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.
2014/10/16 21:03:25
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Prestor Jon wrote: If we're in agreement that a reasonably intelligent well adjusted person would have no trouble predicting that Sarkeesian's lectures were going to generate disgusting hate mail and threats directed at her by internet trolls why are you arguing about victim blaming?
The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:03:36
Manchu wrote: It seems a lot of people believe it was actually just an emotional response -- not a "real," "legit," "imminent," or "credible" death threat.
Well the Police and FBI certainly do not believe it was an imminent threat, and the university does not believe it to be credible
2014/10/16 21:05:21
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
The fact that she faked a twitter account and posted the threats?
How is this a verified fact?
It never was. However judging by the evidence taken from the screenshot (the fact that the account was brand new, the tweets had all been posted within minutes of each other and all where perfectly worded and exactly under the character limit, that the grammar was perfect and that when the shot was taken the user had just logged out) it does seem pretty conclusive.
I'll be honest. I know nothing about Twitter so I can't comment. I thought you meant she'd been caught in some verifiable manner. Is that what you're saying?
-"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!
0212/10/16 21:06:14
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in.
By this statement, you allude that rapce victims purposefully dress themselves in a sexualized way to allure rapists.
Please refrain from making that comparison.
It's been debunked above, it's extremely offensive to rape victims and it's offensive to posters who disagree with you because you basically put them on the same level despite this not being the case.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:07:02
WallofMeat wrote: 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).
Often times Campus Police are sworn police officers of the local municipality, giving them all the rights and responsibilities of police officers.
Utah State allows students and faculty member who have been issued a concealed carry permit by the state to carry concealed handguns on campus. If Sarkeesian had gone ahead and done the lecture it would be possible/probable that there would be armed people in the audience even without a murderous misogynist making an appearance.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2014/10/16 21:06:34
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
If anyone could build a convincing case that Sarkeesian had faked death threats you would have already heard about it in a 100+ page thread here on Dakka.
Manchu wrote: It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in.
By this statement, you allude that rapce victims purposefully dress themselves in a sexualized way to allure rapists. Please refrain from making that comparison, it's been debunked above, it's extremely offensive to rape victims
This is the outright worst troll attempt I have ever seen.
Sigvatr wrote: and it's offensive to posters who disagree with you because you basically put them on the same level despite this not being the case
Manchu wrote: Sigvatr has straight up admitted he believes Sarkeesian "intentionally asked for emotional response."
It just remains to be seen whether he includes calling her whore, slut, thief, liar, bitch, threatening her with murder and rape, threatening her family, and threatening people who are at an event where she is speaking (regardless of why) in "emotional response."
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:10:53
The fact that she faked a twitter account and posted the threats?
How is this a verified fact?
It never was. However judging by the evidence taken from the screenshot (the fact that the account was brand new, the tweets had all been posted within minutes of each other and all where perfectly worded and exactly under the character limit, that the grammar was perfect and that when the shot was taken the user had just logged out) it does seem pretty conclusive.
I'll be honest. I know nothing about Twitter so I can't comment. I thought you meant she'd been caught in some verifiable manner. Is that what you're saying?
Sadly I cannot say yes Frazzled as despite their being a 99% chance of me being right until she admits it there is still a 1% that says im wrong.
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+
0012/10/04 21:09:54
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Manchu wrote: This is the outright redacted troll attempt I have ever seen.
a) I wasn't trolling at all. Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
b) Thanks for your kind words.
Don't quote swear words that the filter misses, makes it that much harder to clean up. Thanks, motyak
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/17 00:33:20
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?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
No. I mean I do understand that makes me sound like some kind of nasty word, but no I'm not going to go and look it up. I don't care to poor through the dozens and dozens of threads on Ania. I won't do that and to be fair I wouldn't make anyone else do that. (If you want, your welcome to throw this statement back in my face should I slip up and tell you or someone else to look something up.)
2014/10/16 21:13:02
Subject: Re:'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Prestor Jon wrote: Utah State allows students and faculty member who have been issued a concealed carry permit by the state to carry concealed handguns on campus. If Sarkeesian had gone ahead and done the lecture it would be possible/probable that there would be armed people in the audience even without a murderous misogynist making an appearance.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing what your point is
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:13:22
2014/10/16 21:13:08
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
Fortunately, I predicted someone would make exactly this slimey troll argument earlier today:
Manchu wrote: 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.
And there's still this:
Manchu wrote: Sigvatr has straight up admitted he believes Sarkeesian "intentionally asked for emotional response."
It just remains to be seen whether he includes calling her whore, slut, thief, liar, bitch, threatening her with murder and rape, threatening her family, and threatening people who are at an event where she is speaking (regardless of why) in "emotional response."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:15:01
Just to point out: you are calling me a troll which is violating rule #1. Your passive-aggressive to aggressive tone isn't really nice either.
I already replied to this:
Sigvatr wrote: 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:15:28
Prestor Jon wrote: If we're in agreement that a reasonably intelligent well adjusted person would have no trouble predicting that Sarkeesian's lectures were going to generate disgusting hate mail and threats directed at her by internet trolls why are you arguing about victim blaming?
The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
So you agree that it was probable for Sarkeesian to get threats but think it's wrong for people to say she should expect to get threats? We say that she should expect trollish behavior because we all saw it coming and believe that she did too. She's free to say and think whatever she wants and threats are wrong but nobody is surprised by this.
Your comparison to blaming rape victims is way off base.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2014/10/16 21:16:01
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Prestor Jon wrote: Utah State allows students and faculty member who have been issued a concealed carry permit by the state to carry concealed handguns on campus. If Sarkeesian had gone ahead and done the lecture it would be possible/probable that there would be armed people in the audience even without a murderous misogynist making an appearance.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing what your point is
My point is that gunmen don't scare me as much when I know I'll be able to shoot back and likely have other good guys with guns to back me up. Also that somebody would have to be really stupid to decide to try to hurt women on one of the few campuses wherein they're allowed to be armed.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2014/10/16 21:20:51
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
I am sure he thought he was perfectly sane.
He had many problems in his past and was looking for a scapegoat.
I don't doubt he was crazy and/or morally irresponsible. That doesn't make him any less misogynistic -- which he absolutely was by his own admission. Since his massacre, other misogynists have held him up as a hero. And now we have someone who threatened to imitate his crimes for the same motivation. And you are asking me why we are talking about misogyny?
yes and NO ONE is saying lepine, or the individuals who threatened anita, are not misogynistic people.
What IS being said is that these individuals actions do not allow you to broadly label the whole culture as misogynistic .
the death threats to anita, were anti women even without them being spelled out as such in an obvious way, the same as lepines actions were inherently and obviously anti women. Even without the note.
the same as the threats to the mens groups are misandry or anti male.
In all three cases, its the individuals making the threats who are misogynistic/misandrist , not the culture at large.
if you claim that the marc lepines actions and donkey caves threats against anita are proof of the culture at large being mysogenist.
its no different then someone judging all of feminists or the culture at large as misandrists because of the individuals who call for male culling/castration/ect or individual threats on mens groups.
2014/10/16 21:22:10
Subject: Re:'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Prestor Jon wrote: My point is that gunmen don't scare me as much when I know I'll be able to shoot back and likely have other good guys with guns to back me up. Also that somebody would have to be really stupid to decide to try to hurt women on one of the few campuses wherein they're allowed to be armed.
That presupposes that you have a favorable view of firearms. We do not know Anita's views on same.
2014/10/16 21:23:21
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You're ignoring the correct dictionary definition of a word in favour of using your own preferred definition...and you wonder why people are quoting the dictionary to you?
Sining wrote: You did mis-define misogyny. There isn't any real claim about it.
Nope:
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
That is an argument, not a definition.
Sining wrote: I don't remember an actual argument by you unless you're talking about your claim that a shooting was spurred by misogyny, which I already replied to but haven't received any replies from you except your famous quote above.
Oh really? Let's show the "famous quote" in context:
Manchu wrote: What I am saying is -- scratch that, what I am reminding you of is massacres motivated by misogyny have recently happened. Where are the misandrist shooting sprees?
One problem is actual.
The other problem is hypothetical.
Sining wrote: Ah yes, the Elliot Roger shooting spree in which he killed more men than women -_- The same person who wanted to punish women for rejecting him and punish MEN for having a better sex life than him. '
I love people using a tragedy for their own personal spin. Come, tell me more about your narrative
cincydooley wrote: I think its pretty silly to claim his shooting rampage wasn't spurned by his misogyny. Unless his manifesto was total BS.
Sining wrote: He hated both sexes. He hated women for rejecting him cause he thought he was a nice guy. He hated men for getting the girls he felt they weren't worthy for. Dude was just full of hate for everyone.
Manchu wrote: Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.
A guy who hates men for possessing women when he does not is a misogynist rather than a misandrist. The issue is that he believes women are possessions for men to claim and own.
So are you ready to actually talk about how misogyny is bad for everyone, including using violence to prevent people from speaking on gender issues, or do you want to keep deflecting the actual topic of the thread with a dictionary?
Sorry, ignore my comment. Got linked to a comment by Manchu from page 4. Got too many active tabs open and I'm losing track of this thread.
Ah, that makes much more sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: the death threats to anita, were anti women even without them being spelled out as such in an obvious way, the same as lepines actions were inherently and obviously anti women. Even without the note.
Violence against women is not necessarily misogynistic. Misogyny is hatred of women. This hatred can and does motivate a lot of violence against women but it is not the only motivation for violence against women. Similarly, not every instance of violence against a man is misandric.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:26:28
Prestor Jon wrote: My point is that gunmen don't scare me as much when I know I'll be able to shoot back and likely have other good guys with guns to back me up. Also that somebody would have to be really stupid to decide to try to hurt women on one of the few campuses wherein they're allowed to be armed.
That presupposes that you have a favorable view of firearms. We do not know Anita's views on same.
True. She's free to do as she wants.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2014/10/16 21:33:12
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Prestor Jon wrote: So you agree that it was probable for Sarkeesian to get threats but think it's wrong for people to say she should expect to get threats?
Here's what I am saying:
Manchu wrote: The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
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.
Manchu wrote: 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: 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:33:50
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?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
No. I mean I do understand that makes me sound like some kind of nasty word, but no I'm not going to go and look it up. I don't care to poor through the dozens and dozens of threads on Ania. I won't do that and to be fair I wouldn't make anyone else do that. (If you want, your welcome to throw this statement back in my face should I slip up and tell you or someone else to look something up.)
Using only one example:
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
2014/10/16 21:36:23
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Manchu wrote: The probability of Sarkeesian being harassed and receiving death threats has never been an issue ITT. But even so many have posted again and again that "she should expect this." Why is this being posted?
It is for the same reason people say rape victims should expect to be raped based on where they are or what they are dressed in. It is a "she asked for it" argument.
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is a HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:37:04
easysauce wrote: the death threats to anita, were anti women even without them being spelled out as such in an obvious way, the same as lepines actions were inherently and obviously anti women. Even without the note.
Violence against women is not necessarily misogynistic. Misogyny is hatred of women. This hatred can and does motivate a lot of violence against women but it is not the only motivation for violence against women. Similarly, not every instance of violence against a man is misandric.
while you are correct that not all violence against men/women is "hatred" of men/women based,
in both cases that is what it was,
anita and lepines victims were choosen precisely because they were women and thats where the hate was directed.
the mens group as also targeted, because it was a mens group, and thats where the hate was directed.
Regardless,
we both agree, the threats on anita are mysogenistic in nature,
but you are applying that individuals actions to a broader culture, instead of just the individual who made the threats.
2014/10/16 21:40:19
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Another thing that gets my hackles up about all this is the various news articles saying "threats force her to cancel her appearance."
That feels pretty disingenuous to me, admittedly no responsibility of hers, but still, it irritates me and does seem to suggest that the news is pushing her into the damsel in distress role.
Now, this opinion of mine would be different if the various authorities involved had released a stronger statement.
2014/10/16 21:41:16
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
Plus, AFAIK the source of the Lets Play footage was never identified which for Anita is very unusual (as she's been conclusively proven to lift the majority of her gameplay footage from othe YT channels without acknowledging her sources), and there were accusations that Anita staged the gameplay footage of a player abusing the bodies herself*.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:43:35
2014/10/16 21:41:37
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Compel wrote: Another thing that gets my hackles up about all this is the various news articles saying "threats force her to cancel her appearance."
That feels pretty disingenuous to me, admittedly no responsibility of hers, but still, it irritates me and does seem to suggest that the news is pushing her into the damsel in distress role.
Now, this opinion of mine would be different if the various authorities involved had released a stronger statement.
*Ahem*
A NEWS ORGANIZATION WRITES BROAD STROKED HEADLINES? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!
Sorry.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
2014/10/16 21:41:44
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Sigvatr wrote: Rape victims are NOT. That is a HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
You already tried that one. And as I already noted, I figured you would do it hours ago, when I first brought up this entire line of reasoning:
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
Fortunately, I predicted someone would make exactly this slimey troll argument earlier today:
Manchu wrote: 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.
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.
Sigvatr wrote: Rape victims are NOT. That is a HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
You already tried that one. And as I already noted, I figured you would do it hours ago, when I first brought up this entire line of reasoning:
Sigvatr wrote: Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention. Rape victims are NOT. That is HUGE difference. By making that comparison you say that there is none. And that is wrong and extremely offensive.
Fortunately, I predicted someone would make exactly this slimey troll argument earlier today:
Manchu wrote: 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.
What part of
"Anita advertised her series on 4chan"
- a notorious lair for internet trolls - do you not understand?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 21:46:31
