You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 04:46:05 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)  (Read 2121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
         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? 

Quote
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.”
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 01:15:25 PM by kylie »

Offline consortium11

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2014, 11:38:15 AM »
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.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2014, 08:01:13 PM »
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

« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 08:02:53 PM by Lustful Bride »

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2014, 12:50:50 AM »
          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.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2014, 01:35:25 AM »
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.

Offline consortium11

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2014, 04:29:47 AM »
          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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Online Silk

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2014, 04:54:51 PM »
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.

Offline Shjade

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2014, 05:18:08 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 05:20:47 PM by Shjade »

Online Silk

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2014, 05:25:09 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 05:30:31 PM by Silk »

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2014, 06:03:14 PM »
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.

Offline Shjade

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2014, 06:17:16 PM »
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...

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2014, 06:52:26 PM »
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.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2014, 10:26:52 PM »
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?

Online Kunoichi


Offline Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2014, 11:48:07 PM »
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.

Offline Shjade

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2014, 06:14:04 PM »
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.

Online ElvenKitten

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2014, 08:08:43 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 08:26:24 PM by ElvenKitten »

Offline Melusine

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2014, 08:30:23 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 08:33:51 PM by Melusine »

Online ElvenKitten

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2014, 08:49:35 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 08:53:57 PM by ElvenKitten »

Offline Melusine

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2014, 09:02:35 PM »
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.

Online Kunoichi

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2014, 10:20:05 PM »
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

Offline Shjade

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2014, 10:58:55 PM »
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.

Online Kunoichi

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2014, 11:43:04 PM »
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.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2014, 12:05:16 PM »
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.

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2014, 12:52:41 PM »
         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.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 12:56:43 PM by kylie »