made up the threat in order to further some kind of publicity campaign for Sarkeesian?

How does she gain from not doing her lecture?

I don't buy it. Whatever the reasons, I guarantee this is 90% crap. I don't have to prove anything because this person has proven to be an attention seeking tool. Who's to say this isn't some other stunt just for the fame?

What you are saying is that Sarkeesian goes around setting up speaking engagements at universities in order to cancel them by sending fake email threats to the people with whom she has set up the engagement.

Presumably doing that is better in terms of "attention seeking" than actually delivering lectures.

Exactly, thanks for repeating my post in a succinctly paraphrased explanation.

**Manchu**

Sigvatr wrote:
If something is going to realistically happen to a high degree of probability, it is to be expected.

Yep that is one of the connotations of the word "expect" -- as I already noted. The other connotation is to imply that something SHOULD be the case.

**Talizvar**

Manchu wrote:
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.

I had refuted this similar line of thought and got no answer.
To enter an environment where a risk of harm is to be expected and possibly prepared for is a whole different deal than "deserving" harm because you entered that environment.
Firemen enter burning building to do their job, they use equipment to mitigate their risk and train to evaluate overly hostile circumstances.
They do not deserve to be burned for what they do because they go into burning buildings.
I know for a fact that firemen typically are not willing to die but do have to take some calculated risks.

I think of her as a fireman refusing to wear the equipment so will not go into the burning building because it is too risky, when the tools at hand would allow her to do her job.
She CAN, maintain an interactive environment with critics if she chose to with appropriate filtering and moderating, she has accepted her celebrity status and has to take adequate personal protection steps as those who came before her.
Justin Bieber is getting a ton of death threats, she should investigate what he is doing for protection. To be fair, he is dealing with bigger crowds who could potentially be armed.
I still maintain she is not in all that unique a situation and this is not a new problem, she is just more willing to give the threats more press than others.

**easysauce**

Manchu wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
If something is going to realistically happen to a high degree of probability, it is to be expected.
Yep that is one of the connotations of the word "expect" -- as I already noted. The other connotation is to imply that something SHOULD be the case.

thats false unfortunatly,

otherwise the phrase"

one should expect back lash

vs
one should not expect backlash

or
one expects backlash

would be superfluous,

"should" the way you talk about it implies a moral connotation, one that is not endemic to the word expect *at all*

people saying that a person walking on ice expects to fall,

are in no way supporting them falling, or saying they "should" fall, that them falling is good, or desired.

they are simply saying he is expected to as a logical progression of events

**Frazzled**

Being famous is not the same thing as wanting to be harassed. Famous people do not consent to being harassed.

SCOTUS says otherwise. They have less protections that non-public figures in the area of free speech (aka what can be said about them).

That's incorrect, depending on what is meant by harassment.

I already said noncriminal behavior. I think we're in agreement there. I will note its really hard to prosecute threats, and this I know from first hand experience.

But more importantly, how do you think legality of an immoral act relevant here?

Sorry can you clarify? But I’ll take the opportunity to note:
She’s a public figure. She wanted to be a public figure. Threats are part and parcel of being a public figure – that’s just a reality, unfortunately. Even if the issue were minor there are a lot of kooks in the world (who the feth would shoot John Lennon?) If she’s concerned she should hire or negotiate for more security for her events, but she has no right to more security though.

EDIT:
I personally would take criminal threats seriously in that the PoPo should track those down and prosecute them to the absolute fullest extent of the law possible, but of course I realize that won’t happen due to the difficulties and limited legal recourse. I find the "sexist" threats made to be particularly offensive. I think I'm with Manchu on that one and his arguments have been more artful then what I am saying. If these threats are not illegal it would be excellent to have hackers or investigators find the people making the statements and put their public identities out for ridicule. Oh I'd like that a lot.

I guess the burr in my bonnet is this nonsensical demand that all particpants get pat downs. Who the hell does she think she is?

**Manchu**

Talizvar wrote:
I know for a fact that firemen typically are not willing to die but do have to take some calculated risks.

You keep mixing these metaphors to the point of nonsense. Fire is fire. You can't expect it not to burn you. But I can and should be able to expect people not to murder others for daring to speak on some issue.

Talizvar wrote:
It really makes it seem that "because" she is a woman these threats are occurring.

That is in fact part of the reason why these threats are occurring. The threat itself explicitly invokes misogynistic violence.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
thats false unfortunatly

No it isn't. Please see my relevant post, I have no interest in reposting the example that will clarify this for you.

**Frazzled**

That is in fact part of the reason why these threats are occurring. The threat itself explicitly invokes misogynistic violence.

Its pretty illustrative and iconic of the issues she speaks about no? if I understand what she speaks about correctly.

its interesting that on the Higher Education comments version of this, the issue isn't about her, but her demands about searching people and CCing. Interesting.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
They have less protections that non-public figures in the area of free speech (aka what can be said about them).

That does not amount to them consenting to harassment.

Turning back to your "she asked for it" argument:

Frazzled wrote:
She’s a public figure. She wanted to be a public figure. Threats are part and parcel of being a public figure – that’s just a reality, unfortunately.

At this point, I think Sarkeesian is well aware that she can count on being threatened and harassed. That it is happening and almost certainly will continue to happen has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is okay or whether she wants it to happen or whether she has consented to it happening.

Frazzled wrote:
I guess the burr in my bonnet is this nonsensical demand that all particpants get pat downs. Who the hell does she think she is?

TBH, I also think this was an unrealistic and presumptuous demand.

**Frazzled**

Please don't lump me in with the "she asked for it." crowd, other than she is a public figure and wanted to be one. My statement does not have the historically sexist connotation that I am getting for that.

I'm being inartful in what I'm trying to say. All voluntary public figures "ask for it." I think we're both on the same page that threats are bad and the apparent sexist nature of many of the threats (I don't have twitter to follow the threats other than reported here) are as perile as they are misogynistic. OT but unlike apparently everyone else I'm not 100% on what that definition is other than "I hatez da wimminz."

This is why the demand is especially galling. Public figures get threats all the time (unfortunately). I don't see them expecting the right to grope all their listeners.

I would have actually liked to hear her speak and a reasonable debate on the issue made.

**easysauce**

Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
thats false unfortunatly
No it isn't. Please see my relevant post, I have no interest in reposting the example that will clarify this for you.

no, your prior post lumps all the people who say "famous people expect threats" as blaming the victim or saying "she was asking for it"

which is, false, and my post shows why its false. I cannot help that you put meaning into the word "expect" that isnt there.

if you hit the pool ball just right, you expect it to go into the hole.

no moral "should" or should not, nor blaming of the ball comes into play.

by your logic, when I tell people in combat zones to expect to be shot at, I am telling them they SHOULD be shot at, and blaming them for being shot at in the first place. But how else can I communicate simple cause and effect?

the same way everyone, who is DENOUNCING the threats, saying that public figures expect threats, is just a statement of fact, not "she asked for it" in ANY way shape or form.

I could link the # of times this has been clarified by myself and others, but have no interest in reposing them for you either.

**Ensis Ferrae**

OK, YES she is fething asking for an "emotional response" however, when she bottles up all responses by shutting down ANY discourse/ meaningful reactions to her videos, SHE is creating a situation where the less rational people of the world will resort to things like these death threats.

So, no she is not "asking" for death threats, but she most definitely is asking for a response to her work via that fact hat it's in internet video/blog form and not a paper bound book.