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.

How does she shut down any discourse in her video?

 Frazzled wrote:
How does she shut down any discourse in her video?

By blocking and removing any/all ability for anyone to comment.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

I agree with this.
Personally, I'm not of fan of this woman. I think she likes to stir up trouble to get attention.

That post may have come across more extreme than really intended

But, when you're going on practically a page and a half of one person going: "that's a she asked for it argument" and every other poster saying "but... THIS!!" and one person going "that's she asked for it" over and over... oi vey, it gets my blood pressure up

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does she shut down any discourse in her video?

By blocking and removing any/all ability for anyone to comment.

They can comment elsewhere no?

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Sure it does. We have a misogynistic death threat. You say by being a public figure, she asked for it. Are you saying, well, no, she didn't ask for a specifically misogynistic one, just any threat generally?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a page and a half of one person going: "that's a she asked for it argument"

LOL you complain but you yourself posted this

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
SHE is creating a situation where the less rational people of the world will resort to things like these death threats

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

 Manchu wrote:
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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does she shut down any discourse in her video?

By blocking and removing any/all ability for anyone to comment.

They can comment elsewhere no?

Not any place where they know they can question, or have any sort of actual dialogue with her. I mean, If you Frazzled, create a video on the "proper raise and care of wiener dogs" and I had a question, what good does it do me to go ask Legoburner when you are the "expert" and the one who created the media that I am having an issue with??

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Sure it does. We have a misogynistic death threat. You say by being a public figure, she asked for it. Are you saying, well, no, she didn't ask for a specifically misogynistic one, just any threat generally?

I'm saying public figures get threats. She wanted to be a public figure. Thats the unfortunate bad side of the good. Quit accusing people of saying "she asked for it," when people are saying its an occupational hazard. Mechanics get dirty. if you want to be a mechanic you're going to get dirty. You may not want to get dirty, but its part of the business. Hollywood stars get stalkers. If you want to be a Hollywood star you may not want a stalker, but you should expect that that will happen. Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.

I'm also saying that yep the sexist threats are indeed sexist.

machu, you keep saying that, but its simply not true.

one expects threats, because that is part of being popular/celebrity regardless of gender.

the way you "define" expects, means there is *literally* no way for me to communicate the cause and effect of anything without blaming the victim.

even in your "definition" there are *two* ways "expects" can be used, it should be pretty apparent which way "expects" is being used here, and its clearly NOT to blame the victim.


*person walks out on the thin ice, falls through, dies*

person 1 "one expects that to happen when one walks on the ice"

person 2 "why are you blaming the victim?"

person 1"wtf? thats clearly not what I meant, even if in some run around way that *could* have been interpreted to mean that, its not what I meant, nor is it the accepted, literal, and most common use of the phrase."

person 2 "yes it is, you are clearly blaming the victim, you mean what I say you mean."

 Frazzled wrote:
Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.

I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.

After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.

I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.

After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.

So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.

I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.

After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.

My portion of the argument is only related to her insistence on field stripping everyone who wants to hear her. Thats an unreasonable demand given the unfortunate commonness of threats against public persons (in addition to being unreasonable on its face).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Expectation does not mean you are asking for it.

I agree. That is my argument. The reason I am making it is because I am wondering why it even needs to be brought up in this thread unless it is actually a "she asked for it" argument.

After all -- NO ONE, not Sarkeesian, and no one here, and no one ever so far as I have seen, has argued that Sarkeesian -- or any one else for that matter -- is surprised at being harassed and receiving death threats. No one has said she did not think it was a realistic possibility.

So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.

Dakka Bingo?

 Sigvatr wrote:
So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.

As I explained in the post you quoted, and as I also explained in the post you are referencing, I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats. Those kind of statement serve no other purpose.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Mixing metaphors?
Pretty sure I kept it to one (pretty sure a "comparison" not metaphor but we are splitting hairs ).
Sorry, non-living things seem to not be comparable to you.
I should have compared it to "muggings", dare not mix as suggested.
You can expect all you want, but murders happen, we have evidence of that right?
They are not without consequence however (this is where you "should expect people not to murder" but they still can).
I thought I talked about reduction of risk somewhere?
Another real world comparison: All I have to do is make a bad cartoon of Allah and publicize it and "expect" to have an attempt made on me or some very harsh words.

 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.

But WHY the need of the label of misogynistic violence?
Why assign a gender to it? Does it really freaking matter?
Violence of any kind is still unacceptable, but gender specific makes it even worse right??
Hence we need to compartmentalize it.
Makes it even harder for a guy to comment on it because it "does not apply to me" so I have no right to comment.
For a guy the worst thing they can think of is being raped so this is the garbage they spout off, I am sure these fine folk are in touch with their political correct side... read again a "vocal minority".

So your main view in a nutshell is "Violence and threats are unacceptable and should not happen and if they include anything gender specific, they are even worse, so Anita is above reproach (especially by men) while this is happening"?

My main view is "Crazy happens and as you increase being noticed, the more likely it shall happen, take steps, hope for the best, plan for the worst and sick the law on anyone contrary to it.".

 Talizvar wrote:
But WHY the need of the label of misogynistic violence?
Why assign a gender to it? Does it really freaking matter?

Because it is the self-admitted motivation. Basic, basic point there honestly.

 Manchu wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So the reason why you (wrongly) played the "Blame the victim" card was...? You brought it up, after all.

As I explained in the post you quoted, and as I also explained in the post you are referencing, I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats. Those kind of statement serve no other purpose.

again, that is not correct, you are putting words in peoples mouths.


No one is justifying, or trying to justify the threats, you are making up your own meaning independent of the intended, or literal meaning of what people are saying.

you are lumping anyone who DAREs to suggest that everyone gets threats (ie DARES to suggest anita s threats are not more speacial then other peoples) is blaming the victim and saying she asked for and deserved it.

and then your own definition of "expects" says there are only two possibilities:

either no one should expect threats (incorrect, EVERYONE famous, or just on the internets, expects threats)

or that the threats can only come from a mysogenistic culture (again false, you are painting the ENTIRE culture with the mysogeny brush, for the sake of some lone wackjob. If one lone whack job threatening anita means the whole culture is mysogenist, then the lone whackjobs threatening the mens groups means the whole culture is misandrist.)

 Manchu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
But WHY the need of the label of misogynistic violence?
Why assign a gender to it? Does it really freaking matter?

Because it is the self-admitted motivation. Basic, basic point there honestly.

Ok agree to disagree.
I think the "self-admitted" motivation is too simplistic as the "sole" motivation.
We all can cherry-pick to suit various agendas.

Crazies will threaten, Anita will hold lectures, game "journalists" will pretend gamers as a group do not exist and game developers will keep their heads down and make games as they see fit, people will buy them.
Nothing really will change.

 easysauce wrote:
No one is justifying, or trying to justify the threats

Why are you posting that Sarkeesian should expect harassment and threats?

Has anyone argued she did not?

 Talizvar wrote:
I think the "self-admitted" motivation is too simplistic as the "sole" motivation.

Weak.

The person sending the threat said feminism ruined their life and promised to imitate the 1989 Montreal shooter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre#Marc_L.C3.A9pine

 Manchu wrote:
I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats.

Do you believe that a logical assumption and a justification are the same thing?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does she shut down any discourse in her video?

By blocking and removing any/all ability for anyone to comment.

They can comment elsewhere no?

Not any place where they know they can question, or have any sort of actual dialogue with her. I mean, If you Frazzled, create a video on the "proper raise and care of wiener dogs" and I had a question, what good does it do me to go ask Legoburner when you are the "expert" and the one who created the media that I am having an issue with??

I think that is what this event was. A time and a place for people to meet and talk with her about the issue. I honestly wouldn't know what to say to her though.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats.

Do you believe that a logical assumption and a justification are the same thing?

No.

I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.

The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.

 Manchu wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I believe everyone posting "she should expect to be harassed and threatened" is basically justifying the harassment and threats.

Do you believe that a logical assumption and a justification are the same thing?

No.

I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.

The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.

Do you believe that receiving harassment after intentionally provoking a negative emotional response is improbable?

Its very relevant to the discussion in view of the level of demands she made for her security.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Do you believe that receiving harassment after intentionally provoking a negative emotional response is improbable?

 Manchu wrote:
I believe that the probability of a famous person receiving threats is irrelevant to this discussion. No one has said receiving the threat was improbable.

The only remaining reason to state "she should expect harassment and death threats" is to justify them/blame her for them.

Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How does she shut down any discourse in her video?

By blocking and removing any/all ability for anyone to comment.

Be fair, it does prevent the logical and rational people of this world from shooting her down faster than a brick dropped at 1000 feet.

I don't see why they felt the need to cancel. It certainly seems melodramatic to me to be afraid of a threat of a mass shooting in Utah, where concealed carry is legal and widespread, on a university campus, USU, that allows concealed carry. If the person issuing the Montreal 2.0 threat actually showed up there would likely be multiple people in attendance fully capable of ending that threat quickly and permamnently. Given the school's policies I think USU would be one of the safest places you could be for a lecture.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its very relevant to the discussion in view of the level of demands she made for her security.

No.

Whether or not it is probable that she might receive a threat has no bearing on her demands regarding security precisely because she had in fact received a threat.

The question of probability of getting a threat is done once a threat has been received.

I think what you mean is, the question of how probable it was that the threat would be carried out is relevant to her demands.

I don't think we have any evidence that such is the case. Even if the threat found to be "imminent" or "credible" could the police have legally accepted Sarkeesian's demands? That has not been established one way or the other.

So it remains: "she should understand it is probable that she will receive threats and harassment" is irrelevant because no one has said otherwise.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?

Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?

Yes there is a difference. That brings us back to:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

nomotog wrote:
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?

He has already explicitly stated that:

 Sigvatr wrote:
She intentionally asked for emotional responses.