Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)

[kylie]

         I don't generally follow Anita Sarkeesian, but I found this rather disturbing.  Apparently a planned appearance at Utah State was cancelled (article) because someone called emailed in saying they would attack it with guns and pipe bombs.  The police refused to secure the area even in the face of such a stated threat, because Utah has made concealed carry the law.

         So it appears that all it takes to shut down a public event is one person saying they will attack.  Or is it?  Would this happen for a political campaign event (we might look back a few years at presidential campaign situations, for contrast)?  How elevated do people have to be exactly to draw searches for inside access and a certain overwatch deterrent outside?  How about for a less controversial speaker?  How about for an event with bigger business interest and perhaps more selling of goods involved?  I can't help thinking the outcome would be rather different.   

        For some though, it seems that private civilians being allowed to carry weapons and such events not being deemed worthy of protection, means that those with any serious opponents may be threatened into not appearing.  All it takes is one email or phone call, right? 

The author of the email threatened that if the talk was not cancelled, they would carry out an attack in the style of the 1989 Montreal massacre, when Marc Lépine murdered 14 women, claiming he was “fighting feminism”.

“I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs,” the letter said. “This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it.”

....

Initially, Sarkeesian stated her intention to hold the talk despite the threat, but was forced to back down after discovering that it was impossible to prevent guns being taken to the event.

“Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn’t take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event,” she tweeted. “Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah’s open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.”

[consortium11]

The police refused to secure the area even in the face of such a stated threat, because Utah has made concealed carry the law.

I'm no particular expert on this but isn't the law in Utah that open carry is the law; concealed carry still requires permits and the like?

Anyway, on topic.

A quick google seems to reveal that Utah has some of the most liberal (in the classical sense) laws relating to gun control around; basically the only public areas where one isn't allowed to carry (either openly or concealed with a permit) are religious buildings (or at least churches) if the organization says no, prisons/mental health facilities and secure areas in airports, court building etc. Schools and education establishments are specifically not allowed to ban or block people carrying guns; so if someone has a concealed carry permit they're absolutely allowed to have a concealed weapon within a university. I guess that's the issue right there; to have the security Sarkeesian wants would require the police/university to break the state law.

I tried hunting down if there were examples of the law being "bent" for other events; I know that many of the candidates went to Utah during the 2012 campaign and Romney was actually there for a rally about a week or so ago. In such cases though it appears those events were held on private property where the property owner is allowed to ban concealed guns as opposed to a university where they're not.

It's still worrying though.

We don't know how legitimate this death threat is; I'm aware that Sarkeesian has spoken at three events previously having received specific death/bomb threats without incident, but even if this is a ghastly "prank" (and that word in no way conveys the seriousness of it) as opposed to a real intent to kill it's still horrific. Yes, in the most technical terms Sarkeesian's free speech hasn't been impinged upon; she could still speak she just decided not to, but in reality having someone saying "I'll get you... and if I don't get you I'll get some other feminists" while referencing a horrific massacre is a pretty clear block on you speaking somewhere when you can't prevent people bringing a gun to the event. And yes, Sarkeesian could have rearranged her speech to be on non-university private property but that adds an extra burden and, especially as these death threats seemingly came pretty late in the day, causes huge organisational issues.

[Lustful Bride]

I cant decide which is worse, this or SWATing (where someone makes a phone call using all this hacker stuff and tricks the police into sending a SWAT unit to someone's house just to mess with them. A waste of valuable police time and resources they could be using to catch real bad guys.)

People who pull this crap make me so sick. And for what? Cause she's an annoying feminist critic? I don't like what she says alot of the time either but im not loosing my mind over it. Ugh im so mad im actually getting a headache.

My disgusted response to bastards like that will always be this.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtOPacnjxLU

[kylie]

          To take another alternative scenario for contrasting outcomes:  Parades of neo-Nazi groups through certain townships have had considerable police presence brought out to secure the route, keep counter-demonstrations at bay, and generally deter mayhem while they exercise their right to free speech in settings where much of the local populace have even mounted petitions and complaints against their very presence. 

           Yet here, if the lone academic with a smidget of feminist following or just interest as a provocative voice (never mind how disputed) shows up, there is no protection whatsoever. 

           And the email didn't say merely that he'd bring a gun.  It said he would attack with pipe bombs.  Is that also covered under conceal carry laws?  Seems to me that could have reasonably been taken as a specific threat at a scheduled public event.  What IS grounds to search event goers at this state? 

           Meanwhile, if the Republicans feel like having a convention the NYPD would search anyone with an anti-Bush t-shirt (I'm speaking from personal experience here).  Though the National Lawyers' Guild did complain about this later in court, and I believe that at least some of that general vein of preemptive search and selective blocking of street traffic was found illegal long after the fact.  It still shows a huge disconnect.  Again, here there is a very specific type of threat.  One could at least search for bombs.  I wonder if they couldn't ban guns inside the venue precisely because there was a specific threat even. 

          One would think if the governor visited, or if the NFL wanted to have a big drunken expensive show, there would be a hecka lot of security and I'd imagine weapons might even be searched for and stowed safely.  But if it's the lone academic and particularly one who macho men with guns are not likely to like (hello good fraction of the police force), well who cares if there's a specific threat. 

          It would appear that where everyone can carry guns on the street, only the people with the biggest groups and the most force (or the least fear of death and collateral casualties) safely get a podium to voice any kind of controversy whatsoever in public.

[Steampunkette]

Since 1999 gamers have been kicking and screaming that no one commits acts of violence because of videogames.

And yet there are a lot of gamers willing to commit acts of violence on women because of videogames.

And yeah: Their reasons were absolute bullshit. I don't care how liberal or conservative the laws are, if someone threatened the President's life the venue would quickly become a no-weapons-allowed zone.

Same thing with local Chief of Police, District Attorney, Mayor, Governor, or whatever.

And any argument that all public speakers shouldn't be treated with the same consideration as to their right of life will be met with annoyance. If we're willing to surround Nazis and Hate-mongers with cops to ward off assassination then everyone should get that same treatment. From the President to a Hobo.

[consortium11]

          To take another alternative scenario for contrasting outcomes:  Parades of neo-Nazi groups through certain townships have had considerable police presence brought out to secure the route, keep counter-demonstrations at bay, and generally deter mayhem while they exercise their right to free speech in settings where much of the local populace have even mounted petitions and complaints against their very presence. 

           Yet here, if the lone academic with a smidget of feminist following or just interest as a provocative voice (never mind how disputed) shows up, there is no protection whatsoever. 

           And the email didn't say merely that he'd bring a gun.  It said he would attack with pipe bombs.  Is that also covered under conceal carry laws?  Seems to me that could have reasonably been taken as a specific threat at a scheduled public event.  What IS grounds to search event goers at this state?

I'm not sure that's entirely fair

1) Additional security (the equivalent of what occurs at rallies where authorities expect trouble) was going to be provided.

2) If the university is to be taken at their word (and I can see no reason not to at this point) it was due to the possible presence of firearms that Sarkeesian decided to cancel. Quote below, emphasis mine:

Anita Sarkeesian has canceled her scheduled speech for tomorrow following a discussion with Utah State University police regarding an email threat that was sent to Utah State University. During the discussion, Sarkeesian asked if weapons will be permitted at the speaking venue. Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue.

I can't say I blame her in any way, shape or form but the university is between a rock and a hard place. The 2004 state law prevents state and local entities from enacting or enforcing any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy that in “any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.” The University of Utah went to the State Supreme Court in 2006 when they kept up their policy of banning guns from the campus. They lost. A certain section from the decision is pretty relevant to the facts today:

III. POLICY CONCERNS AND THE UNIVERSITY’S
CLAIM TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM

¶52 The University devotes much of its briefing to the policy reasons supporting its claim to institutional autonomy, arguing that its firearms policy is a necessary component of an environment necessary to fulfill its educational mission. Specifically, the University asserts that failure to recognize a right of institutional autonomy will lead to undesirable results,including safety concerns, a hampering of the free exchange of ideas, and potential disruption of “the work and discipline of the school.”

¶53 No matter how persuasive we may find such arguments, we are constrained by our judicial role. Our role is one of interpreting, not drafting. “This court is not called on to decide which is better, an autonomous University or a legislatively controlled University. Rather, it is our duty to give proper effect to the language of the Constitution and the territorial statute bearing on the question.” Univ. of Utah v.
Bd. of Exam’rs , 295 P.2d 348, 354 (Utah 1956). We are not free to disregard constitutional and statutory language on the basis
of policy considerations. “nless it appears so clearly . . . beyond a reasonable doubt that there is some violation of a constitutional provision, or irreconcilable conflict therewith, the courts should leave that responsibility where the constitution expressly placed it: with the legislature.” Jenkins v. Bishop, 589 P.2d 770, 771 (Utah 1978) (Crockett, J., concurring).

¶54 In this case, we conclude that the legislature has not overstepped its constitutional bounds. The plain meaning of article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution, supported by history, context, and our prior decisions, is that although the University has broad powers, it is not completely autonomous, and it is ultimately subject to legislative oversight. Policy considerations, no matter how persuasive, cannot dictate a contrary interpretation. The Utah Constitution does not grant the University authority to promulgate firearms policies in
contravention of legislative enactments, and it is not our place to do so. To the extent their constituents disagree with the legislature’s choice, their remedy is to express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box.

Basically, the law is the law and the university has to accept it regardless of policy considerations and how legitimate they may be. As such the university is stuck; it cannot stop someone with a concealed carry permit carrying a concealed weapon on campus. As such the issue here should be with the law itself, not the universities decision.

[Silk]

Since 1999 gamers have been kicking and screaming that no one commits acts of violence because of videogames.

And yet there are a lot of gamers willing to commit acts of violence on women because of videogames.

Gamers have been saying that violence isn't a direct cause from video games, not that violent people don't play games. There is a substantial difference there. Correlation isn't causation. It's like saying people commit intentional hit and runs just because they have access to cars, not the car being medium in a separate motive regarding a hit and run. If you take the car away, then something else would just take it's place.

[Shjade]

Wrong kind of "because," Silk.

It's not that these violent threats were caused by exposure to videogames, it's that they're on behalf of/regarding videogames. Thus, "because of videogames."

Oh, and re: Lustful Bride's post - this is pretty loathsome shit, but I'd rate SWATting higher. That has the very real potential of getting you killed by the police if you happen to react poorly to having people with guns suddenly bust into your house (higher or lower chance dependent on State you're in and how dangerous you happen to look), is almost guaranteed to get any pets you have in the house killed (dogs do not have a high life expectancy during SWAT intrusion scenarios) and is definitely going to do some amount of property damage, all that on TOP of the personal info violation and fear inducement of knowing "they can get to you."

A threat by itself pales in comparison to all that.

[Silk]

Wrong kind of "because," Silk.

It's not that these violent threats were caused by exposure to videogames, it's that they're on behalf of/regarding videogames. Thus, "because of videogames."

Oh, and re: Lustful Bride's post - this is pretty loathsome shit, but I'd rate SWATting higher. That has the very real potential of getting you killed by the police if you happen to react poorly to having people with guns suddenly bust into your house (higher or lower chance dependent on State you're in and how dangerous you happen to look), is almost guaranteed to get any pets you have in the house killed (dogs do not have a high life expectancy during SWAT intrusion scenarios) and is definitely going to do some amount of property damage, all that on TOP of the personal info violation and fear inducement of knowing "they can get to you."

A threat by itself pales in comparison to all that.

Maybe it's quite late and I'm tired so might not be the best analogy. But to say its because of games is a stretch, it could just as easily be media exposure, someone with a grudge personally, or because there was a in thing between her and other popular youtube names, Hell it could be someone who she conned with her fake kick starters. Nor do we know the mental state of the person. Just saying it's games because it's the most apparent is a injustice. Even if it's otherwise said, people are capable of lying. We don't know the motive of the person who made the threat nor should we claim to.

[Steampunkette]

If someone says "I'm going to shoot you because you've got blonde hair and blue eyes" I think it's safe to say that's why they're shooting you, rather than debating with them on the REAL reason they're intent on shooting you.

As for the "Kickstarter Scam" meme: It's been proven false a hundred ways from Sunday and we should just let it die.

[Shjade]

As for the "Kickstarter Scam" meme: It's been proven false a hundred ways from Sunday and we should just let it die.

I don't understand why so many people still harp on the "Anita is a con-artist" angle after having it pretty clearly spelled out she's producing an average Kickstarter product by all measures.

You could argue it's more misogyny-motivated than games, but since Anita's only a notable public figure because of the stuff she started doing about games...

[Ephiral]

For the same reason this threat happened: Because they want to silence her, or they've been coopted by the people who do.

That's... pretty much it.

[Caehlim]

As for the "Kickstarter Scam" meme: It's been proven false a hundred ways from Sunday and we should just let it die.

I don't even get what it's meant to be about, she offered to make these videos with the kickstarter funding, then people funded it and now the videos have been made. That sounds like exactly what kickstarter is for. Yes, maybe it took a bit longer than people expected for the videos to be produced, but that's not surprising when the campaign raised more money than was planned and she's had to endure a lot of attempts at sabotage in the meantime. Reading her kickstarter page and watching the videos it looks like exactly what was advertised to me. How is that a scam?

[Kunoichi]

Meanwhile, over on somethingawful.com...

[Lux12]

For the same reason this threat happened: Because they want to silence her, or they've been coopted by the people who do.

That's... pretty much it.

This. That is exactly why. They don't want anyone who talks about sexism whether it's overt or systemic talking about it.

What the hell Utah? There are no words to described how utterly disappointed I am in them. Of course, I probably should have expected this sort of bull from them, but it still astounds me just how messed up they can be.

[Shjade]

Meanwhile, over on somethingawful.com...

It never ceases to amaze me how GG's priority #1 appears to be The Blame Game regardless of what topic is being discussed, as if the anonymity of the group allows for anything in the way of verifiable identification of anything for/against/inside/outside the group without having some kind of IP-related identifiers attached to give whatever is being discussed some kind of solid, irrefutable anchor.

I mean, hell, I'd honestly be less suspicious of them if they'd stop saying "Wasn't us!" constantly about everything in the least bit negative.

[ElvenKitten]

For the same reason this threat happened: Because they want to silence her, or they've been coopted by the people who do.

That's... pretty much it.

Mhhmmm because she seems to like silencing those with an opinion differing from hers only reenabling comments to show how much of a victim. I find her videos derivertive and verging on the darker sider of feminism. But I however surport her right to have her say and death and terror threats only serve to assist in her professional victim act.

She seems more interested in equality of outcome than equality of opportunity. As for the kickstarter thing, considering all her so called research is stealing lets play footage off you tube. The argument she had about the Hitman game stank of someone who has never played a Hitman game before, the point was to NOT kill the strippers. And if you have to sink to a game barely anyone remembers or actually finished to make your point then the argument is pretty flawed.

I'd actually like someone competent to actually help along the issues of women in videogames and to have far fewer repeats of metroid prime other M. I'd like it if people would stop making dumb death threats and I'd like to see some shred of integrity from the gaming press. Maybe if we can sort these things out people can see the good games and gamers can do for the world. But no, we have Anita complaining about something she has stated she dosn't even care about.

[Melusine]

Mhhmmm because she seems to like silencing those with an opinion differing from hers only reenabling comments to show how much of a victim.

By "silencing" you refer to her deleting the verbal abuse she's getting in her youtube videos? Because that's not just a difference of opinion, and it's not constructive criticism. She has every right to delete comments that add nothing to the conversation but derail it instead.

I find her videos derivertive and verging on the darker sider of feminism. But I however surport her right to have her say and death and terror threats only serve to assist in her professional victim act.

What is her "victim act", exactly? Sarkeesian has received death and rape threats, people have doxxed her and put up her personal information to the internet for all to see, and now someone sent her a threatening message for an upcoming appearance. How is this an "act"? She's been pretty victimized already.

Also, I find it very disturbing that your problem with the threats is that they're assisting her, instead of, you know, threatening a human being and causing them immense emotional pain.

She seems more interested in equality of outcome than equality of opportunity. As for the kickstarter thing, considering all her so called research is stealing lets play footage off you tube. The argument she had about the Hitman game stank of someone who has never played a Hitman game before, the point was to NOT kill the strippers. And if you have to sink to a game barely anyone remembers or actually finished to make your point then the argument is pretty flawed.

Her arguments are flawed. Her methodology is faulty. Regardless of whether or not these things are true (I've never watched any of her videos) this in no way justifies the attacks against her. And believe me, her critics rarely mention her arguments. Mostly they froth at the mouth with hateful, misogynistic insults. I mean, really? Rape threats and doxxing for someone who makes bad arguments? I'd be baffled by this response if I wasn't intimately aware of how misogynistic the gaming community can be.

[ElvenKitten]

Hmm where to start... I don't condone the death and rape threats but she did turn on the coments section for her kickstarter video to showcase the hate she was getting. She seems to bring up the death and rape threats an awfull lot as well, anyone who's used the youtube comments should expect that sort of thing.(not saying it's right or defending it). Her kickstarter would not have gotten the money had she not made a fuss about a load of trolls with too much time and too little maturity.

I agree that the gaming comunity is pretty misogynistic but Anita seems to only make it worse. Fighting misogyny with misandry only makes things worse. One only needs to look at tumblr feminists for death threats to anyone who questions their views. Point I'm making is gamers don't have the monopoly on unpleasantness.

Truth is she has made a lot of money due to being a victim of these death and rape threats and seems to artfully spin it so the media concentrates on how awful the comments without taking an objective look at her work. Without the media outcry no one would know who she is.

[Melusine]

Hmm where to start... I don't condone the death and rape threats but she did turn on the coments section for her kickstarter video to showcase the hate she was getting. She seems to bring up the death and rape threats an awfull lot as well, anyone who's used the youtube comments should expect that sort of thing.(not saying it's right or defending it). Her kickstarter would not have gotten the money had she not made a fuss about a load of trolls with too much time and too little maturity.

Well, why shouldn't she? It's part of her point. If I was in her position (trying to point out misogyny in games and the gaming community) and got such a virulently misogynistic response from people in the gaming community, I would absolutely use it as part of my argument. These threats would be proving my point. If you think she's manipulating people in this way, I can't agree. She's just presenting responses as they are. People might feel sympathy, others might be enraged.

I agree that the gaming comunity is pretty misogynistic but Anita seems to only make it worse. Fighting misogyny with misandry only makes things worse. One only needs to look at tumblr feminists for death threats to anyone who questions their views. Point I'm making is gamers don't have the monopoly on unpleasantness.

How, by God, is Anita Sarkeesian misandric? Are we equating critique of misogyny (however flawed it might be) with misandry? Very sincerely, I've never seen her express hatred or discriminate against men. If you show me that she does, I'll stand corrected. And yes, of course gamers don't have the monopoly on unpleasantness. Nobody is arguing against this.

Truth is she has made a lot of money due to being a victim of these death and rape threats and seems to artfully spin it so the media concentrates on how awful the comments without taking an objective look at her work.

It's true that the controversy has partially eclipsed constructive critique of her work. However, I really don't think that's her fault. Media feeds on controversy and anger. Unless, of course, we want her to say nothing about the threats she's receiving lest she presents herself as a victim, which seemes to be her cardinal sin according to her less than rational detractors.

[Kunoichi]

It never ceases to amaze me how GG's priority #1 appears to be The Blame Game regardless of what topic is being discussed, as if the anonymity of the group allows for anything in the way of verifiable identification of anything for/against/inside/outside the group without having some kind of IP-related identifiers attached to give whatever is being discussed some kind of solid, irrefutable anchor.

I mean, hell, I'd honestly be less suspicious of them if they'd stop saying "Wasn't us!" constantly about everything in the least bit negative.

Speaking as someone who's pro-GG, the instructions I keep seeing passed around are 'GamerGate does not support harassment, death threats, or doxxing attempts.  If you see any such activities, report them immediately'.

Of course, that's just general guidelines for how to act when attempting to have discussions with people.  In terms of actual things they want us to prioritize, it's 'Those e-mails aren't going to send themselves, people.  Get back to work'. :P

[Shjade]

Oh, don't get me wrong, reporting that behavior is 100% the right thing to do.

Making sure to let everyone know you're reporting that behavior and that you don't condone it and furthermore that behavior was not related to you or anyone you know in GamerGate and also there are minorities on our side and look we donated to charity and we're super good people honest...

...makes whoever is talking sound desperate and/or duplicitous.

I think we're getting off topic, though: this isn't a GG thread, it's, as far as I can tell, a states rights vs constitutional rights topic.

[Kunoichi]

If you think that sounds bad, you should check out what the opposition is saying. :P

And I'd argue that GamerGate isn't off-topic, though it certainly shouldn't be the main focus of the conversation.  A lot of recent media articles about the USU threat have specifically brought GG up when talking about it.  It's at least somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Ephiral]

Mhhmmm because she seems to like silencing those with an opinion differing from hers only reenabling comments to show how much of a victim. I find her videos derivertive and verging on the darker sider of feminism. But I however surport her right to have her say and death and terror threats only serve to assist in her professional victim act.

Not providing a platform is not silencing - you're free to say whatever you want on your own platform. Engaging in a campaign of lies, harassment, and threats of violence every time someone speaks up is silencing - "Stop talking or we'll make your life as hard as we can."

And yes, she uses the comments to demonstrate the sheer amount of misogynistic bullshit that happens to you if you happen to be a woman talking about women's issues on the internet, because that is very close to the point she's trying to make. Comments on any article or video about feminism justify feminism.

Speaking as someone who's pro-GG, the instructions I keep seeing passed around are 'GamerGate does not support harassment, death threats, or doxxing attempts.  If you see any such activities, report them immediately'.

So you haven't seen key players explicitly talking about how that's a smokescreen intended to distract and cause infighting on the other side, about how they should employ blatantly illegal tactics to get their hands on private data, knowing damn well thet this shit is over the line and trying to hide it, etc, etc, et fucking cetera. Or the pages and pages and pages of ricockulously misogynistic bile and hatred flung by participants when they think they're behind closed doors. Okay, then.

[kylie]

         Yeah, as I said I don't really follow Sarkeesian much.  While she is hardly the first feminist critical of violent storylines or the placement of women and violence in entertainment, and just on a hunch I rather doubt I would buy everything she says -- I'm just mixed on many of those -- I can also imagine she may have a certain point.  And I don't follow Gamergate either, really.  Though I'm having a hard time with the notion of gamers as an oppressed class -- at least when it gets to a level of rhetoric comparing them to women on the whole.  That sounds like a bit of active diversion without even getting into the problem of, how much or which parts of this group seem to be making busy platforms for direct misogyny if not dreams of violence.

          So some general discussion of whatever they're each on about doesn't bother me; it helps a little to get some sense of them as I'm not so inclined to dive into threads where people have gone on about them at more length (and I imagine, with still more vehemence).

          At the same time, I do see the basic situation as a problem with the weapons in public law.  The law and the way it's being, I suspect, rather selectively applied (as any such law might have to be?) seem to naturally lead into a crisis where some parties -- perhaps particularly such parties concerned about violence and inequality in the general culture -- are more likely to be pushed out of public places.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The think about open and concealed carry permits that worries me the most is that the hand that will hold, aim and fire the gun - if that is done - is controlled by the mind of person whose name is on the permit.  Having experienced the limited abilities of some individuals and their skewed ideas of common sense I'm leery of their judgment.  I fortunately know no one in Utah and have no reason to go there and these days Utah is more frightening to me than ebola.

[Kythia]

What terrifies me even more is that they'll meet, merge and mutate to form either Utobla or Ebutah (I haven't decided yet)

[Beguile's Mistress]

*snickers*  You made me choke on my coffee. :D

[Steampunkette]

Maybe, if we're lucky, they'll cancel each other out and the universe will restructure itself around the place where Utah and Ebola were.

[Kythia]

the place where Utah and Ebola were.

The Ut-hole-a-bola?

[Steampunkette]

Relevant to some of the very disturbing commentary in this thread:

[Retribution]

The whole refusal to take action due to open carry is well lame. Not to mention I doubt there is a law allowing open carry of pipe bombs either. Using this reasoning terrorists threats in such areas are perfectly legal and we all know they are of course not.

Having said that, as a firearms owner I honestly like open carry a bit better than concealed. I would honestly rather see the firearm than be guessing who has one and who does not. And I would hope the licensing process weeds out those who should not be carrying. Unfortunately such processes only tend to catch those inclined to obey the law.

[Steampunkette]

Right? Open carry makes it so much easier to pick your targets before you draw your gun in the first place. You know -exactly- who you need to shoot to avoid getting killed in a hail of gunfire! :D

Concealed carry is not much better, in my opinion...

[Retribution]

We are not going to agree on this  :-) and the second amendment is one thing I will not give on in the least bit. We could duel with factoid links at high noon and neither of us is going to change their mind. We would also hijack this thread and change the topic.

So, I will state once more I think the excuse given was a lame excuse for not responding on the part of the authorities. And it was just that an excuse because they did not want to. As for open carry, you have a point that a "bad guy" seeing which "good guys" are armed can cause problems. Having said that there can be "surprise" issues with law enforcement that make out of sight guns an issue. So I prefer the dam thing be in plain sight of course I have no irrational fear of inanimate objects *cough* sorry, force of habit.

On a personal level I was traveling once, on a hunting trip really. My home state has more restrictive laws than the next state over....so my guns were all cased up and such in back as required in my home state. Got pulled over in the next state going a little too fast, cop saw my "hidden gun" and well I had a service weapon pulled on me. Once I explained what to hell was going on life was fine, but he viewed a legally cased firearm as a hidden one. I get it, so all things considered I would just as soon see the dam gun and know it is there and we all go on with our lives.

[Corrected my there to their did not change content]

[Ephiral]

As someone who thinks that trivially easy lethal force and human psychology are a volatile mix at the best of times, I'm rather glad for the no-carry nature of my country - but I'd take open carry over concealed. Partial data on threats is better than no data. (This is not to open a gun-control debate; Retribution, I generally respect you, and don't want to get into a mud-slinging fight that's likely going to boil down to "who can throw the bigger pile of statistics at the other guy". I will, however, say that it's not inanimate objects that scare me; it's that humans are extremely extremely bad at decision making and controlling their actions.)

Either way, the reluctance of the authorities is... pretty galling. They're setting a precedent here: Actually enforcing the laws surrounding access to lethal force in an environment of elevated threat is too much burden on weapons owners. That... basically makes the entire concept of "licenses" laughable except as an add-on charge.

[Steampunkette]

Hey... I'm not against the right to bear arms. I just think there's very little the form of a reasonable way to handle it given our current technological and sociological restraints.

Open carry makes you a target. Concealed carry makes it harder to get to the weapon in time to defend yourself. And both of them are irrelevant if you're black since having a gun automatically makes you a threat to everyone around you in the eyes of the law and most of the racist wet breadslices running around the US.

That's all I'm saying.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I own guns and I support the right to keep and bear arms.  I support the second amendment.

I also support the first amendment and my right to say that while I know a lot of people who keep and bear arms at least half of those people scare the shit out of me and I don't trust them to be responsible gun owners - you know, like the man who thinks it's fine to have a gun in the draw of the hall table right by his front door.  "Well, all my kids know it's there, so I don't have to worry about them messing with it."

Not everyone who owns a gun or carries it is an idiot and not everyone who openly carries a gun is an incompetent fool but I watched a man at a gun rally pick the pocket of someone with a concealed weapon and steal the carrier's gun.  Three people stopped him even though he had a round chambered after taking off the safety.

My contention is that until people prove they are (not can be but are) responsible and homeowners stop killing family members because they think their wife/child/husband is an intruder we should be much more careful about who carries guns and where they are allowed to carry them.

[Retribution]

And we seem to be taking over this thread.. suffice to say I think we are in agreement the authorities were being dolts in this case. I do not know who Sarkeesian is and have not done any research because well she would probably piss me off beyond capacity for rational thought. I am a right of center kind of guy and try not to elevate my blood pressure anymore than I have to after all.  :D

As for the other comments I can see things I can agree and disagree with in those that came after me. Out of basic human respect I shall not comment further on that. Last time I talked guns with a long time liberal friend was two years ago, I have refused to speak to him since so I just don't wanna go there.

[consortium11]

I'm still struggling to see what the university or police could do here.

From the universities statement Anita decided to pull out once it was made clear that there was no way the university could ban guns from the event.

As set out in a previous post the law... put in place by the state government and which the state supreme court upheld... prevents the university from doing anything to prohibit or limit people with a valid CC license from being there. There's no wiggle room. As Anita said in her own tweets it's because the police wouldn't (which would be better put as couldn't) take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event and that because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.

It's why articles like this (or at least the "It wasn't threats that shut down Anita Sarkeesian's USU event -- it was the school's response" tagline) are somewhat unfair; the school couldn't do anything but what it did; put on extra security. The complaint should be against the state lawmakers and/or whoever decided a university was the best place for the event (if it had been held in a privately owned building that wasn't a educational establishment the owner can apply whatever restrictions they like on carrying a weapon), not the university.

[Retribution]

I can only respond for myself here of course. My issue with how the police handled it is the part about pipe bombs in the initial threat. As far as I know those are not covered under any law I know of as being legal. Thus why I view the police response as kind of lame. Now we all know the media does not always portray things in the most accurate light so these articles are like as not accurate to lesser degrees.

Also, the jaded part of me would say Sarkeesian may have been more happy getting 'shut down' as such things offer more press. Hell, we are talking about it here and I do not even know who she is. So she may not have put up that much of a fight either....

[consortium11]

I can only respond for myself here of course. My issue with how the police handled it is the part about pipe bombs in the initial threat. As far as I know those are not covered under any law I know of as being legal. Thus why I view the police response as kind of lame. Now we all know the media does not always portray things in the most accurate light so these articles are like as not accurate to lesser degrees

Again, going by Sarkeesian's own tweets and the university statement it was the refusal/inability to prevent concealed handguns being at the event and the refusal/inability to do firearms searches which led to her pulling out. Unless we're suggesting that she's lying about that (and I'm not sure why we would) then we have to accept it's the firearm issue which led to the cancellation; that doesn't fall on the university.

[Retribution]

Hmmm, now I am curiously reading the information on Utah carry permits and such http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html  for those interested. It varies from state to state, in my home state for example anyone can bar carrying just put up a sign essentially. Thus why I have not gotten my permit (most times when I have one of my guns with it is cased, unloaded, so on as required by law) it is hard to warrant spending $500 or more to get a permit that is virtually useless. Thus, why I would assume some states put limits on barring firearms.

[Ephiral]

Amusingly, Retribution, the laws in your area sound... not very far off from how it works here. In Canada.

[Retribution]

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/LAWcarry.html if you look at item 1 I do believe one can come up with provisions to have banned firearms from the event. I would have to dig a bit deeper to tell for sure but I would hope the university police can get more info than what I did in a few minutes  with Google  :-) Thus, my point it was more a case of don't want to.

And to clarify, the permit fee in Utah is dropping to $41, but the classes that one has to take to get a carry permit in all states are expensive. Also you will note that reciprocal  agreements are mentioned, just because you can carry in one state does not mean you can in another. Sooooo, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth carrying a firearm is not like the old west.

And yes, Ephiral and it is a pain in the ass to be blunt. I would not mind the pain if it actually did anything, but my state has a nasty crime rate that just keeps going up. But that is a whole other ball of wax that I am trying to not get into.

[consortium11]

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/LAWcarry.html if you look at item 1 I do believe one can come up with provisions to have banned firearms from the event.

It doesn't. Title 53 Chapter 5a Section 102 of the Utah Code makes clear that Universities cannot prohibit the possession or use of firearms:

5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Section 76-10-501; and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.

As mentioned in a previous post, Universities went to court over this arguing that they should be able to restrict firearms on their campus. They lost. Badly. To quote from the judgement (as above, mentioned in the earlier post).

In this case, we conclude that the legislature has not overstepped its constitutional bounds. The plain meaning of article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution, supported by history, context, and our prior decisions, is that although the University has broad powers, it is not completely autonomous, and it is ultimately subject to legislative oversight. Policy considerations, no matter how persuasive, cannot dictate a contrary interpretation. The Utah Constitution does not grant the University authority to promulgate firearms policies in contravention of legislative enactments, and it is not our place to do so. To the extent their constituents disagree with the legislature’s choice, their remedy is to express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box

[Retribution]

Nice, find and I see the court decision, but I still feel like something could be done. Now I am not a lawyer so I will not pretend to be an expert. But in the laws I work with there tend to be many exceptions and such. For example lets say the president was speaking at a Utah university, I would find it hard to believe attendies would be allowed to carry. So in the case of an outright threat like in this situation I feel like someone with the right legal expertise could address the matter. The school may not be able to bar guns on campus, something I have dealt with when it comes to students wanting to hunt. But during a special event or in the case of threats I feel like the right legal mind could get it taken care of. Of course I will freely admit I am possibly wrong, not a lawyer and my only familiarity with Utah law is what I Googled during this discussion.

[Oniya]

Nice, find and I see the court decision, but I still feel like something could be done. Now I am not a lawyer so I will not pretend to be an expert. But in the laws I work with there tend to be many exceptions and such. For example lets say the president was speaking at a Utah university, I would find it hard to believe attendies would be allowed to carry. So in the case of an outright threat like in this situation I feel like someone with the right legal expertise could address the matter.

No legal expertise whatsoever, but with the mention of the POTUS and a hypothetical threat, I think this might apply?  Not that it does your average John, Jane, or Chris any good.

[consortium11]

Nice, find and I see the court decision, but I still feel like something could be done. Now I am not a lawyer so I will not pretend to be an expert. But in the laws I work with there tend to be many exceptions and such. For example lets say the president was speaking at a Utah university, I would find it hard to believe attendies would be allowed to carry.

It's worth noting though that presidents and the like tend not to speak at universities in Utah; when this topic first came up I started googling to see if there had been any similar restrictions during the Presidential elections or during fundraisers... and without fail they instead appeared at private locations where the owner can apply restrictions. I assume the choice of venues is deliberate and I assume that the firearms laws have at least some baring on it.

No legal expertise whatsoever, but with the mention of the POTUS and a hypothetical threat, I think this might apply?  Not that it does your average John, Jane, or Chris any good.

1) "Clear and present danger" relates to when the government can regulate free speech (i.e. a first amendment case) not gun rights (Second Amendment). In and of itself it doesn't mean anything in a case like this; it would have to be used as an example rather than a precedent.

2) "Clear and present danger" was a horrible piece of law that allowed to government to criticize virtually any speech against it; the fact that it didn't is one of the few times a government has shown huge restraint in the face of critics. I still find it shocking that so many people support "clear and present danger" and "fire in a crowded theatre" as examples of legal reasoning.

3) Thankfully "clear and present danger" is no longer the law; it was overruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio in favor of the "imminent lawless action" test. Again though, this relates to speech; as things stand the only connection to this case would be that it reinforces that the death threat is not protected speech rather than having anything to do with the gun control issue.

[Retribution]

Like I said am not a lawyer, but let me lay out my feelings on this. I will freely admit this is a lot of conjecture on my part:

Utah is a very conservative state with some of the most liberal gun laws (oxymoron alert!) Obvious the current president is not going to be in a hurry to go speak there.

While I know nada about Ms. Sarkeesian I think it is safe to say she is a controversial figure. Controversial figures weather it be her or Rush Limbaugh make their hay and their money by being well controversial. No publicity is bad publicity for them.

We are talking about University Police here. Call me jaded, but University Police do not do anything the University has not told them to do. I am also pretty darn sure most Universities have a pretty extensive legal staff.

So here is how I reconstruct this whole ball of wax: Ms. Sarkeesian is asked to speak or otherwise makes a speaking engagement at the University. In a conservative state like Utah this is meet with a lot of disdain and the University takes a lot of heat. Threat is called in, University sees their "out" their legal staff sees the above listed court decisions and so forth and a lot of plausible deniability for saying they cannot ban firearms at the event. The powers that be instruct the Uni police to take just that action. The Uni is then out of an engagement they are taking a lot of heat for with a slightly plausible excuse for not being paragons of free speech.....life is now good for them.

Ms. Sarkeesian is in the business of being polarizing. Her scheduled appearance in a very conservative state is just that. Life is good for her. Threat is called in and even more publicity is generated and life gets even better for her! The University uses this lame ass excuse to instruct the University Police to tell her they cannot protect her. Even more controversy! Hell look how much we are talking about her and I had never even heard of her before. And as a side bonus she gets to throw rocks at the anti gun control crowd and all they can really do is take it and smile. Life is now utterly blissful for her!!

And that is what I see in this whole fiasco.

[kylie]

Utah is a very conservative state with some of the most liberal gun laws (oxymoron alert!) Obvious the current president is not going to be in a hurry to go speak there.

Hardly material to my point whether it's ever the president per se.  It could just as well instead be a small Senate inquiry panel into some crisis of the day, a representative of the ACLU perhaps, any given anti-war campaign...  Or maybe just one lone feminist invited by some university.  You do seem to be supporting my point in another way: If it is less than a favorable environment for liberal politics, is it more likely that someone's going to threaten them with violence in order to keep them out?  Particularly now that it's been established that on any state campus (at least), there will be no protection? 

         That said, I would also still maintain that if it were the president or some federal agency, that law would soon find its limits and/or security of some form would find its way there in droves.  I don't think that's a shocking assertion.  But the point is, one may well wonder what exactly can be said and get done there by just whom precisely, in such an environment.

While I know nada about Ms. Sarkeesian I think it is safe to say she is a controversial figure. Controversial figures weather it be her or Rush Limbaugh make their hay and their money by being well controversial. No publicity is bad publicity for them.

This isn't "no" publicity and you very well know it.  This is not getting to speak.  I assume you're partly right - that this still gives her an example to use to champion a cause.  And you're partly wrong:  Because she doesn't get to speak before people there, some of whom might not know a whole lot about the issues at all, or might be swayed by hearing her.  Even red states are not all or forever red...  Particularly, not youth on university campuses.

...  The Uni is then out of an engagement they are taking a lot of heat for with a slightly plausible excuse for not being paragons of free speech.....life is now good for them.

Eh.  Maybe if you assume their enrollment priorities are to get a higher proportion of kids from conservative or even misogynist backgrounds.  The others may well take notice, if they are researching the background of where they go to school at all, and look for someplace that people can actually speak on such issues as part of their educational environment.  Of course some won't have the family resources to decide based on such things.   But quite a few may at least consider it over the next couple years.

Ms. Sarkeesian is in the business of being polarizing.

I think she is trying to raise a topic so people are more aware of it and perhaps reform it.  While Rush might think he's doing the same thing, I rather doubt his rhetoric would do as well on objective measures of stuff he's talked about.

        And this sort of wording you're using suggests to me more, that you think she deserves everything she gets.  Death threats and all.  That is how that sort of conversation typically goes on the far and ugly right.  Whoever points out a deep, ongoing problem with evidence and enough fire to be called "emotional" (works double duty when applied to women) is "too excited" or "too biased" or "polarizing."  Uh huh, sure.   

Her scheduled appearance in a very conservative state is just that. Life is good for her. Threat is called in and even more publicity is generated and life gets even better for her! The University uses this lame ass excuse to instruct the University Police to tell her they cannot protect her. Even more controversy! Hell look how much we are talking about her and I had never even heard of her before. And as a side bonus she gets to throw rocks at the anti gun control crowd and all they can really do is take it and smile. Life is now utterly blissful for her!!

Oh but the gun nuts are smiling with good reason.  They have just been given carte blanche to call up and threaten academics out of speaking at universities whenever they want.  That's a hell of a precedent to be smiling over.  I highly doubt it is one that Sarkeesian would have planned in advance.  It would be one hell of a Pyrrhic victory, if she is at all concerned about related causes as you seem to suggest.  Granted maybe you think she's simply that clueless.

           And you really think life is "utterly blissful" for someone who was already, previously receiving death threats and being forced to move out of her home before all this?  Really now.

[Retribution]

With all due respect Kylie WTF? You act like you are arguing against my points when we are more or less in agreement. If you are going to dissect everyone of my words at least have some sort of point in doing so. For example:

Quote
While I know nada about Ms. Sarkeesian I think it is safe to say she is a controversial figure. Controversial figures weather it be her or Rush Limbaugh make their hay and their money by being well controversial. No publicity is bad publicity for them.
      This isn't "no" publicity and you very well know it.  This is not getting to speak.  I assume you're partly right - that this still gives her an example to use to champion a cause.  And you're partly wrong:  Because she doesn't get to speak before people there, some of whom might not know a whole lot about the issues at all, or might be swayed by hearing her.  Even red states are not all or forever red...  Particularly, not youth on university campuses. End Quote

My point was that this sort of controversy actually brings things into public awareness for them. Hell, I would not know this woman's name if it were not fr this issue. And NO PLACE in any of my posts did I say this woman should have been barred from speaking. My point all along has been how the situation has been manipulated to keep her from speaking I only stated the publicity was good for her because it was a happy accident I would say as far as she is concerned. I simply listed pertinent facts while more or less agreeing with you and you dissected them in a rambling diatribe. While making more or less the same point, to be frank that ticks me off.

And as a gun nut I am freaking offended at your other allegations when I have repeatedly said this woman who I probably do not agree with SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEAK! I also have all along said the University is being a bunch of jerks and manipulating the situation to their liking. Again if you are going to throw rocks at least throw them at someone who is substantially disagreeing with you and do not put words in my mouth.

[Retribution]

And my post was in response to consortium11 who said the University Police could not have done anything even if they wanted to, while I contended they could have and should have.

And while I am in the process of being blindingly angry here are two quotes from previous posts of mine where I stated I thought her not being allowed to speak was BS. And now I am out of this discussion before I get myself into even more trouble with the moderators but kindly do not try and twist my words again. Thank you.

The whole refusal to take action due to open carry is well lame. Not to mention I doubt there is a law allowing open carry of pipe bombs either. Using this reasoning terrorists threats in such areas are perfectly legal and we all know they are of course not.

So, I will state once more I think the excuse given was a lame excuse for not responding on the part of the authorities. And it was just that an excuse because they did not want to.

[Ephiral]

The thing is, Retribution... Anita Sarkeesian did not choose to be a controversial figure the way Rush Limbaugh did. Drawing an equivalence between the two is disingenuous, and feeds directly into the ugly narrative that any woman who chooses to speak about feminist issues and refuses to back down is a "professional victim". Unlike Limbaugh, Sarkeesian's stock is not controversy; it is women's rights. She came to the limelight - years ago, and then again here - simply by refusing to be silenced in the face of ridiculously abusive behaviour.

In particular, your statement that "Life is now utterly blissful for her!" is (I suspect unwittingly) parroting an extremely ugly misogynist talking point - that none of the threats and abuse she's had to endure is real, none of it could ever have any consequences in her life, so obviously by continuing to draw attention to it she's just playing the victim for money. This is a woman who cannot go home for the very real fear of what might happen to her if she does. That's an extremely far cry from "utterly blissful", and it's ugly and incredibly rude of you to ignore it.

[Retribution]

The thing is, Retribution... Anita Sarkeesian did not choose to be a controversial figure the way Rush Limbaugh did. Drawing an equivalence between the two is disingenuous, and feeds directly into the ugly narrative that any woman who chooses to speak about feminist issues and refuses to back down is a "professional victim". Unlike Limbaugh, Sarkeesian's stock is not controversy; it is women's rights. She came to the limelight - years ago, and then again here - simply by refusing to be silenced in the face of ridiculously abusive behaviour.

In particular, your statement that "Life is now utterly blissful for her!" is (I suspect unwittingly) parroting an extremely ugly misogynist talking point - that none of the threats and abuse she's had to endure is real, none of it could ever have any consequences in her life, so obviously by continuing to draw attention to it she's just playing the victim for money. This is a woman who cannot go home for the very real fear of what might happen to her if she does. That's an extremely far cry from "utterly blissful", and it's ugly and incredibly rude of you to ignore it.

This is all making me feel like beating my head on the desk. I am making no statement on the validity or invalidity of her stances. Hell, I do not know what her stances are. Nor do I really care!  Never heard of her before all of this...and the way this is going I hope I never do again not because of anything she has said but the way it is being portrayed that I have an agenda concerning someone I do not know from Eve. Hell, I used Limbaugh to show how some profit from controversy just because I figured most know who he is.

I never used the term professional victim, if I did I would surely like to see where, and I never said she is playing victim for money. Consortium asked how the University could have done anything differently when myself and others, you included said they were being weenies. So I gave him an example of how I suspected it could have been managed on the Uni's part if they were not seeking an easy out because they happen to be located in a conservative area. I also laid out a scenario of how I envision the politics of the whole situation being worked by both sides seeking maximum benefit. I was in short answering Consortium's question to the best of my ability when he asked along the lines of what could have been done differently considering current law.

Now if you -really- want to know what sours me on various positions such as ones this woman may have? It is that when I make any statement such blatant assumptions are made as well as twisting of words. Frankly my stance on all of this is short and simple:

I do not give a shit what Anita Sarkeesian may or may not stand for. I simply do not care, but I think it is bullshit that the University does not have balls enough to let her speak and used a threat and a half hearted legal attempt to push them off of a locally unpopular decision.

[Valthazar]

Now if you -really- want to know what sours me on various positions such as ones this woman may have? It is that when I make any statement such blatant assumptions are made as well as twisting of words. Frankly my stance on all of this is short and simple:

I do not give a shit what Anita Sarkeesian may or may not stand for. I simply do not care, but I think it is bullshit that the University does not have balls enough to let her speak and used a threat and a half hearted legal attempt to push them off of a locally unpopular decision.

+1  This sums my view up perfectly.

[Ephiral]

I'm sorry; please allow me to clarify. As I mentioned above, I do not think you're deliberately playing into the "professional victim" trope. You're... not that kind of person. Nonetheless, when you speak of her as actively encouraging controversy for controversy's sake, when you talk about how life is blissful for her because she has had a real and credible threat made on her life and the lives of people around her, you are playing into that trope.

This is not intended as an indictment of what you believe or of your position in any way, nor is it twisting your words. All I'm trying to do here is that this discussion has a context you may not be aware of. That context includes people who try to silence women by claiming that they're deliberately working up controversy, or overstating the danger and harassment they face. The specific statements you've made that I am talking about here? They support those silencing tactics. With them in the mix, it is entirely possible by a fair reading of what you wrote to conclude that you stand with those who would silence her.

Obviously from your response to this reading, that is not your position, but hopefully you see how others could have arrived at that conclusion.

[Retribution]

I'm sorry; please allow me to clarify. As I mentioned above, I do not think you're deliberately playing into the "professional victim" trope. You're... not that kind of person. Nonetheless, when you speak of her as actively encouraging controversy for controversy's sake, when you talk about how life is blissful for her because she has had a real and credible threat made on her life and the lives of people around her, you are playing into that trope.

This is not intended as an indictment of what you believe or of your position in any way, nor is it twisting your words. All I'm trying to do here is that this discussion has a context you may not be aware of. That context includes people who try to silence women by claiming that they're deliberately working up controversy, or overstating the danger and harassment they face. The specific statements you've made that I am talking about here? They support those silencing tactics. With them in the mix, it is entirely possible by a fair reading of what you wrote to conclude that you stand with those who would silence her.

Obviously from your response to this reading, that is not your position, but hopefully you see how others could have arrived at that conclusion.

And there is the trap that many people fall into Ephiral. They get so caught up in the war with the other side they see all things in that light. When one is a hammer all problems look like a nail mentality. And then when a guy like me comes along and is pigeon holed because of that view to be honest it turns me into an adversary. I do not know who this woman is, but at present do you think I have a very positive feeling about her?

In short what I am saying is if one wishes to promote an issue, any issue, they should not be so fast to judge less they shoot themselves in the foot. As for the threat, I have no idea if it was credible, I like to think if someone really wanted to do harm they would not announce it. But we live in crazy times so who knows? Such things have to be taken seriously in this day and age.

[Ephiral]

I am not pigeonholing you. You are not my enemy, and I've taken pains to repeatedly say as much. However, you made statements directly from the playbook of misogynists; it is hardly the sort of leap or attack you think it is for people to conclude that you're sympathetic to misogynists based on that. If I were to say that life is bliss for the people of Ferguson, MO because Michael Brown's shooting brought them so much sympathy, you would be entirely right to call that out as a bullshit argument that supports racists.

You are not your statements, Retribution. Pointing out that you said something problematic is not an attack on you. It's a little ridiculous, however, to insist that everyone else is to blame for misunderstanding what you wrote. The burden of communication is on the speaker.

[Oreo]

Cooldown time.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

I may have missed it within the dialogue, but I have to wonder if feminism is in favor of all women having the right to speak or is it only those women who agree with their stance.  Universities are notorious for trying to shut down conservative female voices far more than progressives.  Sarkeesian does not deserve to be threatened any more than Palin, Coulter, or Malkin do yet I don't recall seeing such outcry on their behalf.  The argument that someone courts controversy because they have their own opinion is just as wrong regardless of side.

[Caehlim]

I may have missed it within the dialogue, but I have to wonder if feminism is in favor of all women having the right to speak or is it only those women who agree with their stance.

Feminism is an abstract noun and does not have opinions.

Feminists opinions of course vary. Just like any other group, you will find people contained within with a wide variety of opinions and nothing in the definition of feminist requires any support of the concept of free speech.

Personally I think that only incitement to violence should be a prohibited form of speech. While I'm not familiar with the particular stances of Palin, Coulter or Malkin (I'm not American) if they have received similar threats this is also a problem.

Edit: Actually I'd possibly include some defamation, libel, perjury, false scientific claims and other things amongst prohibited speech but that's a different sort of situation. Just adding it for accuracy's sake.

The argument that someone courts controversy because they have their own opinion is just as wrong regardless of side.

Well said. I agree.

[Ephiral]

I may have missed it within the dialogue, but I have to wonder if feminism is in favor of all women having the right to speak or is it only those women who agree with their stance.  Universities are notorious for trying to shut down conservative female voices far more than progressives.  Sarkeesian does not deserve to be threatened any more than Palin, Coulter, or Malkin do yet I don't recall seeing such outcry on their behalf.  The argument that someone courts controversy because they have their own opinion is just as wrong regardless of side.

Can you cite where someone threatened to bomb and shoot up a large crowd of people if Palin, Coulter, or Malkin were given a platform?

No?

So this is a ridiculously silly comparison with little to no bearing on what actually happened. Got it.

[Caehlim]

Can you cite where someone threatened to bomb and shoot up a large crowd of people if Palin, Coulter, or Malkin were given a platform?

From what Google can tell me, I think that's a reference to the following events:

http://markhumphrys.com/twitter.palin.html
http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2009/09/26/michelle-malkins-info-caused-death-threats-to-be-sent-to-elementary-school/

Though I couldn't find a reference to Coulter receiving death threats, only making them herself (albeit supposedly jokingly):

http://ktar.com/95/1626208/KTAR-exclusive-Meghan-McCain-responds-to-Ann-Coulters-death-threat-blog

[Devilyn Sydhe]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/coulter-speech-cancelled-over-fears-of-violence-1.494773

This was admittedly in Canada, and I in no way fully support her views, but this is incredibly close to the Sarkeesian situation and, from what I can gather, not the first time she has been attacked on college campuses, from pies thrown to verbal abuse just as Sarkeesian has received.

interesting editorial from Coulter on this

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032510.php3

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2012/11/fordham-struggles-to-defend-condemning-ann-coulter-while-embracing-infanticide-supporter-peter-singer/

This is one example of the pressures Universities themselves apply in stifling conservative voices while rightfully allowing other opinions to be spoken.

http://therightscoop.com/screenshots-michelle-malkin-attacked-on-twitter-from-alec-baldwin-and-his-rabid-followers/
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/13/fox-news-michelle-malkin-brace-for-mass-exodus-of-viewers-as-the-game-urges-boycott/

These two links show the misogyny that I believe is at the core of the Sarkeesian incident, aside from the gun control debate.  One doesn't need to agree with a single word they say to stand for their right to say it.  The hatred some on the left hold for Sarah Palin, exhibited by Caehlim's link (thank you), is the same sort of intolerant attitude most of us would be against.  Death threats, rape threats, attempts to stifle free speech again should be wrong in any reasonable person's eyes no matter who the target is or whether anyone agrees with them or not.

I should have been more clear on the subject of feminism as I should have said I wish groups such as NOW who claim to be for the rights of all women would actually stand for all women.  I could well be misinformed, but I haven't seen these rights groups standing beside any conservative females.  Doing so would help to build their credibility as they again would not be endorsing their words but their right to say such things that are unpopular.

[Caehlim]

http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2009/09/26/michelle-malkins-info-caused-death-threats-to-be-sent-to-elementary-school/

My mistake sorry, on closer checking this article is actually blaming Michelle Malkins for causing the death threats, not showing her as the recipient. I clearly need to read more carefully. This probably wasn't the issue you were referring to.

The hatred some on the left hold for Sarah Palin, exhibited by Caehlim's link (thank you), is the same sort of intolerant attitude most of us would be against.  Death threats, rape threats, attempts to stifle free speech again should be wrong in any reasonable person's eyes no matter who the target is or whether anyone agrees with them or not.

It seems like any time a woman is in any position of power, her opponents will fall back on some fairly horrific misogyny. We saw some similar things over here with our first female prime minister, in this case a member of the left-wing, drawing an unusual amount of vehemence and vitriol from the various right-wing people around the country. I don't think it matters which side of the political spectrum they're on, women just seem to get targeted with this sort of crap whenever they have an opinion. Either way it's just as abhorrent directed at Sarah Palin as it is anyone on the left wing.

[Ephiral]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/coulter-speech-cancelled-over-fears-of-violence-1.494773

This was admittedly in Canada, and I in no way fully support her views, but this is incredibly close to the Sarkeesian situation and, from what I can gather, not the first time she has been attacked on college campuses, from pies thrown to verbal abuse just as Sarkeesian has received.

interesting editorial from Coulter on this

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032510.php3

I, um... don't see where anybody actually threatened her, and I do see where they had security personnel actually doing their jobs. So... no, not the same. I don't think she should have been silenced, even if she was spewing incredibly racist bullshit, but... no, not the same, and not the evidence I asked for.

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2012/11/fordham-struggles-to-defend-condemning-ann-coulter-while-embracing-infanticide-supporter-peter-singer/

This is one example of the pressures Universities themselves apply in stifling conservative voices while rightfully allowing other opinions to be spoken.

So... universities have agendas too, and use them in different ways. This single one is not representative of all universities, any more so than Utah State throwing up their hands and saying "Actually enforcing the law would be too much to do in a high-risk environemnt" is. I'd also argue that describing Peter Singer as an "infanticide supporter" is stretching things juuuuuust a bit, based on what I've seen with some quick research. (It is possible that there's more to this than I'm seeing.)

http://therightscoop.com/screenshots-michelle-malkin-attacked-on-twitter-from-alec-baldwin-and-his-rabid-followers/
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/13/fox-news-michelle-malkin-brace-for-mass-exodus-of-viewers-as-the-game-urges-boycott/

These two links show the misogyny that I believe is at the core of the Sarkeesian incident, aside from the gun control debate.  One doesn't need to agree with a single word they say to stand for their right to say it.  The hatred some on the left hold for Sarah Palin, exhibited by Caehlim's link (thank you), is the same sort of intolerant attitude most of us would be against.  Death threats, rape threats, attempts to stifle free speech again should be wrong in any reasonable person's eyes no matter who the target is or whether anyone agrees with them or not.

And they are, yes. So where are the legions of people coming out of the woodwork to accuse Malkin of being a "professional victim" and defend her accusers?

ople in a clear attempt to fan the flames. (Who tossed the "racist!" accusation first, by Twitchy's own version of events?) So... both bad, but not I should have been more clear on the subject of feminism as I should have said I wish groups such as NOW who claim to be for the rights of all women would actually stand for all women.  I could well be misinformed, but I haven't seen these rights groups standing beside any conservative females.  Doing so would help to build their credibility as they again would not be endorsing their words but their right to say such things that are unpopular.[/quote]If NOW is your idea of a modern, mainstream women's rights group... you haven't been looking very hard. There's also the uncomfortable point that a lot of "conservative women" are used as the token female to justify attacks on women's rights as TOTALLY NOT SEXIST GUYS. No, you're not going to see feminists standing with women who fight against women's rights, for much the same reason that you won't often see anti-violence activists standing with bullies.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

First of all, I am glad we agree that those who make threats and sexist jokes about Palin and all other conservative women are just as deplorable as those attacking Sarkeesian.  I don't believe I ever implied that Sarkeesian deserved any of the hatred she received, and I would expect reasonable people to think the same for those they may disagree with.  I honestly have little opinion on Sarkeesian's theories as I'm not a gamer, but I do believe in everyone's right to express their viewpoint without threat of violence

I, um... don't see where anybody actually threatened her, and I do see where they had security personnel actually doing their jobs. So... no, not the same. I don't think she should have been silenced, even if she was spewing incredibly racist bullshit, but... no, not the same, and not the evidence I asked for.
So... universities have agendas too, and use them in different ways. This single one is not representative of all universities, any more so than Utah State throwing up their hands and saying "Actually enforcing the law would be too much to do in a high-risk environemnt" is. I'd also argue that describing Peter Singer as an "infanticide supporter" is stretching things juuuuuust a bit, based on what I've seen with some quick research. (It is possible that there's more to this than I'm seeing.)
And they are, yes. So where are the legions of people coming out of the woodwork to accuse Malkin of being a "professional victim" and defend her accusers?

ople in a clear attempt to fan the flames. (Who tossed the "racist!" accusation first, by Twitchy's own version of events?) So... both bad, but not I should have been more clear on the subject of feminism as I should have said I wish groups such as NOW who claim to be for the rights of all women would actually stand for all women.  I could well be misinformed, but I haven't seen these rights groups standing beside any conservative females.  Doing so would help to build their credibility as they again would not be endorsing their words but their right to say such things that are unpopular.If NOW is your idea of a modern, mainstream women's rights group... you haven't been looking very hard. There's also the uncomfortable point that a lot of "conservative women" are used as the token female to justify attacks on women's rights as TOTALLY NOT SEXIST GUYS. No, you're not going to see feminists standing with women who fight against women's rights, for much the same reason that you won't often see anti-violence activists standing with bullies.

If one cannot see an unruly mob forcing a speech to be cancelled as a personal threat, then I honestly won't try to convince them.  The parallels between the two events are clear, though I believe Sarkeesian chose not to speak where Coulter had no choice.  Coulter has faced down other threats in the past, refusing to cancel.

As for Utah refusing to follow their laws.  What law did they break?  Wasn't the concealed carry law in place before Sarkeesian's visit?  Laws don't change to accomodate individuals very often.  I don't know Singer myself, but I think the point, again, was that controversial speakers should still have the right to be heard.

Again, I have never stated Sarkeesian is a "professional victim".  If I were to guess, I would assume the difference comes in that Malkin fights her own battles and isn't a social media favorite so doesn't bother unsuccessfully attempting to garner the same deserved sympathy Sarkeesian receives.

If the National Organization for Women isn't a leading group for women's rights, all women, then I do plead ignorance and would ask to be enlightned as to what women's rights groups do stand for the right of all women to express their believes.  One doesn't need to agree with what another says to defend their ability to say it without personal attacks.  Should the ACLU only defend those who agree with them?  If only popular speech is allowed under the first amendment, then why is it needed?

To claim women like Palin, Coulter, Malkin and so many others are 'token' females seems a bit misogynistic itself.  Does anyone really believe they speak out just because men tell them to?  It isn't as if they are the only conservative women in the world.  Are they not allowed to think differently than other members of their gender without being labelled 'token'?  If feminists, if all humans for that matter, only allow rights to apply to those they agree with, the world is only going to continue downward.  Each person should start with themselves, work to remove their personal biases rather than accusing any with differing viewpoints of being nothing but racists and sexists based on your own slant.

[Ephiral]

First of all, I am glad we agree that those who make threats and sexist jokes about Palin and all other conservative women are just as deplorable as those attacking Sarkeesian.  I don't believe I ever implied that Sarkeesian deserved any of the hatred she received, and I would expect reasonable people to think the same for those they may disagree with.  I honestly have little opinion on Sarkeesian's theories as I'm not a gamer, but I do believe in everyone's right to express their viewpoint without threat of violence

So... your attempt at a gotcha didn't work. Can we maybe get back to the topic at hand?

If one cannot see an unruly mob forcing a speech to be cancelled as a personal threat, then I honestly won't try to convince them.  The parallels between the two events are clear, though I believe Sarkeesian chose not to speak where Coulter had no choice.  Coulter has faced down other threats in the past, refusing to cancel.

You say "unruly mob forced cancellation", I see "protestors turned up, security was worried about the direction it might possibly go based on... well, it's not clear from the articles what they were basing that on." So no, that's not even remotely the same as someone specifically saying "I will attack this event." and cops and security both saying "What, you want us to actually do stuff?"

As for Utah refusing to follow their laws.  What law did they break?  Wasn't the concealed carry law in place before Sarkeesian's visit?  Laws don't change to accomodate individuals very often.  I don't know Singer myself, but I think the point, again, was that controversial speakers should still have the right to be heard.

What I said was that they actively decliend to enforce the existing law. One of the rather reasonable requests Sarkeesian made before cancelling was to ask that they at least verify that people bringing guns to that event were in fact licensed to carry - ie, that they were actually legally permitted to have their guns - and maybe, just maybe, that no one had  backpack full of explosives.

The police declined to do so.

If verifying concealed-carry permits is too much work when there has been a specific threat at a specific time and place... what exactly is the point of issuing them?

Again, I have never stated Sarkeesian is a "professional victim".  If I were to guess, I would assume the difference comes in that Malkin fights her own battles and isn't a social media favorite so doesn't bother unsuccessfully attempting to garner the same deserved sympathy Sarkeesian receives.

By "fights her own battles", I assume you mean "actively encourages the attacks on herself" (who slung the "racist!" accusation first, according to the very publication she works for?). If not, then I'm confused as to what you do mean, because... well, Sarkeesian has not backed down except in the face of both specific and credible threats and complete lack of support from law enforcement.

If the National Organization for Women isn't a leading group for women's rights, all women, then I do plead ignorance and would ask to be enlightned as to what women's rights groups do stand for the right of all women to express their believes.  One doesn't need to agree with what another says to defend their ability to say it without personal attacks.  Should the ACLU only defend those who agree with them?  If only popular speech is allowed under the first amendment, then why is it needed?

And I'm losing the inclination to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I never said that only "popular" speech should be protected. I said that what you're asking is for one-sided solidarity - that we must defend all speech from all women, even if that speech boils down to "shut up and get back in the kitchen, ladies". Why is it that we're expected to show solidarity to those attacking women's rights, but it's perfectly fine for them to, y'know, attack women's rights? Where's their solidarity? Why must it be one-sided?

To claim women like Palin, Coulter, Malkin and so many others are 'token' females seems a bit misogynistic itself.  Does anyone really believe they speak out just because men tell them to?  It isn't as if they are the only conservative women in the world.  Are they not allowed to think differently than other members of their gender without being labelled 'token'?  If feminists, if all humans for that matter, only allow rights to apply to those they agree with, the world is only going to continue downward.  Each person should start with themselves, work to remove their personal biases rather than accusing any with differing viewpoints of being nothing but racists and sexists based on your own slant.

What makes them 'token' isn't that they're on the other side. What makes them 'token' is that they're actively used as a shield by the other side to insist, loudly, that they're not anti-woman because ladies agree with them. And nobody said they don't have rights, for fuck's sake. What I said is that there is no reason for people who support women's rights to stand up and defend those who are attacking women's rights. Would you ask victims of bullying to stand up for the right to randomly punch people in the face?

[Garuss Vakarian]

Personally, I believe the threat on Sarkesian was a bluff, since typically a Shooter would attempt such an assault in safety. Attacking a place that doesn't permit open carry, or concealed carry, rather then one that does allow it. (Basically. He or she wont want to risk opposition, IE: Open Carry citizens shooting back.)

Further more, it is not because of open carry that the police did not take action. It is because similar emails were threatened before, without action taken. The legitimacy of the threat was highly in doubt, and Anita was told she can go through as planned. She did not, since she wanted to make a big stink. Why do I say that? Because not only does she publically cancel it, but she publically calls out rage on her threat. Why is this bad? Because, though it is not illegal to do so, it is Discouraged by the fbi to publically announce your threats. Threats happen all the time, most are simply intimidation. Announcing it such as she did, feeds the man or women's ego, in said threat. But, she did announce hers. This is not to diminish the person who threatened her, but to feed her professional victim hood. Personally, I think if she had real conviction in what she believed in she would have spoke any way. (Especially when told, it's not a real threat.) But she chose the role of a damsel in distress, one in which she often criticizes. Though I wont go on about that. (Less I risk going off topic.) What matters for this thread, is that it was not considered a threat. Not because people were armed, but because the guy who threatened her was just a pussy they knew was playing chicken. And he won. If there even was a he.

(Note: That comment is directed towards the fact that a fellow feminist, and friend. A women whom makes online posts about her stances. Is facing a year in jail. After the police proving, without a doubt, that a threat she contacted them about was actually sent to herself by herself. I do not say that Anita sent it to herself. But I will say it's possible she did, or that she had a friend do it. Since her inner circle is known for such tactics. This is not a statement on her or her views, but an open acknowledgement that  the authenticity of said threat is still in question. Personally, I say the threat was real, and from a chicken. Since the police did conclude it was similar to many previous threats in which were not legitimate.)

I may have missed it within the dialogue, but I have to wonder if feminism is in favor of all women having the right to speak or is it only those women who agree with their stance.  Universities are notorious for trying to shut down conservative female voices far more than progressives.  Sarkeesian does not deserve to be threatened any more than Palin, Coulter, or Malkin do yet I don't recall seeing such outcry on their behalf.  The argument that someone courts controversy because they have their own opinion is just as wrong regardless of side.

Feminism is based on the ideal that there should be racial and gender equality. Within the point of view, that women have less rights then men. Worldy this is accurate, though here in The usa and Europe, it is un needed.  My personal take is, to use first and second wave feminist views to help other countries.But these days A lot of it is based on the jaded idea that men constantly oppress women, and that women still have no rights. (An opinion Primarily spoken out online,) Not all feminists in our modern times feel this way, but enough do that it does effect how society views innocent things such as flirtation. A bunch of toxic ideas, that view men in general as toxic. (So to speak.)

Edit: As for the outcry for Anita. It is because compared to Palin, and other such feminists. Anita has earned the friendship of a systematically judgmental and easily offended/OFFENSIVE crowd called, Tumbler and Twitter feminists. Basically, a lot, and a lot more then that, of people who speak venomously online. And even more so towards others who disagree. In fact, threats on those whom don't agree with them are more common, just not covered as much.

Hope that helped answere. Though, this was not the thread to ask in. Perhaps make another thread further asking this question? Or searching for one that better suits your questions on feminism. I say this since you, Caehlim and Ephiral have discussed this between a few posts. (I am admittedly not innocent to this myself, have in the past ranted off subject.)

There is however, a lot to learn about feminism, a lot bad, a lot good. And be you pro or anti feminist, either way it requires a lot of thought to properly discuss your view. Less you be considered sexist. So I do suggest caution, for all parties involved in such a debate.

[Ephiral]

Highly controversial point pushed as unquestioned fact, it wasn't real because reasons, police motivations stated as unfounded assertion, sit down and shut up, professional victim, she has no conviction because she cancelled one talk (but remember that she shouldn't speak out about this, and conveniently forget that she continues to speak out after being forced out of her own home), she's choosing to be a victim (because none of this is in any way real or scary to be on the receiving end of, right guys?), and I won't say she's making it all up (but she's totally making it all up guise!).

Feminism is totally unneeded because women don't face systemic oppression and harassment in the first world (please ignore this entire thread discussing a huge rebuttal of this point). Third-wave and later feminism doesn't exist. People who support feminism are toxic and venomous and just looking for something to be offended at, when they're not generating even more threats than misogynists do.

I... I don't even know how to engage with such a mountain of disingenuous, disgusting bullshit. Nor do I think it's necessarily a good idea, since this appears to basically be the Gish Gallop as applied to women's rights and Sarkeesian in particular - it's sure as hell not any sort of attempt to examine the facts or achieve any real understanding on anything. So... yeah, I'm out for a while, at least.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Edit: I just accidentaly lost everything I said... >_< drats. Ok basically what my post was about was why the cops deemed it a non issue. Not really the feminism. Its not the subject at hand. I regret mentioning it.

[Ephiral]

Okay, I... probably shouldn't do this, but... yeah, I caught at least the first paragraph below the fold. The one where you try to explain that "professional victim" is totally not a misogynist dogwhistle, you're just trying to have a civil discussion on why you, in a low-threat environment, are far better equipped to judge security risks than the person subject to them and living in a high-threat environment. Despite the fact that humans in general are demonstably terrible at gut-check risk assessment, markedly worse in a low-threat environment, and you seem strongly averse to any sort of fact-checking.

Either you aren't interested in reasonable discourse at all, or you genuinely have absolutely no idea how terrible and offensive you're coming across. I can't tell which, but "totally not a dogwhistle!" makes me lean toward the former.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Threats by nature, are meant to harass. Most, not all who issue public threats towards some one only wish to make the person uncomfortable. And it is not a fact, they will follow through. Why would they warn you they are coming? That's how they would get caught before they do it. A public threat is a warning, and a warning creates preparedness. A level of being prepared, in which some one really wanting to do harm doesn't want.

No, I don't mean to come off as bad, I just base my opinion on the fact on how the FBI views threats, and how one should handle them. Its not that she doesn't have the right to feel her threats are legit, she does. It is her right!  It is just that I think they were not real threats, for the same reason the FBI did, and the police did. I don't think they were real, but she can if she wants. Further, it is wrong, in my opinion, to feed the man or women whom threatened her's ego. Especially when the same guy makes empty threats all the time. I don't believe she sent it to herself, I only mentioned it since it has happened before. (A person in her circle no less, has charges pending for doing so.) So dismiss that line I made. And understand, I think the threat was not legit, and I think. As in an opinion, not fact. That it was wrong for her to make a public acknowledgement of it. To say she does not uphold her values, is a bit wrong of me so I apologize, I reiterate, she should have done the seminar any way. Because not doing so looks like she does not uphold her believes, and does not make it a fact. (It just looks like it.) Am I making my point more apparent now? I don't mean to offend. I am not better equipped to discuss security risks. But I was explaining my opinion, based on my understanding of the FBI's public suggestions on handling them.

Edit Inside the spoiler is me explaining in a less rigid manner my beliefs on feminism. I hope they exemplify what I really feel, and I hope not to offend. This is all off topic. So, if others wish to debate me on this let me know on pm, and I will gladly make a separate thread for it.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Profesional victim hood, I will admit is an offensive statement. But she does ware her threats like a shield, "See, I am right. Because look at the stones being tossed at me." It doesn't make her automatically right. However, it doesn't mean she is wrong. One can not say Misogyny is rampant! Just because, a few hundred from the milions issue threats. Or a few thousand from the millions say garbage. It's not the majority, so it is not rampant. Her threats are proof that means it still exists in america. But not that the patriarchy, is everywhere. And definitely not that all men are misogynist. (Actions of the few should never reflect the many. But we allow it to, which does suck. By this statement, I don't say that the few feminists reflect my views on all. In fact, I am pro Emma Watson, and The Factual Feminist.)

Now, lets see the things she feels is a problem.  Are they problems really worthy of being a focus? No, because at this point what her and others believe, is saying men by nature are sexist. Change their nature, is all they are saying at this point. Pluss, Teach men not to rape? That's offensive in and of it'self. It suggests only men do so. And, that all men do it. Teach men, not some men, but men, a broad wording. I don't feel any one should agree there, but at least agree with my take on her stance in video games and movies. The realm of the imagination, may make offensive statements. But it doesn't make it the statement of the author, just the character did or said something wrong. Or controversial. Imagination is more permissible. Especialy when said imagination is to show historical significance, or other wise show what is happening to be wrong. The world is a better focus to voice, not art. Though I see where her and her followers are coming from in modeling since it does put  a impossible standard on women. But, what she never says is the impossible standard modeling, and really good looking guys in media puts on men. Nor, can she acknowledge the impossible standards men have to live up to, in order to not be offensive. Gazing, being one of the most innocent things they demonize. (To gaze is an acknowledgment of beauty. Not an automatically sexist thing, which objectifies. Mind you, I said gaze, not stare. Staring is... Creepy. Even if there was an innocent reason.)

I do not hate her. I just feel she is to generalized, to broad in her views. Using words like, All, Every, while sticking to demonizing things like Toxic Masculinity. (When in reality, it's Testosterone. It's the chemical that makes men and women take more risks. Men make more risks in life due to the natural chemical, since we have a higher testosterone levell. It's why we would do more crime in any kind of poll. It is why we are the majorit, but not all of mass shooters. And it is also why we are more successful in business, not because women are hated or viewed less qualified. But because we take more risks. And by doing so, put our selvs in positions to have great gain, or great failure. You never make it big playing it safe. But! That is an opinion. I am not stating it as a fact.)

Listen, I am not the most well worded person some times. Though I think I am doing so now, and have been in a few other posts. (Not the above one.) If you want to know what my opinion is on gamers, and Anita, watch this video. Because that's my real stance there. And to understand why I find a lot of views offensive. Watch this . Because, that is an offensive commercial, and that is everything wrong with a lot of modern day feminists. Especially since the women involved, exploited these kids. Emma Watson in, Anita out. My perspective. I hope that an opinion as simple as that doesn't offend you. At this point I am worried I am just making you mad. :( not my intention in the slightest, I just want to talk about my views and yours. Not offend any one with them. It shouldn't be offensive to feel women in america are not treated as bad as the media, or internet would have you believe.

Now, I am really. REALLY sorry this is all off topic. But I just don't want to leave it at me being a bigot. View me as one if you want, but I will at least try to reiterate my stance in a better manner. Before people are set on me being one. (Id rather be called one when my views are correctly shown. Not when they are inaccurately shown by me beforehand...)

[kylie]

         While this is all related and variously more or less interesting...  It's getting a bit much tied up on just Sarkeesian.  I do think she's probably a worthwhile example (as is probably obvious enough by now).  But, what of the larger implications?  What sort of environment do we have if some local or state police forces are going to interpret concealed carry laws to mean that they should not up security when there's a threat of shootings and pipe bombs?  What could happen for the politics of weapons in public, if situations like this continue to materialize? 

          Is it really the responsibility of every public speaker, or everyone who talks about the frequency and nature of violence and humiliation in the society, to get a threat assessment division behind them?  Is there really some magic bullet to assessing these things perfectly?  I highly doubt it.  It strikes me that if the assessment happens to fail one time in a hundred, a lot of people would end up getting killed and a lot of blame would be tossed around.  It's understandable enough that this was a risk Sarkeesian did not take upon herself, quite regardless of whether she might have the wherewithal to read the offensive sender's mind one way or another.  I expect many speakers, if they were faced with the same problem, would come to quite the same conclusion. 

         However...  I cannot overlook the fact that Sarkeesian is trying to say something about rather pervasive violence and humiliation.  So while this is not at all only about Sarkeesian, I feel her case does say something about the overall play of how people are maneuvering to make room for violence -- or certainly a high level of fear of the same -- in the society.  I'm hardly able to begin to repeat all the same things that have now been argued and reargued in some 3+ threads regarding Sarkeesian endlessly but to make that point again, with perhaps a few other nuances, here's a spoiler which includes that early on.

Rather long, RE: Garuss (the spoiler immediately above).

One can not say Misogyny is rampant! Just because, a few hundred from the milions issue threats. Or a few thousand from the millions say garbage. It's not the majority, so it is not rampant.

You're fussing about a dictionary definition as if it would be your silver bullet, when even some definitions do not support what you claim.  Functionally speaking:  In actual widespread use, people use "rampant" for whatever they feel is an all too common and pressing problem. 

           You might get further if you started by trying to learn what various branches of feminist actually focus on when they get on to trying to understand how misogyny works -- it's a more complex question, and sometimes they mean locally and sometimes, as a big cultural system. 

          Once you get over people exaggerating at times about stuff that is really intense, and if you understand more of the big picture people are looking at, there are plenty of decent reasons to say misogyny is rampant in the society.  But if you really still aren't aware of any of them, then for one thing you could reread the threads more slowly or do more serious research.  For starters, there have been quite a few particular examples mentioned in the 3+ threads about Sarkeesian lately.  Is it rampant in the particular video games she thinks about, or what she has heard from/about the gaming industry and its representations of women generallly -- IF that is more the question for you here?  I don't go far into that, but I have suspicions one could find good reasons at least to argue yes.  Again though, I think others have offered quite a few answers to this.  Or at least surely, some places to start looking.

Teach men not to rape? That's offensive in and of it'self.

You're taking it out of context.  Often people say this in response to going trends:  As things are, when women go to court and charge men (in particular) with rape, much of the time is spent on, "What did she wear?  Had she spent time with this guy before?  Did she attempt a physical struggle or not, regardless of the chance that she could bring more damage upon herself?"  And a whole line of advice columns and claims about how women should act to appear "not to be asking for it" come out over and over. 

            Women are buried in this stuff and no matter what they do, they cannot seem to be "the right" combination of all the shifting pieces that make one simultaneously mundane, classy, attractive, pretty, assertive, innocent, mature, argumentative, sly, shy, well-connected, aloof, rich, etc. "enough" not to be seen as "asking for it!"  So yes (okay so nothing personal but here we are):  For fuck's sake, in response to the very high prevalence of that whole mess:  Teach men not to rape.  And yes do get them to stop going on and on about how it's their so-called biologically motivated job (implying: some only, full-time, and totally zombified "job"!) and their "natural" role to pursue and/or comment upon women to the ends of the earth and to keep grabbing even after she said go away multiple times even already.  If that's offensive, I can't help you.  Then, you're getting offended over people being explicit about how shit works when it's getting people hurt, attacked, raped and killed.  Guess what?  Millions of women are offended too, and more.

It suggests only men do so.

No, that's not the idea.  The repetition of "men" or "men are often/always doing this" is just shorthand for a pattern which is (pointing back now to definition discussion) yes indeed still pretty rampant-- in the sense of it happens as above far too damn often for comfort.  When what, 1 in 5 was it American women can expect to be raped and more like 1 in 2 or 3 assaulted, and when a large number of the cases do involve men and especially when society provides men, more than others, with all sorts of neat tools and excuses for doing this to women in so many ways that women are managed in public and talked about more or less all over the place, then you should not be so surprised that feminists and women's advocacy groups often get very concerned with responding to problems that often involve, yep, men.

          It doesn't say they don't care about men being raped or about women raping.  There are certainly other feminists that mention that, and I would be surprised if someone asked Sarkeesian about it specifically and she said, say, 'That's not important.'  Although if you did it like you have here, umm, partly to suggest she shouldn't talk so stridently or exaggerate in the slightest about men when in fact, people are already exaggerating about the "responsibility" and "weakness" of women often in the same sentence all the time and it's making rape of women easier...  Then I wouldn't blame her if she looked a little annoyed and felt rather like asking, 'Why exactly are you so upset about that question with me here and right now -- cause it seems a bit of a derail?' 

          It does say this (the part that involves men all so often) is the huge problem they know and she has it in front of her to explain some angle this second.  Cause it keeps thwapping their lives over and over, left and right and at least we're gonna do something about it.

The realm of the imagination, may make offensive statements. But it doesn't make it the statement of the author, just the character did or said something wrong. Or controversial. Imagination is more permissible.

I do generally agree with this.  And I still want more games that give me both imagination, and sometimes (much more often than I find them now) can be played with less "in your face" shit and rather less narrow options for representations of things feminine.  Now for what little I know, Sarkeesian may be personally more fired up about women and representations specifically of violence.  But simply analyzing or wanting something on the one side, does not exclude having another opinion about the other part.  Melusine has said a lot about this, already.

I do not hate her. I just feel she is to generalized, to broad in her views. Using words like, All, Every, while sticking to demonizing things like Toxic Masculinity.

I dunno, I don't follow her that much and she might well overshoot with language as you say pretty often.  BUT I still think, if you didn't make the sorts of mess you're making with misunderstandings above, then you wouldn't have to be as concerned with this.  If you can understand the bigger picture enough to put what people are saying in context, then maybe you wouldn't be stuck having to insist she always and really must mean every, or should be held to silence until she can fill whatever percentage/majority you insist on before she can speak about some angle on questions many people agree are at least seriously out there.  It doesn't mean those questions have to dominate what you think about games every second by any means, of course. 

          I don't follow her, but just a thought:  I suspect you also just may have a misunderstanding about whatever she means by "toxic" masculinity.  More sophisticated feminists will recognize that masculinity is stuff people have different shares and stock in individually -- maybe the "toxic" one is just a model for how it works when things start to get bad and groups of people increasingly adopt one part as a modus operandi?  (Such as, kylie thinks, eh people in this game can't play without making it feel like they're all hating asses who love to say "rape" and "cunt" every minute, and why don't they use any scenery that isn't brown wasteland?  I'd like to kill something in pink or on something terraformed in orange for a change...)  Now if the problem is really that you think something happens whenever a guy (or someone with plenty of testosterone) gets excited -- there's nothing that can or should be done that counts -- and she thinks well people need to restrain whatever that pattern is cause look what it's done in some parts of society, then you might have a more serious disagreement there.
 

   

            But we could come up with numerous other topics where the state, particular officials, certain political lobbies, or even many of the men in blue would be more than happy not to be asked to get out there and serve and protect.  Unfortunately, quite a few of them are other things worth at least having a public discussion -- sooner or later, your turn will come up and the speaker you like won't have a private security firm on retainer or wish to take the chance that this time, the thing will actually blow up with you and how many hundred innocents all in the middle of it.

         If states somehow made a rule that police must attempt a specific response to things like shooting and bomb threats on specific locations at specific times, then what would the response be by those who have advocated carrying weapons in public?  How many would likely insist that they must be allowed to continue carrying anywhere at all in public?  How many would say this is exactly why: i.e. "If we know there is a gun or even bomb threat, then dammit I want to be armed in case I see the guy myself first!"  I have a creeping feeling that some people would say the police should do very little whatsoever short of responding to an actual outbreak of physical violence after the fact, because nearly anything they do to monitor weapons they could find coming inside the perimeter, might seem to make those who are carrying personal weapons in public places appear to be suspects before the fact. 

          Surely some people would be happy to surrender their weapons at the gate if they persisted in attending with such signs of a possible threat.  But I imagine a vocal few, who probably overlap considerably with the more ardent end of the NRA-style lobby, would be adamantly opposed to any restriction on their weapons in public -- even in that situation.  In this case it was not tested because the event was canceled.  But if I am right, that contingency hugely complicates things.  In that case, what kind of public order exactly are these people arguing for when they demand a right to carry in public places?  Who actually would be responsible in their mind for policing, or who does how much of policing what? 

          This is something that I worry has not been fully argued.  Perhaps it was buried somewhere in many different arguments during the creation of such laws.  But when people start thinking about even the potential for personal weapons in public to become mixed up somehow in decisions about terrorist events (settings for mass murder with a political motivation), that is a hugely problematic precedent.  It flies in the face of the open and highly public discussion of issues that public universities or things like town hall meetings are often held to stand for.  It is not simply the university here, but also the law and by extension the state government, saying "No, not all people have equal turns to speak, not even when invited by a state-run educational institution.  Some will not be protected." 

           And this seems to imply, those with the guns or the threats will decide who can speak, or who has to hire private consultants or security (if they can even afford it), and who has to consider that all the consultants in the world might fail in a situation where the state has decided to provide no response.  And gee, it is hardly like this is all mere coincidence that the state goes "hands off" precisely when the topic to be discussed in public is representations of violence, intimidation, harassment, and the status of women?  Who else is likely not to be protected, and/or to be the target of threats in such an environment?  Can we really just tell the state or the police to "Do your job, get some real security in there" or will there be trouble -- too many potential threats in such states, too much resistance from those who pushed through the weapons in public laws, something else perhaps?
 

[Ephiral]

All right, you deserve a serious response.

Threats by nature, are meant to harass. Most, not all who issue public threats towards some one only wish to make the person uncomfortable. And it is not a fact, they will follow through. Why would they warn you they are coming? That's how they would get caught before they do it. A public threat is a warning, and a warning creates preparedness. A level of being prepared, in which some one really wanting to do harm doesn't want.

No. Threats, by nature, are meant to threaten. People who issue threats want their targets to feel unsafe, not uncomfortable. Why would they warn you they're coming? Ask any number of very real terrorists with body counts to their names. It. Happens. Sure, maybe most threats are harmless - but there's very little way of picking the real ones out. If I hand you a pile of thousands of rape and death threats, can you - with a literal gun pointed at you and perhaps other, innocent people around you - pick the one real one out of the bunch? If not, why would you demand this of others?

Further, even if threats are "only" intended to silence: Does that really make them okay?

No, I don't mean to come off as bad, I just base my opinion on the fact on how the FBI views threats, and how one should handle them. Its not that she doesn't have the right to feel her threats are legit, she does. It is her right!

...and yet she's in the wrong for acting on them. Is she supposed to knowingly and deliberately walk into something that is going to get her and a whole mess of innocents killed?

It is just that I think they were not real threats, for the same reason the FBI did, and the police did.

Can you provide a cite for this? Something from the FBI saying that there was no threat before she cancelled the talk?

I don't think they were real, but she can if she wants. Further, it is wrong, in my opinion, to feed the man or women whom threatened her's ego. Especially when the same guy makes empty threats all the time.

You know who it is, then? Can you share this information?

Worth noting: This is not happening in a vacuum. This is just the latest example of a huge and ongoing phenomenon: Women speak up about how they're treated, and a wave of violent and sexualized threats is used to silence them and remove them from the public sphere. There's a very large trend of downplaying or ignoring this, in the apparent hope of resisting any cultural change that might include more diverse voices. "Feeding egos" seems, to me, to be a small sin compared to "giving up and letting women be silenced yet again".

I don't believe she sent it to herself, I only mentioned it since it has happened before. (A person in her circle no less, has charges pending for doing so.) So dismiss that line I made.

Why did you mention it in this context, when it has literally no bearing on the events or discussion at hand? The only reason I can see would be to plant the seed in people's heads - which is, frankly, a frequently-used and very ugly tactic.

And understand, I think the threat was not legit, and I think. As in an opinion, not fact. That it was wrong for her to make a public acknowledgement of it. To say she does not uphold her values, is a bit wrong of me so I apologize, I reiterate, she should have done the seminar any way. Because not doing so looks like she does not uphold her believes, and does not make it a fact. (It just looks like it.)

So you don't know. How many innocent lives are you willing to gamble on your belief? And if you're so adamant that she should continue talking about the background radiation of misogyny in our culture, why is it suddenly unacceptable to talk about this example of it?

Am I making my point more apparent now? I don't mean to offend. I am not better equipped to discuss security risks. But I was explaining my opinion, based on my understanding of the FBI's public suggestions on handling them.

You apparently think you're better - without any of the background, without being the one under threat, without any apparent or stated experience in handling security in high-threat environments - at discerning which threats are real and which are not, and enough so that you're willing to bet human lives on this en masse. Do you not see how arrogant and condescending this sounds?

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Profesional victim hood, I will admit is an offensive statement. But she does ware her threats like a shield, "See, I am right. Because look at the stones being tossed at me." It doesn't make her automatically right.

When the thesis is "Women are not given equal voice and representation in our culture.", then a strong pushback against any woman who dares to speak out absolutely does prove it. Women being actively silenced with campaigns of fear are examples.

However, it doesn't mean she is wrong. One can not say Misogyny is rampant! Just because, a few hundred from the milions issue threats. Or a few thousand from the millions say garbage. It's not the majority, so it is not rampant.

#NotAllMen (Okay, so I'm still feeling a little snarky.)

Her threats are proof that means it still exists in america. But not that the patriarchy, is everywhere. And definitely not that all men are misogynist. (Actions of the few should never reflect the many. But we allow it to, which does suck. By this statement, I don't say that the few feminists reflect my views on all. In fact, I am pro Emma Watson, and The Factual Feminist.)

First: Citation sorely fucking needed on Anita Sarkeesian saying that all men are misogynist. That is a ridiculous strawman. If you aren't aware of that, you really need to learn to check your sources.

Second: you're right, a few thousand threats levelled at one woman don't prove that patriarchy is everywhere. Perhaps what we need is a critical examination of the roles of men and women in popular culture - see how men are used and treated, how women are used and treated, who tends to be the focus of perspective, action, and agency. Where could we start such an examination? Maybe in video games?

While we're at it, perhaps we could see if women are routinely silenced, threatened, or harassed. Or if men are treated the same way when they do. Would that paint a clearer picture of whether this stuff is pervasive?

Now, lets see the things she feels is a problem.  Are they problems really worthy of being a focus? No, because at this point what her and others believe, is saying men by nature are sexist.

[Citation needed]

Change their nature, is all they are saying at this point. Pluss, Teach men not to rape? That's offensive in and of it'self. It suggests only men do so. And, that all men do it.

Or that, y'know, the overwhelming majority of rapists are men, and teaching men not to rape is extremely effective with even minimal effort.

Teach men, not some men, but men, a broad wording. I don't feel any one should agree there, but at least agree with my take on her stance in video games and movies. The realm of the imagination, may make offensive statements. But it doesn't make it the statement of the author, just the character did or said something wrong. Or controversial. Imagination is more permissible. Especialy when said imagination is to show historical significance, or other wise show what is happening to be wrong.

Sure... except that a huge number of these examples aren't[/url] being used to illustrate how wrong this is. They're just... there. Unquestioned, unexamined, accepted.

The world is a better focus to voice, not art. Though I see where her and her followers are coming from in modeling since it does put  a impossible standard on women. But, what she never says is the impossible standard modeling, and really good looking guys in media puts on men.

Art shapes culture. Are you really denying that? And you're right, this conversation isn't about men. Why does that make it inherently wrong?

Nor, can she acknowledge the impossible standards men have to live up to, in order to not be offensive. Gazing, being one of the most innocent things they demonize. (To gaze is an acknowledgment of beauty. Not an automatically sexist thing, which objectifies. Mind you, I said gaze, not stare. Staring is... Creepy. Even if there was an innocent reason.)

It is not impossible to not be an asshole. In fact, it's... pretty trivial. Just treat the people around you as... y'know, people. And yes, ogling a woman's body parts rather than engaging her as a person is the fucking definition of objectification. It's reducing her to a handful of objects presented for your enjoyment.

I do not hate her. I just feel she is to generalized, to broad in her views. Using words like, All, Every, while sticking to demonizing things like Toxic Masculinity. (When in reality, it's Testosterone. It's the chemical that makes men and women take more risks. Men make more risks in life due to the natural chemical, since we have a higher testosterone levell. It's why we would do more crime in any kind of poll. It is why we are the majorit, but not all of mass shooters. And it is also why we are more successful in business, not because women are hated or viewed less qualified. But because we take more risks. And by doing so, put our selvs in positions to have great gain, or great failure. You never make it big playing it safe. But! That is an opinion. I am not stating it as a fact.)

Bull. Shit. You are making falsifiable statements about the nature of reality, and then trying to hide behind "just an opinion". That's... that's not how opinions work. Stop weaseling and maybe check the facts to see if there's anything credible supporting your argument. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Speaking broadly, the problems I'm having with you and your views boil down to this: You appear to actively avoid any examination of facts, hiding behind "just an opinion" when it so much as looks like you might be challenged. But you don't make a map by sitting in your house and thinking real hard about what the world outside might look like - you make it by going out and looking at the territory. You sure as hell shouldn't be holding your made-at-homemap up as more authoritative than the ones made by people out in the world, studying the lay of the land, and you shouldn't be telling them they're doing it wrong because their map doesn't look like yours.