Jub wrote:Going public with it in the way that they've been doing it is getting people on both sides riled up
This gets back to "how dare crime victims complain about being targeted". It translates to sit down, shut up, and don't make waves. Basically, you don't want to be bothered hearing about other peoples' problems large or small.
When other online personalities get these threats, why do you think they don't deal with it the same way? Why do you think people like Total Biscuit, The Nostalgia Critic, the AVGN aren't making a big deal about the hate mail and specific threats they get on a daily basis? You know they must be getting them because channels smaller than them are getting them, so why isn't it news when somebody threatens, say, the Amazing Atheist saying they know his home address?
You're
assuming these other people are being treated like the women in "gamergate", you don't actually know that as a fact and you have no evidence that they're being treated the same.
Why do people like Marilyn Manson play shows that they've gotten threats for (specifically Manson's show in Columbine) yet Sarkeesian is too afraid to speak? Does it not seem odd that a woman claiming women don't need knights and who claims to be fighting on principles has less conviction than a shock rock performer?
Marilyn Manson probably has a shit ton more resources to buy security for his shows than Sarkeesian does. Marilyn Manson is
able to impose security on his shows to the level he desires, as opposed to the university in question which threw up its hands and said we can't do anything to protect you.
Yes; and the steps in question are legal action, with very real potential legal consequences for the person you are trying to protect yourself against.
The point is, harassment isn't a zero-consequence activity for the victim. And it damned sure shouldn't be a zero-consequence activity for the harasser.
Yet it is. The fact of the matter is even IRL the police won't do shit for harassment, if they did the paparazzi wouldn't be a thing.
That's largely because the papparazzi know exactly what the law is and put some effort into not stepping over it, and as a general rule the papparazzi are not making threats or carrying out violence on the people they photograph. You really can't see the difference between snapping photos in the bushes vs. making death threats and leaving dead things in mailboxes?
People are, to some degree, still expected to fend for themselves in this world. If Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian want to be equals and want to get shit done maybe they should just act rather than making sure they are seen acting.
In other words, the girls should tolerate misogyny if they want to leave off being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And those black folks just need to man up and tolerate hearing n***** if they want to have real jobs. You don't see the problem because you're sitting there smug in your priviledged cocoon.
This is like... flamingly blatant blaming-the-victim. It's HER fault that she complains about grossly illegal and threatening actions, how DARE she speak up and expect people to care what's happening to her?
So why doesn't every person on the internet who's ever received a specific and targeted threat react this way? Could it perhaps be that throwing gas at fire doesn't tend to make less fire?
Few people bullied on the internet have the sort of platform to speak from that Quinn and Sarkeesian do. In any case, why should victims remain silent about being victimized? Do we tell victims of muggings they shouldn't talk about it.?
It's taking the one thing that did happen, the one worth standing on, to the end in a way that engenders respect in those you are trying to influence. These women are doing nothing to win over those that hate them and the shit storm around this is causing people outside of it to look at both sides as idiots (or it would if the media was reporting the dumb shit that both sides are doing).
The bullies attempting to victimize these women don't want to be won over they want to utterly suppress these women, to silence them. Again, do we tell victims of muggings that they need to "win over" the muggers so it won't happen again?
When did I saw it was? Where did I ever say that these women deserved this or that the other side has a leg to stand on? Both sides have a large share of assholes. The difference is one side is a faceless blob that won't stop until it gets bored and the other side is public figures with an agenda to push.
The "faceless blob" won't stop when it's
bored, it will stop when the targets are both silenced and discredited. You don't get it. You so totally don't get it.
An often unwarranted and false fear. I could equally develop a fear of unwanted assault, after all the stats say it happens to more men than women.
Stats say 3 out of 4 women will be a victim of some form of sexual assault in her lifetime. You call that a false fear?
I could also say that I've been involved in a drunk alley fight that I wanted no part of but the other person did. Does that mean I should be spreading the word about drunken alley fights and advising men to carry a drunken alley fight kit? Should that color my view of alleys or people that stand in them at night? Should I take to twitter about unwanted nighttime assaults?
Why not? Why not discuss how to avoid drunken alley fights, advise others to avoid them, and talk about how to avoid other unwanted night time assaults? Isn't that a more rational approach than remaining silent? Or don't you think problems should be addressed?
Face it Broomstick, out of all the men you know, how many of them do you believe are rapists, molesters, or abusers of women?
Well, let's see... the asshole who tried to rape me in my back yard, the boyfriend who hit me hard enough to propel me across a room and into a wall, the group of young men who chased me through much of Rogers Park, Chicago describing in rather graphic detail what they were going to do with me once they caught me (which, fortunately, they didn't), the man who VERY strongly INSISTED on "helping" me carry my groceries home, to the point of prying the bags out of my hand and
would not stop following me until had a male acquaintance intervene, my best friend's father who admitted to child molesting/rape, the man at the Wisconsin flying field I used to be based at who was
convicted of child rape, the man who lived next door to us in Warren, Michigan who we could hear beating his wife through the walls of the apartment building, the in-law who in all seriousness asked my husband how often he hit me to keep me in my place, the client of the contractor I used to work for who bragged about keeping his wife in line with his fists and one afternoon I overheard advising his son on how to use violence to keep his daughter obedient and submissive... how long do you want this post to be?
It's not something I deal with every day but it most certainly is something I have personal experience with.
Now apply that number to the population at large and realize that as bad as the stats are, you needn't fear every male who has a few inches and pounds on you. You simply need to be ready for the ones that aren't so civilized.
No, of course I don't fear every man. I
like men and most are, in fact, decent human beings and quite a few will come to the defense of others. The problem is the ones who
aren't, which are a fuckton more common than you seem to realize. If I had to estimate I'd say between 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 are a problem. And I count the ones, like the Wisconsin child molester/rapist, who don't direct their violence at me because I give a damn about other people, especially little girls 6 or 7 years old forced to sexually service their creeper uncle.
Great, so I'm expected to be a vigilante now because some people can't fight back as well as I can? Why am I not allowed to just call the cops and wait for the pros to arrive?
Who says you're not allowed to call the cops? Isn't that how you're
supposed to "get involved"? Call the pros and let them handle it.
I live next to a problem bar. The police have advised us to call them rather than confront anyone ourselves. They also made it clear that
if we are directly attacked we have every right to defend ourselves, even with lethal force if that's necessary. That's way different than getting physically involved in someone else's fight. They've given that advice to our landlord as well, who is physically much stronger and more capable than any of his tenants here and normally carries a .45 on his person. Funny, the landlord actually adheres to that - he's not afraid of a fight, I think he sort of enjoys them on a certain level, but he doesn't make a special effort to seek them out, either.
I'm no hero I backed out of joining the military specifically because my fight or flight is set firmly on flee. So why should I get to deal with people saying 'oh look at him he should have stepped in' when I'm not suited to fighting?
Fighting isn't the only way to intervene or deal with violence.
So you're saying that you feel that having the police doubt you were acting in self defense is as bad a problem as getting raped?
It can be. If you get prosecuted for hurting someone who was trying to rape or kill you and wind up in jail for a bunch of years yes, it can be as bad as getting raped.
I realize that's heresy for some people but that's how I see it.
If you wanted to find a specifically male problem as bad as being raped you likely won't find one, but that isn't because rape is uniquely terrible. How is, outside of the stigma and gender issues attached to it, getting violently raped (without pregnancy afterwards) that much different than getting violently beaten? In both cases you were overwhelmed and limited in your ability to fight back. In both cases your body was violently violated. In both cases the attacker held power over you. Yet one is a big media issue and the other is battery.
To start, you're more likely to get an incurable and possibly fatal disease from actual rape than from "merely" being beaten with fists. Even without it being fatal, getting an STD from an assault sucks.
Second, you can actually say that in a world where, in some places, women can be
executed for being raped because it was sex outside of marriage? Even in the west, there is still a strong tendency to blame the victim, say she was asking for it or deserved it. There is still a long-term stigma in many communities. Oh, and getting mugged is unlikely to interfere with your ability to enjoy sex for years at a time but that does happen to some rape victims.
Jub wrote:How many rapes have happened that can be linked to #gamergate thus far? How many violent assaults? How many shootings?
I don't know - do you? Have you even looked into the matter? Maybe there have been. Of course, with your feeling that the victim should shut the hell up and not discuss it how would you ever know?
That aside - it is, in fact, illegal to threaten people even if violence is not involved.
Has anybody found proof that the person who had a threat had the means and will to carry it out?
I thought that it was found one of the people making the threats did, in fact, have access to weapons capable of doing the job. If that is true, yes, they had the means. That the university was either unwilling or unable to assure the audience was unarmed is also a warning flag as I see it.
It didn't happen at other events where people received threats and carried on anyway, what are the chances it would have actually happened in this case? Should controversial figures just not hold public events in Utah these days or what?
Have you been to a "public event" lately? Have you ever walked through a metal detector? Part of the objection to the Utah event was that the university was NOT going to take such steps to ensure safety.
