Gender in gaming.

[Kythia]

I will end this by saying how disgusted, and yes that feeling I felt, at the use of the word Terrorism. No matter how grave the situation has been for you, or for a small group of people, it's not fucking terrorism, and using a word like that, with a clearly defined meaning. What is worse, is the fact that the author CHOSE to post this piece a mere day after the Brussels attacks.... and dares to use that word...

Mmmkay, errrm. To me, the author gave a definition of the word "terrorism" as it is defined by the Canadian courts (one would assume she's Canadian) and showed how what she was describing fit that definition.  It kind of seems like if you object to her using a national and government defined definition of a word to describe a situation covered by that word then your issue might be with the field of semantics as a whole rather than her?  Like, if I use the word "bicycle" correctly and you feel disgusted by that - I can't help but feel that that's because you haven't understood how words work, rather than through any fault of mine. 

I've been deliberately avoiding this conversation but this was just...what? I mean, you mention it has a clearly defined meaning and, yes, she quoted it.  And tried to show how the situation she was describing fit it.  It's a little difficult to really understand your objection here.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?  I might be as I certainly don't understand the reference to/relevance of the Brussels attacks.

[Wajin]

Mmmkay, errrm. To me, the author gave a definition of the word "terrorism" as it is defined by the Canadian courts (one would assume she's Canadian) and showed how what she was describing fit that definition.  It kind of seems like if you object to her using a national and government defined definition of a word to describe a situation covered by that word then your issue might be with the field of semantics as a whole rather than her?  Like, if I use the word "bicycle" correctly and you feel disgusted by that - I can't help but feel that that's because you haven't understood how words work, rather than through any fault of mine. 

I've been deliberately avoiding this conversation but this was just...what? I mean, you mention it has a clearly defined meaning and, yes, she quoted it.  And tried to show how the situation she was describing fit it.  It's a little difficult to really understand your objection here.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?  I might be as I certainly don't understand the reference to/relevance of the Brussels attacks.

Here's what the UN has to say on the subject: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them

I study law here in Denmark, and our professor talked to us at length about the watering down of words like Terrorism in a legal sense. In Denmark's own criminal code it says the following about terrorism

§ 114 For terrorism, the punishment is imprisonment for life for any who with intent seeks to scare a population, or unjustly seeks to force danish or foreign public authorities or an international organization to take action or fail to take action; or to destabilize or destroy a country or international organizations fundamental political, constitutional, economical or societal structure, performs any of the following actions, when the action, in regards to its character or context, could cause a country or international organization serious harm.

I would like to believe that what is outlined above is the international standard when considering an action to be terroism or not. Calling something like this terrorism is hyperbolic to me. I am sure that Canada has laws regard criminal intimidation or coercion. If said laws have been folded into the terrorism law, then I truly do think that it needs to be looked at again, otherwise I could foresee quite a lot of situations that could be termed terrorism by Canadian standards.

Raw Danish text

§ 114. For terrorisme straffes med fængsel indtil på livstid den, som med forsæt til at skræmme en befolkning i alvorlig grad eller uretmæssigt at tvinge danske eller udenlandske offentlige myndigheder eller en international organisation til at foretage eller undlade at foretage en handling eller at destabilisere eller ødelægge et lands eller en international organisations grundlæggende politiske, forfatningsmæssige, økonomiske eller samfundsmæssige strukturer begår en eller flere af følgende handlinger, når handlingen i kraft af sin karakter eller den sammenhæng, hvori den begås, kan tilføje et land eller en international organisation alvorlig skade

[Aethereal]

         It's a sense of language issue to me - as I see it, terrorism is a systematic (violent) illegal act or series of acts with the intended purpose of inflicting terror, and enforcing cooperation through said terror. I'm inclined to agree with Wajin here - "terrorism" is not really an apt word to be used in this context. Not everything horrible or atrocious is by default terrorism.

[Kythia]

I would like to believe that what is outlined above is the international standard when considering an action to be terroism or not. Calling something like this terrorism is hyperbolic to me. I am sure that Canada has laws regard criminal intimidation or coercion. If said laws have been folded into the terrorism law, then I truly do think that it needs to be looked at again, otherwise I could foresee quite a lot of situations that could be termed terrorism by Canadian standards.

I mean, you can like to believe it if you want, but clearly the Canadian government disagree with you.  She quotes a section:

Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” and with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.”

and then goes on to state her case that that is the relevant law to apply to her situation.  Now, there are discussions to be had about whether she's right or not but she claims, in essence that people with a political/ideological cause are attempting to compel her, a person, to refrain from doing an act.  If that is what is happening then the Canadian definition of terrorism seems to fit.

I have perhaps some sympathy for your and Shienvien's argument that this definition waters down the term, but that's not her fault.  She's used the legal term correctly, your issue there is with the Canadian Government not with her.  And "disgust" seems an incredibly over the top reaction to the fact that a country defines an issue differently to your own.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The United States has a very similiar definition in regard to domestic terrorism to Canada.

[Aethereal]

        I'm not entirely sure how much that statement applies even in regards to that definition. As I see it, it has less to do with people with some ideological agenda going about (systematically) intimidating someone to make them feel insecure enough to leave (I guess their intent would be making them leave?), and more to do with a number of individuals who just don't seem to get or care what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't. The ... essence of the issue is slightly different.

[Kythia]

Indeed it is.  And, as I say, there's some sensible argument to be had about whether she's right or not - from the quote she gives there's no requirement for this to be systematic or their actions to be entirely due to their ideologies (it specifically state it only needs to be "in part" due to them.)  But I'm neither Canadian nor a lawyer.

But that wasn't Wajin's problem.  Wajim's disgust was, as best I understand it, caused by her daring to suggest that this was the appropriate law to apply in this situation.  I initially didn't see what his issue was, then I found it a hilarious overreaction.

[Aethereal]

       There are also the intent to intimidate and compel someone to act in a specific way... All in all, it feels like you would have to stretch even the (Canadian) definition some to make it sort-of fit. Hence I feel that it would still have more to do with harassment and assault laws, and not the ones pertaining terrorism. 
      While I definitely won't call what is described "terrorism" myself, I'm however inclined to agree that "disgust" is also a pretty strong word to use.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think the question would likely come down to if this is an effort by a group inside the gamer community to illicit a reaction from another group, namely women in this case, through fear and intimidation.  That may be the inference she is trying to make by using the word terrorism.

[Sethala]

Mmmkay, errrm. To me, the author gave a definition of the word "terrorism" as it is defined by the Canadian courts (one would assume she's Canadian) and showed how what she was describing fit that definition.  It kind of seems like if you object to her using a national and government defined definition of a word to describe a situation covered by that word then your issue might be with the field of semantics as a whole rather than her?  Like, if I use the word "bicycle" correctly and you feel disgusted by that - I can't help but feel that that's because you haven't understood how words work, rather than through any fault of mine. 

I've been deliberately avoiding this conversation but this was just...what? I mean, you mention it has a clearly defined meaning and, yes, she quoted it.  And tried to show how the situation she was describing fit it.  It's a little difficult to really understand your objection here.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?  I might be as I certainly don't understand the reference to/relevance of the Brussels attacks.

It's worth noting that the entire section that quote is from reads:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

    (i) that is committed

        (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

        (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

    (ii) that intentionally

        (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

        (B) endangers a person’s life,

        (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

        (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

        (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

So it not only has to fulfill the criteria mentioned by the author, but also has to fulfill at least one criteria from the second group.  Which... while what happened to the author is horrible, is a pretty severe stretch to fit any of those other criteria.  Not to mention several more sections that narrow the definition of "terrorism" down even further - and, if I'm understanding this right (and full admission, I know little enough about law that a lot of this is making my head spin), an act has to fulfill all of the criteria for it to fit under "terrorism".

Personally, this really bothers me.  Not only is she trying to make an emotional appeal by making it sound like this is somehow on par with hijacking airplanes and armed assault, but then she doubles down on it by making an appeal to authority by making it sound like the law supports her definition, when it clearly has a much more narrow scope.

Anyway, if anyone with more legal knowledge than myself wants to chime in, the full law is at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-12.html#h-25

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Her definition would fit into the area of C in the second list.