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.

Easysauce, I think you have consistently misunderstood my posts in this thread. I really don't think it has been intentional so I will do my best to explain my position to you.

Some people in North America view women as objects. This viewpoint motivates some amount of violence against women, including a recent case of mass murder in California where the killer explicitly outlined his misogynistic views and motivations for killing. This thread is about the threat of mass murder with explicit reference to a massacre in Montreal in 1989 where the killer explicitly outlined his misogynistic views and motivations for killing.

None of this implies that there are no problems with how men are treated. None of this implies that all men are misogynists. None of this implies that only women should be protected from threats of violence and violence.

I sincerely hope that clears things up for you.

Frazzled, the fact that you can't read a letter properly has nothing to do with me accepting or rejecting opinions, valid or otherwise.

College: we're aware that there have been threats in the past and we're beefing up security, even though we don't believe that this threat is genuine you'll have an security escort at all times including to and from the event. There will also be uniformed and plain clothes police officers watching over the event.

Anita: I want metal detectors and pat downs enforced.

College: Sorry (likely we don't have that for anyone really) Additionally it violates state law in that they are legally allowed to carry.

Anita: People exercising their rights makes me uncomfortable, and I need extra, extra protection with a cherry on top because I'm Anita, I simply I won't attend!

0/10 - worst fan fiction I have seen all week

 Manchu wrote:
Easysauce, I think you have consistently misunderstood my posts in this thread. I really don't think it has been intentional so I will do my best to explain my position to you.

=.

fair enough, I get what you *mean* but honestly, Im not getting your meaning off the bat because what you actually say leads to a different conclusion.

at the same time, numerous people are trying to communicate simple cause and effect, and its being called victim blaming despite that not being the case, so i would say you are also mis understanding my (and others) posts.

when you said that the options were "no one should expect threats" and "in mysogenistic culture she expects threats", where you reference the culture at large (not individuals) as mysogenistic,


then because she does expect threats, it must mean the culture is mysogenistic, and if the culture is mysogenistic, that includes a huge dearth of people, not just the individuals who did the deed.

Can you at least see how someone could see that 2nd option's reference to mysogenistic culture is referencing the culture at large instead of particular individuals?


If I seem persistant, its because I really do care about the issue and simply want to understand where you are coming from.

I would like sources for the "likely we don't have that for anyone" speculation.

In their statements the college did state they were taking extra precautions, Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms. She felt that despite the college adding extra security that it still did not meet her expectations of safety so she cancelled. Anita said in her comments about withdrawing that she wasn't cancelling due to the threats but because safety was not sufficient to meet her standards (because it did not provide metal detectors or pat downs) so how is that not accurate?

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event.

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.

Eagerly awaits Manchu's claim that I'm misreading things.

When university officials told Sarkeesian they could not stop concealed-weapon permit carriers from packing their handguns into the room where she was going to speak, Sarkeesian called it off and left town.

Backpacks would not have been allowed into the Taggert Student Center Auditorium, but Sarkeesian said USU declined to pat down students or post metal detectors at the doors.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58524629-78/sarkeesian-university-speech-video.html.csp

If they aren't allowed to bring in bags, it'd be a bit difficult to bring in the assault rifles and bombs that the letter threatened. Also Anita proudly claimed in a previous event that she attended that it was the third time she'd been under a bomb threat, yet still went (making her so very brave). But even when the campus and police feel there's no credible threat she suddenly pulls back for this one? Likely because she saw the chance to grab another spot in headlines by way of controversy.

 easysauce wrote:
at the same time, numerous people are trying to communicate simple cause and effect, and its being called victim blaming despite that not being the case

The problem is, there really is not a necessary "cause and effect" rule here. This is where the rape shaming example is so relevant.

"She was raped because of (what she wore, where she was, who she was with) etc" makes the point that her being raped was primarily the result of what she did. So the idea is that she, or something about her, caused the rape -- this is the "she was asking for it" argument. Actually, nothing about her caused the rape. The rape was caused by the rapist.

Similarly, nothing Sarkeesian did actually caused anyone to harass and threaten her. Harassment and threats are responses to what she said but they are not the logical results of what she said. The people who caused this harassment and these threats are the people who did the harassing and made the threats just like how the person who causes a rape is the rapist.

The "she was asking for it" argument, whether applied to rape or death threats (and threats of rape) is misogynistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Eagerly awaits Manchu's claim that I'm misreading things.

That would be charitable. What we can certainly say is that you conclusions have no basis in the evidence.

 stanman wrote:
Anita canceled because she disagreed with the students state rights to carry firearms.

She canceled because she did not want to go to a place where people can be secretly armed with guns after she had been threatened with murder if she went to that place.

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
at the same time, numerous people are trying to communicate simple cause and effect, and its being called victim blaming despite that not being the case

The problem is, there really is not a necessary "cause and effect" rule here. This is where the rape shaming example is so relevant.

again,

your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect,

if someone walks out into the rain, expect to get wet. cause, effect.

if someone does anything online, expect online threats.

if someone does anything public/famous, expect all sorts of threats.

its no more "blaming the victim" to assert this, then to state that hillary clinton expects threats, or to state that our troops expect to be shot at.

you are misundestanding it, and drawing paralells to a completly different arguement, people who say rape victims "asked for it" are totally different then people who say "that is rapist ally, its full of rapists who rape people, expect to be raped if you go into rapist alley."

its not blaming the victim, its a statement of cause and effect.

in the same way people can state "outside it is raining, its really wet, expect to get wet if you go into the rain." are just stateing cause and effect, so to are people saying to expect threats online.


blaming the victim would have to consist of actually balming the victim. IE "she went into rapist alley, its her fault they raped her."

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I would like sources for the "likely we don't have that for anyone" speculation.

Who does? I've only seen metal detectors at airports, courts, some sporting events, and certain very high level poltiical events. Absent the airports/courts they were private and paid for privately.

I'm sure if she wanted to pay for all that she could. Apparently under Utah law it would have been irrelevant, as CHLers couldn't be refused there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
She canceled because she did not want to go to a place where people can be secretly armed with guns after she had been threatened with murder if she went to that place.

So she had metal detectors and pat downs at all 3 of the prior events she attended that had received bomb and death threats?

While I expect my junk to be lovingly fondled by the TSA, I wasn't aware it'd been adopted at college campuses nationwide as standard protocol. Hate to break it to you but anywhere can be secretly armed with guns, you don't need to be in a CC or OC state to do it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I would like sources for the "likely we don't have that for anyone" speculation.

Who does? I've only seen metal detectors at airports, courts, some sporting events, and certain very high level poltiical events. Absent the airports/courts they were private and paid for privately.

I'm sure if she wanted to pay for all that she could. Apparently under Utah law it would have been irrelevant, as CHLers couldn't be refused there.

I'm taking the piss out of a previous post.

 Manchu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

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?

So, Anita canceled a university appearance due to a misogynistic crazy person who may also be suicidal or just a troll who likes to mess with people. I just find the obsession to have a word that is a sub-category for prejudice is just a way to make it "special".

Sure fine, we can talk of misogynist behavior, suicidal mindsets, people who hate their games being criticized, gun control, police not doing their jobs, freedom of speech, trolls and their antisocial behavior, lots here to pick but sure, women haters seem to be the more "important" topic.

If "I" were Anita (disregard I am not, do not have her money, fame or gender), I would not publish or acknowledge the hate mail and send the threat emails to the police.
Acknowledging any of it is like trolling for more: it gets them all excited.

Cancelling the presentation is a huge mistake: where do you draw the line after that?
Again, something that will only attract more threats, each trying to outdo each other on who gets to be quoted in the news... so exciting.

Wear a bulletproof vest, have an armored podium, make metal detectors and armed security part of the conditions for an appearance.
I do not "expect" Anita to die for her cause whatever that may be, but she can manage the risk.
<edit> Ah, metal detectors struck down, still terms for attending a "private" event should have allowed some leeway... well, count on armed well meaning supporters?

Manchu: there are many things that are "unacceptable" that are a reality and must be acknowledged as a fact in need of correction.
The "outspoken minority" and Anita I feel are not worthy representatives for a balanced view and should not enjoy further press time.

 easysauce wrote:
your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect

No it doesn't. I don't think you understand causality and I don't really have the interest to teach you about it.

 Talizvar wrote:
So, Anita canceled a university appearance due to a misogynistic crazy person who may also be suicidal or just a troll who likes to mess with people.

Correct, mostly. Here's an important point: the person who sent the threat identified themselves as a misogynist by reference to the 1989 massacre. They did not identify themselves as crazy or a troll.

 Talizvar wrote:
Manchu: there are many things that are "unacceptable" that are a reality and must be acknowledged as a fact in need of correction.

I fully agree. ITT the one we are talking about is misogynistic violence.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I would like sources for the "likely we don't have that for anyone" speculation.

Who does? I've only seen metal detectors at airports, courts, some sporting events, and certain very high level poltiical events. Absent the airports/courts they were private and paid for privately.

I'm sure if she wanted to pay for all that she could. Apparently under Utah law it would have been irrelevant, as CHLers couldn't be refused there.

I'm taking the piss out of a previous post.

Oh sorry. Continue taking the piss (wait isn't that the church petition subpoena thread? )

Hey, I can operate in more than one thread.

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect

No it doesn't. I don't think you understand causality and I don't really have the interest to teach you about it.

other way around manchu,
I dont think you understand causality,

stating that "on the internet, one expects threats" is a true statement.

That the insular nature of the internet causes people to make more threats, is also true.

You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the difference between someone making an objective statement about cause and effect, and them making a subjective blame statement.

that you misunderstand multiple people trying to do this, despite us patiently trying to explain it, means I likely wont have any sucess explaining it to you.

 easysauce wrote:
I dont think you understand causality

Here's a place for you to begin: correlation is not the same as causation. Good luck with this in all honesty. Causation can actually be pretty tricky.

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
I dont think you understand causality

Here's a place for you to begin: correlation is not the same as causation. Good luck with this in all honesty. Causation can actually be pretty tricky.

this isnt a case of causation vs correlation at all... thats not even close.


the fact is, that you are misunderstanding people, and there looks to be far more effort from the people being mis understood to correct you, then your own effort to try to understand things properly.

stating that someone who enters a specific enviroment (a wet one, or a threat heavy one like the internet) will expect certain outcomes as a direct result of those conditions, is causation by its actual definition.

That in this thread you have used: non standard definitions for words and been suprised that people dont know what you mean,

and gotten upset to the point of uttering obscenties,

makes me think that it wont matter how well thought out or factual the state ment is, its still "blaming the victim" to spell out the realities of cause and effect in this case.

that is, after all, why you dont object to "if you go out in the rain, expect to get wet" because this effect and cause dont strike you as "wrong"

so while the cause and effect "if you go online as a celebrety expect threats" is deplorable, awful, hateful, ect... it is still a factual statement, and people stating this fact are not blaming the victim at all.

I guess culture critic is a synonym of narcissist.

Hey don't be dissing Culture Club. Wait you said culture critic...er never mind.

Anita Sarkeesian is a fraud and a charlatan. I wouldn't actually advocate for her execution but that's only because she'd probably feel some sort of vindication from it.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Anita Sarkeesian is a fraud and a charlatan. I wouldn't actually advocate for her execution but that's only because she'd probably feel some sort of vindication from it.

thats a bit harsh.

She's like Jesse Jackson, there may indeed be underlying social issues that need to be addressed and corrected. But as somebody who now makes a living out of being in the spotlight surrounding those issues they end up needing to inflame things and work up as much controversy as possible so that they can inject themselves back into the spotlight (and make money).

There are some valid points which she made in her earlier work, but she's run low on legit items to discuss and has started fabricating and falsifying issues within games so that she has new topics to discuss. Without controversy she's out of gas and will fade from relevance and lose income, which she desperately doesn't want to happen.

When self promoting in media outlets there's no such thing as bad press, anytime they are talking about you you're relevant for the next 15 minutes of fame.

I'll be honest, I can understand not feeling safe enough to take the stage given the context and the detail of the threat, I get that. However the way I've seen the story told it's "forced to cancel" more than "chose not to make appearance" forced to cancel seems to infer she had no choice here, like it was authorities or the school that decided to shut it down because the threat was too high, which is simply not the case. There's that disconnect there, it's not like all parties are aligned and all parties collectively decided to cancel the event. Neither the school nor the authorities shut this thing down, anita wanted special treatment (shocker) and did not receive it. She's free to decide that the level of security doesn't meet her standards, but it's indeed worth pointing out that the school and authorities were ready to go. If you don't want attendees to be armed that's perfectly understandable, pick a different state, one with different gun laws.

 Manchu wrote:
You just posted that you can't say what kind of attention Sarkeesian wants. You have already posted that she wants negative attention. I don't think I am missing anything. Putting "negative" in parentheses does not change anything about your contradictory claims. You argued Sarkeesian wants death threats. I understand why you want to get out of that. It is a shamefully misogynistic thing to say.

So to sum it up, you seem to lack the understanding of a very basic concept, cause and effect, you cannot (or do not want to) grasp the difference between reasons and justifications and you immediately assume that any threat against her is done out of misogny - which is a pretty darn sexist thing to say as you quickly jump to her side just because she's female. Positive sexism is sexism too; just to let you know.

I highly suggest looking up causality to get closer to an understanding of there being a difference between a reason and a justification.

The fact that you, after a huge amount of pages, still continue to offend rape victims and willfully ignore the posts of most people agreeing with you is saddening and shocking.

Anita willfully provoked (negative) reactions. Do you still deny that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Anita Sarkeesian is a fraud and a charlatan. I wouldn't actually advocate for her execution but that's only because she'd probably feel some sort of vindication from it.

That's..harsh

 Crablezworth wrote:
She's free to decide that the level of security doesn't meet her standards

 Crablezworth wrote:
but it's indeed worth pointing out that the school and authorities were ready to go.

This is really just one sentence but I quoted it in halves because I think these are BOTH extremely good points.

No one should confuse the fact that Sarkeesian felt forced to cancel; the school did not force her to cancel. ALSO no one should be be under the misapprehension that she claims the school forced her to cancel. She made an understandable request that the school could not oblige.

 Manchu wrote:
<stuff>

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:
your argument means there is literally no way to describe cause and effect

No it doesn't. I don't think you understand causality and I don't really have the interest to teach you about it.

 Talizvar wrote:
So, Anita canceled a university appearance due to a misogynistic crazy person who may also be suicidal or just a troll who likes to mess with people.

Correct, mostly. Here's an important point: the person who sent the threat identified themselves as a misogynist by reference to the 1989 massacre. They did not identify themselves as crazy or a troll.

 Talizvar wrote:
Manchu: there are many things that are "unacceptable" that are a reality and must be acknowledged as a fact in need of correction.

I fully agree. ITT the one we are talking about is misogynistic violence.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I highly suggest looking up causality

Your argument is: Sarkeesian talking about video games CAUSED someone to threaten a shooting massacre. That is, it is Sarkeesian's fault (given what she did is the cause) that someone threatened a shooting massacre. This is the exact same thing as saying, for example, the way a woman dressed CAUSED her to be raped.

 Sigvatr wrote:
continue to offend rape victims

Why are you speaking on behalf of rape victims? And what exactly did I say that would offend rape victims? And please don't just post a quote; I would like an explanation as to exactly how anything I have posted is offensive to rape victims.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Anita willfully provoked (negative) reactions. Do you still deny that?

Someone mentioned loaded questions earlier in the thread. I had to explain to them that a loaded question is one that requires you to agree to an assumption in order to answer. What you have just posted is an actual loaded question. Answering it would require me to agree that I have ever denied that "Anita willfully provoked (negative) reactions," which I have not. I have not made any claims as to what Sarkeesian intended vis-a-vis the harassments and death threats she has received. You on the other hand have posted several times that Sarkeesian wanted negative reactions, including death threats.

 Talizvar wrote:
.Established now you cherry picking easy stuff

This is not English. I have no idea what you are trying to say or what it refers to.

 Talizvar wrote:
will not be drawn into discussing anything real

 Talizvar wrote:
not meeting your definition of a word

Do you really not see any irony in your post?

 Manchu wrote:
Your argument is: Sarkeesian talking about video games CAUSED someone to threaten a shooting massacre.

Meeep. As above. And above. And above. She CAUSED (negative) emotional responses. She CAUSED the REASON for the threat. She did not CAUSE the threat itself as the latter is a choice not made by HER but by the person threatening her. You cannot CAUSE an event you cannot DECIDE to cause.

Why are you speaking on behalf of rape victims? And what exactly did I say that would offend rape victims?

Because I see the stuff my wife has to get along with and while often not being intentionally, people tend to downplay rape, e.g. by using it as an emotionally loaded comparison that is supposed to show how "super bad" another action is. That is what you did - and still do:

This is the exact same thing as saying, for example, the way a woman dressed CAUSED her to be raped.

By saying this, you immediately put rape victims and Anita on one level. Not because you intend to do so (hopefully...), but because you rush to conclusions - and no preamble is going to fix that. As already pointed out, by saying that the "Dressing sexy means wanting to get raped!" and "She wanted to get a threat!" is comparable, you show a lack of understanding. The former is very different. Not a single rape victim wants to get raped. Not a single rape victim wants to arouse rapists. Women dress that way to e.g. woo a man *they* choose. Anita WANTS to attract negative reactions.

And in general: if you need to make a comparison to rape to prove your point, that's not only highly offensive, you also undermine your very own point; even if it was valid.

Someone mentioned loaded questions earlier in the thread. I had to explain to them that a loaded question is one that requires you to agree to an assumption in order to answer. What you have just posted is an actual loaded question.

This is what you yourself love to do to other users, so please don't act surprised.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Not a single rape victim wants to get raped.

But Sarkeesian wants death threats? Oh wait you have answered that again and again already including just twice now in the same post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
She CAUSED (negative) emotional responses.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Anita WANTS to attract negative reactions.

And what is your definition of "(negative) emotional responses"?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Does this include angry e-mails? Yes. Does this include angry comments? Yes. Does this include angry letters? Yes. Does this include death threats? Yes.

You are using the "she asked for it" argument. It's the exact same argument misogynists use to shame rape victims. It's just as misogynistic when you use it here. Don't blame me for the argument you are using.