Let's not lump NO MAAM into this. They're a legitimate organization.
I, too, am against amazonian masterhood.
Sarkeesian cancels speech after mass-shooting threat due to cop refusing to ban gun
- Thread starter massoluk
- Start date
- Status
Let's not lump NO MAAM into this. They're a legitimate organization.
I, too, am against amazonian masterhood.
The threat is real. There's no need for a hypothetical situation here. The mistrust toward women reporting things that are happening to them is insanity.
While the gun law is pretty dumb, at the same time I can't help think that Sarkeesian is overreacting by taking these death threats seriously. Perhaps I give people more credit than their due, but this strikes me as just one more way that 4chan trolls have found to wreak havoc with just the power of anonymous communication. Next-level SWATting, essentially.
I know there are some real crazies out there, but I would expect anyone who's serious about this sort of thing would do it without warning.
Do you mean "the threat was actually made," or "the threat was actually going to be carried out if Sarkeesian hadn't cancelled the event?" I don't think anyone's denying the former (in this case, although I do recall some GamingGaters accusing feminists of false flag death threats in earlier cases). But if you mean the latter, I'd be very interested to hear why you're so certain?
I know there are some real crazies out there, but I would expect anyone who's serious about this sort of thing would do it without warning.
Do you mean "the threat was actually made," or "the threat was actually going to be carried out if Sarkeesian hadn't cancelled the event?" I don't think anyone's denying the former (in this case, although I do recall some GamingGaters accusing feminists of false flag death threats in earlier cases). But if you mean the latter, I'd be very interested to hear why you're so certain?
The former. And several people have indeed denied it in this very thread.
highoffcoffee496
Member
Pretty much this; well put. While personally I'm not a big fan of her, I still feel bad she has to go through all this abuse :/ But regardless, as you stated, the law doesn't revolve around her.
Jailer of Hope
Member
Are you referring to this incident?
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30704861
It's because of that is why some students around here are a little cautious attending classes today. It's sad. Just steps away from the venue Anita was supposed to present at. I didn't know the male victim very well be he was good friends with one of my coworkers.
It doesn't always work like that, especially in misogynistic dick measuring circles. Remember that "Perfect Eurasian" kid in Southern california who made his videos and post on that bodybuilding forum before his rampage? Any threat should be taken serious.
highoffcoffee496
Member
This.
We've already had one in this very thread. "Guys but what if she made it up for publicity I'm just asking questions!" is a very common response to this sort of thing. Related are the accusations of "professional victimhood," or the subcategory of concern trolling that goes "but if you don't talk about these threats they usually go away gosh why is she talking about them HMMM."
It's all couched in terms such that the person can pretend they're not really making any accusations, while still effectively making them. (One of my favorite examples of this, from 2008, was a now-permed GAFer going on about how "interesting" it was that Obama refused to show anyone his birth certificate, while maintaining all along that of course he didn't believe the conspiracy theories.)
So I'm guessing there are no metal detectors and that people with a permit are allowed to bring their guns into a courtroom in Utah, the state Senate offices in Utah, a Utah Jazz game, the press room at the Governor's offices?
Because if they ban guns from certain places, doesn't that violate the state law?
Because if they ban guns from certain places, doesn't that violate the state law?
Zoe
Member
Clearly Anita Sarkeesian needs to take these death threats like a man and ignore them. I mean, Teddy Roosevelt was shot during a speech and didn't even cut it short! He kept going! Why can't Anita be as manly as Teddy Roosevelt and his spiritual successor lovechild TotalBiscuit, who eats constant threats of assassination for breakfast without ever telling a soul -- except when the time comes to shame other people for wanting to protect themselves, of course?
Just ask yourself: what would TeddyBiscuit do, and do that, Anita. For America.
Just ask yourself: what would TeddyBiscuit do, and do that, Anita. For America.
Did TB really say this? That is hilarious. Total Biscuit called Shawn Elliott's place of work to complain about a tweet calling him "gross". He is the last person to give lessons on developing harder skin.
thezerofire
Banned
Saw this yesterday, really good article on kind of this whole situation from the point of view of a woman who was silenced by all these threats.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/trolls-will-always-win/
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/trolls-will-always-win/
Perfectly reasonable to you, maybe. The law isn't something that we can bend and change on a whim of opinions, it's something that is drafted, debated, and eventually voted on by the representatives. It may seem reasonable to you at present, and may seem reasonable for the people of Utah to change the law if this event sparks some social discussion, but one cannot assume what is reasonable to you is reasonable to the rest of us and just make a claim that the law should bend for your reason. Because it's your reasoning, not necessary everyone else's.
Let's not forget that everyone interprets the law differently, and that something reasonable to you is not necessarily reasonable to me. That's the entire reason why laws exist: we don't all agree on what's ethical or logical or reasonable, but we must obey a set of statues (this goes for police officers, too, in this case). It may seem illogical to not disarm attendees to you, but it is the law.. And subject to change through legal means, but not on a whim of some present opinions.
Never heard of her.
Anyway it's not like the 'deadliest school shooting in American history' is going to be committed with a 6-7 round 9mm pocket pistol.
Really? You think her refusal to speak isn't getting her more press than if she had actually given the speech? Would there be a GAF thread running 6-plus pages in hours over her speech if she'd given it?
Anyway it's not like the 'deadliest school shooting in American history' is going to be committed with a 6-7 round 9mm pocket pistol.
Really? You think her refusal to speak isn't getting her more press than if she had actually given the speech? Would there be a GAF thread running 6-plus pages in hours over her speech if she'd given it?
I really don't understand how Totalbiscuit is relevant to this discussion, you had to go out of your way to insult the guy.
I do hope that they catch this person if he is a serious threat to campus security but I still believe that restricting rights based on internet threats is not constructive - you can't expect law enforcement to react every time, because there is not enough manpower to go through all the trolls. The best possible outcome is that this story causes some self-reflection among certain individuals but I fear the opposite will happen if people are going to group this lunatic/idiot writing a death threat with all #GG activists - more division and vitriol.
Law is the law.
At least the Uni and law enforcement should have offered add extra security for the event. When death threats and threats against an institution such a school, law enforcement needs to take it seriously. But then again, maybe she wanted more than that, which is unreasonable if their law prevents law enforcement from performing that duty. But if she felt her life threatened, she has every right to take personal precautions to protect herself, and cancelling an event is completely reasonable.
At least the Uni and law enforcement should have offered add extra security for the event. When death threats and threats against an institution such a school, law enforcement needs to take it seriously. But then again, maybe she wanted more than that, which is unreasonable if their law prevents law enforcement from performing that duty. But if she felt her life threatened, she has every right to take personal precautions to protect herself, and cancelling an event is completely reasonable.
GillianSeed79
Member
I think this might be an eye opener for those on GAF who don't live in the U.S. It's completely shitty that Anita, who I agree a lot, had to cancel her speech, but I think it would be impossible for the police to be able to ban guns at the event given how the law is written in most states and how militant the gun lobby is.
Where I live, a conservative Republican prosecutor had protestors outside her office because a guy got arrested for carrying a gun on a local campus. The campus banned guns, but it turned out they couldn't ban guns because the way the law was written guns can only be banned from elementary and high schools. When this - again conservative Republican prosecutor - suggested that the law should be amended to include colleges, people picketed.
If the cops would have banned guns or even screened for guns, I bet the police chief or chief of campus security would have had protestors outside their office demanding he resign/be fired. That's how absolutist the gun lobby crowd is. And they legally probably couldn't even ban guns from the event, even with the death threats. That's just the way it is unless the law is changed.
Where I live, a conservative Republican prosecutor had protestors outside her office because a guy got arrested for carrying a gun on a local campus. The campus banned guns, but it turned out they couldn't ban guns because the way the law was written guns can only be banned from elementary and high schools. When this - again conservative Republican prosecutor - suggested that the law should be amended to include colleges, people picketed.
If the cops would have banned guns or even screened for guns, I bet the police chief or chief of campus security would have had protestors outside their office demanding he resign/be fired. That's how absolutist the gun lobby crowd is. And they legally probably couldn't even ban guns from the event, even with the death threats. That's just the way it is unless the law is changed.
The insecure piss-ant nutjob got what he wanted. That sucks. That's not right.
Besides, I'm sure Ms. Sarkeesian would much rather have given her speech to like-minded feminists than have coverage of the cancellation in a meaningless GAF thread. It doesn't really help her cause, unless you only think she's in it for the publicity.
And I feel like defending her even though I find her to be insufferable. The terrorists have won.
I'm confused, if Starbucks can keep people from entering their building with a gun then why can't a university? Open Carry refers to public property not private property doesn't it?
Welcome to the West my friend. Nevada(my home state) is the same way
Dependent on the business and building. Casinos and Federal buildings for example in Neavda prohibit firearms in any form, even with permits.But you can walk around anywhere else and have them. It has to be mentioned on the entrance of each particular building and if you get caught you get hit pretty damn hard with fines, possible jail time, and possible revoke of your permits.
Massive push from the GOP/NRA to put ridiculous laws in place for college campuses over the past few decades.
Starbucks is private, can tell people to go F themselves.
HamPster PamPster
Member
Even 4chan banned gamergate people so they gather on different sites now. Should give you an idea of the type of people fueling this movement
First off, it's concealed carry, not open carry in this situation. I don't know why people keep mentioning Open Carry, they are very different laws. Second of all, the law specifically dictates public universities in Utah cannot restrict concealed carry rights, except in very specific circumstances.
But yes, in general concealed carry and open carry laws usually only apply to public property. This one however, does not explicitly, however, seeing as how it's enforceable only at state institutions (a public institution), it is in practice.
EDIT For clarity: You obviously wouldn't need to do a pat-down if people were allowed to open carry, that's the point of open carry. You see a gun and say, "Hey, you've got a gun." I don't know why this article is mentioning open carry laws being the restriction here, but it's their concealed carry laws. Obviously, if someone is allowed to conceal weapons on university property, that would require a search to find any weapons. Since concealed carry is OK on campus and the law dictates it cannot be restricted, searching people would be illegal. That's the law and that's what this argument is about. I don't know how the discussion shifted to open carry laws, but it literally has nothing to do with these circumstances.
Militant approach is not necessarily a negative, it keeps the government and bureaucracy in check. The only problem is that people are not as active when other constitutional rights are under attack, nor do they speak against economic corruption and institutional biases within our society. Firearms are not an issue as long as there is social cohesion, enough mental health services available and citizens are not disenfranchised from the community.
I do agree that people who construct their entire ideology around this one issue are loons (they are entertaining though and the "survival industry" is booming these days, lots of money available lol).
TheRagnCajun
Member
I'm not sure if Utah is saying 'no' based on practicality or based on the right to bear arms. Practically speaking, screening for weapons can be done by paid security personel funded by the event organizer. I agree that the police can't be expected to foot the bill for these precautions at every conceivable event.
On the grounds of right to bear arms, I think we're at an impass here. Its irresponsible to hold this event under the threat of a shooting, without taking the necessary precautions. If those precautions infringe on Utah's right to bear arms, then I guess the event can't happen. I guess that creates an unfortunate circumstance for Utah. I can't imagine any public speaker making a different choice than Anita under the same circumstances.
Then probably you don't post much on gaming side.
The former? Probably. The latter? You'd be surprised how much argument can be generated over Anita Sarkeesian doing basically anything. Since it would've been on gaming side, it might've gone even faster, tbh.
Do some of you actually read these articles before posting? The school probably would be fine with doing searches if they were allowed. Hell, if you do some research into this law, most schools are against it. It's the campus security and police that aren't obliging the searching for concealed weapons, as it would be illegal for them to do so. They are following the law, their hands are tied. So, no, it's not run by idiots.
crowphoenix
Banned
This statement really confuses me. Am I missing something?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58524629-78/sarkeesian-university-video-speech.html.csp
I chuckled a bit, some Utah lawmaker made a statement that seem to combine both Gamergate "she's-overracting" response and NRA's Good-guy-with-a-guy response.
I chuckled a bit, some Utah lawmaker made a statement that seem to combine both Gamergate "she's-overracting" response and NRA's Good-guy-with-a-guy response.
A strict interpretation of the laws would seem that she was asking to violate the rights of others to make her feel more comfortable giving the speech. From reading the article in the op, her use of the word "forced" implies that there was a very compelling reason to cancel her speech. Feeling like your life is in danger is a very compelling reason.
It is sad that people are getting offended by everything Anita does.
It is sad that people are getting offended by everything Anita does.
John Kowalski
Banned
Sad state of affairs, it's disheartening to know how gun laws work on Utah. Nothing that will stop her future speeches, but still unfortunate that neither she nor her potential speech attendees will get to enjoy the event.
BTW those gun laws are fucking asinine tbh.
BTW those gun laws are fucking asinine tbh.
That way, after she's shot all the good guys in the crowd can shoot the bad guy! God fucking damn its brilliant.
What complete and utter delusional nut jobbery is this? How in fuck's name is putting up metal detectors and doing pat downs putting the good guys at a disadvantage? How is there always going to be bad guys? You're fucking detecting all guns and taking them away. You can't use the "Bad guys will always break the rules" shit here. There might be a bad guy after the pat downs and metal detectors, but he won't have a fucking gun.
Utah has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the U.S. , with a rate almost 4.5 times lower than California.
Apparently whatever they are doing is working.
I believe his argument is that a weapon you could successfully conceal carry would not be enough to cause "the most deadly school shooting in American history"
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
dr3upmushroom
If you stop seeing my posts, you can probably guess why
(Today, 01:59 PM)
Obviously not "men everywhere", but sadly, they do exist. Article about this: http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2009/11/27/001-polytech-lepine-masculinistes.shtml (French, sorry) and one example here http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/31/13429581-qmi.html (as an update, this man was eventually cleared of criminal activity).
The fact that the threat cited Lépine as inspiration certainly contributes to making the threat more believable, especially considering it's pretty much the same kind of rhetoric that Lépine himself wrote in his suicide note. *shudders*
Don't bring facts into this!
The whole situation sucks, but I have a feeling that she wouldn't have held the speech regardless of the state gun laws. I don't think anybody would have blamed her in this instance. Even if she didn't get harmed in an attack, I'm sure she would have been horrified if an attempt was made and people were injured.
The entire state of Utah has less people than only Los Angeles and San Diego combined. Salt Lake City, their largest city, has only 186,000ish people in it. There's just not enough people close enough to shoot.
timetokill
Banned
It's too bad she won't go, or do a video-conferenced speech or something. Seems like that should be easy enough.
I think the police did the right thing in terms of following the law, though.
I think the police did the right thing in terms of following the law, though.
Zoe
Member
She is the one who brought it up.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
Utah State is a public university, it's not private property. If this was, say, BYU, my understanding is that they could impose a ban like that, or set up more than just one secured area as they're not bound to the same rules and law as state schools.
You think gun laws are the reason for that?
- Status