You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 04:31:35 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 2123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2014, 08:49:12 AM »
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.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2014, 08:59:06 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 09:04:44 AM by Retribution »

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 #52 on: October 27, 2014, 12:54:17 PM »
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.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2014, 01:15:37 PM »
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.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2014, 01:26:23 PM »
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.

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 #55 on: October 27, 2014, 01:28:35 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 01:31:01 PM by Ephiral »

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2014, 01:39:53 PM »
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.

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 #57 on: October 27, 2014, 01:49:40 PM »
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.

Offline Oreo

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #58 on: October 27, 2014, 02:03:57 PM »
Cooldown time.

Offline KalebHyde

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2014, 01:16:14 PM »
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.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #60 on: October 31, 2014, 03:27:51 PM »
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.

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

Well said. I agree.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 03:32:08 PM by Caehlim »

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 #61 on: October 31, 2014, 06:20:19 PM »
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.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2014, 06:39:01 PM »
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

Offline KalebHyde

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #63 on: November 01, 2014, 12:36:57 AM »
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://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.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #64 on: November 01, 2014, 01:46:19 AM »
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.

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 #65 on: November 02, 2014, 11:40:57 AM »
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
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.

Offline KalebHyde

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #66 on: November 03, 2014, 10:16:59 AM »
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.

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 #67 on: November 03, 2014, 02:48:25 PM »
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?

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2014, 04:20:05 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 04:41:43 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

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 #69 on: November 04, 2014, 02:16:16 PM »
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.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #70 on: November 05, 2014, 01:49:22 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 02:29:20 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

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 #71 on: November 05, 2014, 03:46:27 AM »
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.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)
« Reply #72 on: November 05, 2014, 05:18:52 PM »
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...)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 09:23:26 PM by Garuss Vakarian »

Online 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 #73 on: November 06, 2014, 09:32:45 AM »
         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).
Quote from: Garuss
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
 
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 09:56:55 AM by kylie »

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 #74 on: November 06, 2014, 10:30:47 AM »
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.