20 ms·

Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

149 points by InternetGiant 12y ago

dominotw 12y ago
Never heard of her before. Why is she so famous to elicit such an extreme reaction ?
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Articles have appeared on the front page before, but they keep getting flagged off. Which to me is a sad commentary on the Hacker News community. I'd provide a link but HN's search engine doesn't include articles marked [Dead].
  - archagon 12y ago
    We've had good discussions on the topic. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8425501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8425501 (Not GG, but closely related.)
  - dgabriel 12y ago
    Yep, and that's where this thread went.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games
- hrktb 12y ago
  She talks a lot about gender roles in gaming. Sadly it seems it's the only needed reason for heavy harrassment these days.
- JayOtter 12y ago
  She runs a show called 'Feminist Frequency', dedicated to calling out sexist tropes in video games (amongst other things). She appears to have become one of the enemies of the movement known as "#GamerGate". Proponents of the movement will tell you it's about ethics in game journalism, but in reality it seems to have largely become corrupted by misogyny and the like. Several female game developers and journalists have received death threats; it's all rather ugly. This is the first time I've seen the movement appear on the front page of HN. I hope the discussion can be kept as civil as things normally are on here.
  - ben0x539 12y ago
    I think calling it "corrupted by misogyny" is a bit misleading. As far as I can tell, it is as pure and uncompromising in its misogyny as ever, the journalism thing has been a smokescreen from the beginning.
    - JayOtter 12y ago
      I was trying to be a little bit neutral but...yeah, I think you're probably correct.
    - sp332 12y ago
      It's a bunch of things thrown together. http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4395 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4395 "If you witness a group of issues, some relevant and some irrelevant, you will feel a need to respond to the relevant issues. If you witness someone responding to the relevant issues of the group, you will think they are responding to the group of issues. The exploit, taken from this, is then clear: Group up a bunch of issues (Apples, Oranges, Watermelons, Rat Poison) and then people who show concern about the Rat Poison will seem to be showing concern on Apples and Oranges. And people who are supporting Apples and Oranges could easily be mistaken for supporters of Rat Poison."
      - ben0x539 12y ago
        It's a bunch of things thrown together in a carefully calculated scheme to cover up an organized harassment campaign targeting women in the videogames industry. I appreciate that there's some decent people getting mixed up in a 4chan project with no ill intentions of their own, but that's not where the whole thing started.
- caycep 12y ago
  committed the "sin" of pointing out misogyny in the video gaming products and community, it seems. It riled up a few folks in 4chan and apparently Adam Baldwin who are taking malicious glee in some astroturfing campaign to essentially ruin her life.
- nyir 12y ago
  It's part of the ongoing Gamergate issue; Wikipedia is probably a good starting point for that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian and currently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy.
- untog 12y ago
  You don't have to be famous to elicit an extreme reaction, just well known to the right group of extremists. In short, she has created a series of web videos discussing feminism in computer games, and how female characters are portrayed. This has led to her being target number one amongst a very odd "gamer" community that will seemingly stop at nothing to preserve their culture.
- jbob2000 12y ago
  She raised a bunch of money from a kickstarter to make a series of videos about women in video games. The videos got a lot of stuff wrong about video games and she really had to reach to get her point across.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Naturally, the appropriate reaction to that is death threats. edit: Sorry, unclear. Not accusing the parent of this opinion.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - jbob2000 12y ago
      Absolutely not, I did not intend to suggest that, just providing a TLDR; of her and why some people are upset.
  - prezjordan 12y ago
    Cool so getting stuff wrong -> threats of being massacred while giving a speech?
  - ben0x539 12y ago
    More like people are reaching to paint her as not delivering. The most on-point criticism of her work I've heard is that it's a bit entry-level, but what can you do when even entry-level media critique is too harsh for your audience?
kelvin0 12y ago
I probably watch too many shows, but wouldn't that kind of threat (real or manufactured) actually push the speaker further into the limelight? So if this an actual threat (most likely) the 'bully' is really playing into her hands, so to speak. If this threat is manufactured, well this would indeed be quite a Machiavellian PR stunt ...
- JayOtter 12y ago
  The whole of 'GamerGate' feels almost like a PR stunt to turn the world's media against gamers. The irony is almost palpable.
  - retrocombine 12y ago
    GG laid down that framework itself. If it feels like a PR stunt against gamers, that's because it really is turning a lot of people against gamers. The difference is, the GGers did it to themselves.
    - JayOtter 12y ago
      Oh I'm well aware. I'm not sure any PR stunt could have done a better job, though.
  - gohrt 12y ago
    This is why it's best to ignore the whole thing, except to refer criminal threats to the police for investigation.
    - ben0x539 12y ago
      It's easy for people who aren't being targeted for harassment to ignore it, but I think we owe it to those who are to not ignore it.
      - imchillyb 12y ago
        > I think we owe it to those who are (being targeted for harassment) to not ignore it. - ben0x539 No. No we don't. The best thing you can do, as an individual, is not give either side of the debate any further attention or credibility. Witch hunts are common in any activist crowd. This issue is no different than hundreds of other agenda driven issues. If you truly want this type of thing to go away, stop talking about it.
mturmon 12y ago
Her video series, which you can see on YouTube, is actually quite good and well-researched. You might disagree with her conclusions (I agree with them) but even if you disagree, you have to admit she's done a lot of legwork.
- Argorak 12y ago
  Even if they were poor or badly researched, death threats are just way out of scope. Like: NEVER, EVER, IN ANY INTERACTION ARE THEY OKAY, NO POINT TO ARGUE. They are also no joke. (sorry for using all caps for once) (I take explanations for downvotes)
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    Saying that death threats are bad is not something anyone disagrees with, as far as I know. It's just an applause light (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/) at best.
    - Argorak 12y ago
      This very page has people arguing that death threats are par for the course on the internet and should be ignored as well as others trying to contextualize them. There is a reason why I wrote this sentence on this very page.
      - Houshalter 12y ago
        You said that making death threats was bad, which everyone agrees on. Some people disagree that they are as significant as made out to be. Almost all controversial figures get death threats. Obama gets 30 a day, about 40,000 in total. Yet assassinations and mass shootings are extremely rare.
        Argorak 12y ago
        No. I said that they are never okay and no joke, which people disagree with (including you, just now, you argue that they are ignorable). Don't rephrase or interpret. Yes, Obama gets 30 per day. What a sad world we live in, in which people are okay with that. Also, Obama can pay for bodyguards. The goal of a death threat is not necessarily the killing, but insecurity and psychological effect.
idlewords 12y ago
Before this was cancelled, Utah State University police announced "enhanced security measures will now be in place, which include prohibiting backpacks and any large bags." But anyone who had a permit to carry a concealed firearm would be allowed to bring it to the venue. I guess the theory is that anyone targeting Ms. Sarkeesian would have gone down in a hail of patriot bullets, but she wisely decided not to test this. From http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54178 http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54178
- pjc50 12y ago
  Apparently Utah law would make it illegal for them to prevent people from bringing concealed firearms, which is basically a law to maximise casualties from campus shootings.
  - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
    I legitimately cannot decide what scares me more, the thought of a mass shooting, or the thought of a bunch of "heroes" with a concealed carry cross-firing. Mark my words, one day a mass shooting will occur, someone will pull out their concealed carry, and a second concealed carry person will come around the corner and shoot the first (or the police will). Once there is panic and an unknown threat, adding more guns into the formula (particular without a uniform to go along with it) will only cause additional confusion.
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      Yep, that sounds like normal fear-mongering to me.
      - untog 12y ago
        Not really. Even trained police officers often hurt bystanders when firing their weapons: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooti... If a trained cop does it, I think it is legitimate to be concerned about a member of the public firing their weapon, no matter what their intent.
hnha 12y ago
oh, what a fruitful discussion this might trigger.. What I don't get is how they constantly counter-act the common rules on how to deal with trolls or stalkers. It really feels like they are bathing in the outrage, not interested in actually solving it. And that's one reason why I sadly don't feel any sympathy but rather understand the vocal (non socio-/psychopath) critics. There is no fair discussion so I wish the media would simply stop with their help on filling the fire... Disclaimer: Middle class white male who once got online death threats after banning a sociopath from a site of his. I discussed them privately, did not give any reaction to the freak apart from quickly banning the new accounts and where possible delete the verbal abuse. It took several weeks but ultimately it just got quite and we all live happily ever after.
- retrocombine 12y ago
  Speaking out against being harassed is not "bathing in the outrage". You sound completely biased, as well. I don't trust you as a neutral observer.
  - chippy 12y ago
    I think there's a difference about speaking out about harassment in general and going against the recommendations of the police who should be dealing with a specific threat. I agree though, it's certainly not "bathing in the outrage" at all. Perhaps the added attention to a cause, perhaps the added news coverage is worth going against the advice of professionals when it comes to direct threats to the safety of oneself? Or perhaps the institutions and individuals there to deal with such threats are not doing their job properly? Or perhaps the level of fear of online threats is so great that no local, personal support is enough? I don't know the answers not being in that situation. I can imagine it being very scary though. I'd want to trust someone, anyone, at the very least. Perhaps online social networks can give that level of reassurance for some, for those who depend on them?
    - scott_s 12y ago
      Who is going against whose recommendations, and in what way? Sarkeesian chose to not attend because she feared for her safety. Legally, the police could not prevent people from brining concealed weapons, and she did not feel safe. Your comment implies that she is somehow ignoring advice that would promote her safety, in order to gain more exposure. I don't see that happening.
uiuixqqxxq 12y ago
"Not so popular human rights group" conference also received death threats, but people around Anita were cheering to attackers.
grecy 12y ago
So where are the police in all of this? Are you telling me I can send an email threatening mass murder to whomever I want and there are no consequences. We've seen kids thrown in jail for indirect comments on Facebook, surely this is more tangible.
- retrocombine 12y ago
  Because are guns.
- dgabriel 12y ago
  It seems like it's an ongoing investigation, and the FBI are involved.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- smackfu 12y ago
  Unfortunately police work takes longer than the time remaining before the event. Better screening and more security is the obvious option, but apparently Utah allows people to carry regardless so it wouldn't do much good.
- ijk 12y ago
  "between 2009 and 2012, only 10 cyberstalking cases were prosecuted in [The United States]" [1] So the answer seems to be: pretty much. Threatening someone online is highly illegal [18 U.S. Code § 875 (c)], but prosecution is rare. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/01/a-british-troll-was-just-jailed-for-his-tweets-heres-why-that-will-probably-never-happen-in-the-u-s/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/...
  - chippy 12y ago
    Number of convictions would be even lower! Do you think the police are being ignored and not trusted in cases of online violence? Perhaps this is why some victims don't follow what I would imagine to be the police advice to not publicise the threats against them.
byerley 12y ago
Boy am I gonna regret this, I know these are polarizing issues, but please take a moment to consider the credibility of the individuals involved and their respective economic incentives. I think that, given objective consideration of the facts, it's clear that Anita Sarkeesian is intentionally fueling controversy for financial gain. Her claims of life-threatening danger have been repeatedly refuted by law enforcement officials. From the article, "USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued." Meanwhile, her Kickstarter campaign raised roughly $160,000 with meager deliverables - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/posts/245217 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-wom... and she's presumably being paid well for appearances. There's a lot of misinformation involved in twitter battles, but one needs only follow the money if you'll pardon the trite reference.
- robin_reala 12y ago
  That objective consideration you’re talking about? It’s not objective. How could the police have known there was no threat? A threat was issued.
  - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
    If a threat was issued, did nobody tell the police? Per the quote above they don't appear to know. I think threatening someone is vile. Our society is based on free speech, and free speech is most key when it is unpopular speech: popular speech doesn't need defending by its nature. That's why flag burning is legal. However if the police are really unaware of the threats made, I wonder if this is another "Meg Lanker-Simons" incident[0] (feminist false-flag). [0]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-hoax-university-wisconsin_n_3210326.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-h...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- idlewords 12y ago
vlunkr 12y ago
I don't understand these people that hate her so much, even if you disagree with her. All she has done is create a series of videos pointing out what she thinks is wrong with the gaming industry and she gets death threats. Why is no one allowed to be critical of video games? If anything, they are just proving her point by responding with violence.
- Rubix117 12y ago
  Cause the death threats are so real...
  - ben0x539 12y ago
    A death threat doesn't become less real by not being followed through it, otherwise it'd be called murder, not death threat.
    - Rubix117 12y ago
      I mean I very doubt they are real, she has been shown time and again to be a liar.
      - _wdh 12y ago
        Do you have a source or owt for that? You can't just drop something like that without any evidence.
      - ben0x539 12y ago
        This is a shitty gamergate meme and has no basis in reality. The evil "women in gaming" conspiracy would have to be very, very well organized to fabricate the amount of false flag abuse they're constantly subjecting themselves to just on twitter.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      The implication (dubious as it is) is that the threats were made by people on her side in order to garner sympathy. I think that would make the threats "not real", if it were the case.
cognivore 12y ago
"But on Tuesday, the director of the centre and others received an email threatening a "massacre style attack" if the talk proceeded." There is an inherit sexism even in the response to this. If this was an email threat targeting say, a kindergarden, or a presidential visit, there would be federal law inforcement coming down hard looking for the source of the email. The specter of "terrorism" would be most certainly be invoked. Instead we have "enhanced security measures." Because apparently it's not terrorism if the target is women.
- tedks 12y ago
  Patriarchy means womens' lives are worth less than mens' lives. White supremacy means a black person's life is worth less than a white person's life. Homophobia means a queer person's life is worth less than a straight person's life. Capitalism means a poor person's life is worth less than a rich person's life (but they'll come right out and admit this, so it's not as shocking). One day I hope humanity will grow out of its adolescence, burn away the waste that is GamerGate and the Westboro Baptist Church and weev and all the nazis, all the neckbeards, all the Koch Brothers everywhere, and become something beautiful. I'm not holding my breath though.
- hnha 12y ago
  Aren't most kindergarden workers female? Would there be no law enforcement if the president was female? I do not see any hint of the sexism you describe here.
  - cognivore 12y ago
    >> I do not see any hint of the sexism you describe here. << Okay, more simply, in other cases of mass murder/"terrorist" threats, regardless of targets, the federal government gets involved at the drop of a hat. Not so in this case.
    - tzs 12y ago
      The FBI is involved.
  - 12y ago
anon3d3c928 12y ago
using a throwaway account because ppl could easily find my twitter, my company, and harass me all day about this (and probably would). GamerGate is very probably a hate group, with no other legitimate purpose. they're known to send people into forums like this to argue politely and coherently that the "movement" is 100% legitimate. typically the person who comes onto a site like this, to argue in that manner, also makes virtiolic sexist and racist claims elsewhere, typically 8chan (previously 4chan - yes, these people are so fucked up that even 4chan banned them). the specifics of the GamerGate swindle are very, very interesting for understanding how social media works, and can be misused. http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-theyre-a-hate-1644984010 http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-t... TLDR: Rick Falkvinge's book SwarmWise, plus a great deal of sophisticated and very malicious social engineering.
- Rubix117 12y ago
  Yep, because the SJW feminists don't hate men...
- le_hackour 12y ago
  GamerGate is not a group, Anita. It's an event where multiple industry respected journalists were caught censoring or promoting certain stories in exchange for sexual favors.
- sb057 12y ago
  I think it should be noted that the article you linked to is published by Gawker Media, one of the companies at the center of this.
  - ijk 12y ago
    Would you prefer the New York Times?[1] Or maybe The Washington Post?[2] And let's not pretend that anyone has any evidence of actual problems at Gawker, only disproven accusations. [1] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/intel-pulls-ads-from-site-after-gamergate-boycott/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/intel-pulls-ads-fro... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/...
teamhappy 12y ago
The wording of the title sums up the current state of the debate quite good. I (and I'm sure many other as well) stopped reading and writing about it some time ago. There seem to be endemic problems in all activist movements (you can call it something else if you like) such as the glorification/condemnation of certain individuals, participants being more interested in having it their way than finding compromises, and hype. Effectively what that means is that people pick a thing, fight over it util the debate eventually reaches unforeseen (well, ...) levels of bigotry and hatred and then it stops. Nothing was accomplished* and everybody moves on to the next thing. There were multiple debates about gender roles in movies that all went down a similar path. * That's not entirely true. --- I forgot something. Please stop (ab)using the word feminism. She talks about the representation of women in video games - and she actually calls it that. Feminism is about gender equality. If you'd like to have a debate about the role of men and women in video games, by all means, use the word feminism. --- Also, how can you not see the irony in down-voting my post? Delicious.
- ben0x539 12y ago
  You're really reaching if you're trying to paint the representation of women as not a feminist topic.
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    I didn't.
marknutter 12y ago
These days isn't receiving death threats on the internet kind of par for the course? How many internet death threats have actually resulted in deaths? I think the answer is zero. Why even pay them any attention?
- hrktb 12y ago
  It would come down to who wants to be the first. Also the people making these death threats are not in a sane state of mind from the start, judging from the published samples.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    People can just be assholes without also having mental illness.
    - hrktb 12y ago
      That's way passed the level I'd call being an asshole: https://mobile.twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160 https://mobile.twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160 Also, no one talked about mental illness.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        You talked about mental illness! > not in a sane state of mind Stop stigmatising people with mental illness by associating them with violence.
- archagon 12y ago
  Not only do these women receive orders of magnitude more death threats than your typical online celebrity, but people do in fact come to their homes, contact their relatives, harass them at work, mail them stuff, etc. Consider also that some studies have shown that more than a third of all women have been sexually harassed or assaulted at some point in their lives, which is mostly invisible to guys like me[1]. That must be a pretty terrifying place to be. If that was me in Anita's shoes, I doubt I'd be able to just wave off these death threats, especially if friends and family were being targeted as well. [1]: You can start reading at this comment — http://www.metafilter.com/85667/Hi-Whatcha-reading#2777344 http://www.metafilter.com/85667/Hi-Whatcha-reading#2777344 — and keep going for a good long while. This thread changed my outlook a few years ago.
metaphorm 12y ago
there's a lot of really bad downvoting going on in this thread. how about you try to have a conversation with each other instead of trying to blanket censor people who you think have a different point of view?
hnha 12y ago
What would be a way to solve these harassment issues?
imaginenore 12y ago
Oh, the same Anita that previously got caught with making fake death threat against herself, the standard feminist tactic these days. Anita is a talentless hack who is trying to ride on the backs of the gullible male developers by whining about non-issues and nonsensical "violence-games-games-causes-real-violence" type of arguments.
- vec 12y ago
  I'm going to regret this, but here goes. > Oh, the same Anita that previously got caught with making fake death threat against herself Being accused of something does not equate to "getting caught" doing something. > the standard feminist tactic these days. [citation needed] > Anita is a talentless hack She's consistently putting out a large volume of well-sourced content with a relatively high production value. You can argue that she cherry picks her sources (she doesn't) or that her conclusions are wrong (they aren't), or even that she's an ideologue (she is, but that's fine). It's a pretty hard lift, though, to argue that she's not competent and unerringly professional. > who is trying to ride on the backs of the gullible male developers Who is successfully riding on the back of an enormously successful Kickstarter campaign. Kickstarter doesn't publish demographic information on the gender or profession of its donors, but a lot of people showed a clear interest in exactly the > by whining about non-issues and nonsensical "violence-games-games-causes-real-violence" type of arguments. As far as I can remember, none of her videos argue that "violence-games-games-causes-real-violence". Instead, they seem to be arguing that certain types of violence are problematic in and of themselves. You don't have to agree with this assertion, but at least have the decency to engage with the argument she's actually making.
  - imaginenore 12y ago
    http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/2eub5g/anita_sarkeesians_threating_tweets_as_screen_shot/ http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/2eub5g/anita...
- ben0x539 12y ago
  > Oh, the same Anita that previously got caught with making fake death threat against herself, the standard feminist tactic these days. This is bullshit, there's not the slightest bit of evidence that she faked anything. Sarkeesian supposedly fabricating attacks against herself is a gamergate meme that's repeated as fact long before this thing happened and it's always been completely ridiculous.
seany 12y ago
Why do we care about this? She's been proven to be full of crap, so who cares if she isn't speaking? (I'm not saying that threats are acceptable in any fashion)
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Your post may be full of crap, but I'd care if someone threatened you with death for it.

149 points by InternetGiant 12y ago

dominotw 12y ago

Never heard of her before. Why is she so famous to elicit such an extreme reaction ?

eevilspock 12y ago
Articles have appeared on the front page before, but they keep getting flagged off. Which to me is a sad commentary on the Hacker News community. I'd provide a link but HN's search engine doesn't include articles marked [Dead].
- archagon 12y ago
  We've had good discussions on the topic. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8425501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8425501 (Not GG, but closely related.)
- dgabriel 12y ago
  Yep, and that's where this thread went.
ceejayoz 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games
hrktb 12y ago
She talks a lot about gender roles in gaming. Sadly it seems it's the only needed reason for heavy harrassment these days.
JayOtter 12y ago
She runs a show called 'Feminist Frequency', dedicated to calling out sexist tropes in video games (amongst other things). She appears to have become one of the enemies of the movement known as "#GamerGate". Proponents of the movement will tell you it's about ethics in game journalism, but in reality it seems to have largely become corrupted by misogyny and the like. Several female game developers and journalists have received death threats; it's all rather ugly. This is the first time I've seen the movement appear on the front page of HN. I hope the discussion can be kept as civil as things normally are on here.
- ben0x539 12y ago
  I think calling it "corrupted by misogyny" is a bit misleading. As far as I can tell, it is as pure and uncompromising in its misogyny as ever, the journalism thing has been a smokescreen from the beginning.
  - JayOtter 12y ago
    I was trying to be a little bit neutral but...yeah, I think you're probably correct.
  - sp332 12y ago
    It's a bunch of things thrown together. http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4395 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4395 "If you witness a group of issues, some relevant and some irrelevant, you will feel a need to respond to the relevant issues. If you witness someone responding to the relevant issues of the group, you will think they are responding to the group of issues. The exploit, taken from this, is then clear: Group up a bunch of issues (Apples, Oranges, Watermelons, Rat Poison) and then people who show concern about the Rat Poison will seem to be showing concern on Apples and Oranges. And people who are supporting Apples and Oranges could easily be mistaken for supporters of Rat Poison."
    - ben0x539 12y ago
      It's a bunch of things thrown together in a carefully calculated scheme to cover up an organized harassment campaign targeting women in the videogames industry. I appreciate that there's some decent people getting mixed up in a 4chan project with no ill intentions of their own, but that's not where the whole thing started.
caycep 12y ago
committed the "sin" of pointing out misogyny in the video gaming products and community, it seems. It riled up a few folks in 4chan and apparently Adam Baldwin who are taking malicious glee in some astroturfing campaign to essentially ruin her life.
nyir 12y ago
It's part of the ongoing Gamergate issue; Wikipedia is probably a good starting point for that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian and currently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy.
untog 12y ago
You don't have to be famous to elicit an extreme reaction, just well known to the right group of extremists. In short, she has created a series of web videos discussing feminism in computer games, and how female characters are portrayed. This has led to her being target number one amongst a very odd "gamer" community that will seemingly stop at nothing to preserve their culture.
jbob2000 12y ago
She raised a bunch of money from a kickstarter to make a series of videos about women in video games. The videos got a lot of stuff wrong about video games and she really had to reach to get her point across.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Naturally, the appropriate reaction to that is death threats. edit: Sorry, unclear. Not accusing the parent of this opinion.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jbob2000 12y ago
    Absolutely not, I did not intend to suggest that, just providing a TLDR; of her and why some people are upset.
- prezjordan 12y ago
  Cool so getting stuff wrong -> threats of being massacred while giving a speech?
- ben0x539 12y ago
  More like people are reaching to paint her as not delivering. The most on-point criticism of her work I've heard is that it's a bit entry-level, but what can you do when even entry-level media critique is too harsh for your audience?

kelvin0 12y ago

I probably watch too many shows, but wouldn't that kind of threat (real or manufactured) actually push the speaker further into the limelight? So if this an actual threat (most likely) the 'bully' is really playing into her hands, so to speak. If this threat is manufactured, well this would indeed be quite a Machiavellian PR stunt ...

JayOtter 12y ago
The whole of 'GamerGate' feels almost like a PR stunt to turn the world's media against gamers. The irony is almost palpable.
- retrocombine 12y ago
  GG laid down that framework itself. If it feels like a PR stunt against gamers, that's because it really is turning a lot of people against gamers. The difference is, the GGers did it to themselves.
  - JayOtter 12y ago
    Oh I'm well aware. I'm not sure any PR stunt could have done a better job, though.
- gohrt 12y ago
  This is why it's best to ignore the whole thing, except to refer criminal threats to the police for investigation.
  - ben0x539 12y ago
    It's easy for people who aren't being targeted for harassment to ignore it, but I think we owe it to those who are to not ignore it.
    - imchillyb 12y ago
      > I think we owe it to those who are (being targeted for harassment) to not ignore it. - ben0x539 No. No we don't. The best thing you can do, as an individual, is not give either side of the debate any further attention or credibility. Witch hunts are common in any activist crowd. This issue is no different than hundreds of other agenda driven issues. If you truly want this type of thing to go away, stop talking about it.

mturmon 12y ago

Her video series, which you can see on YouTube, is actually quite good and well-researched. You might disagree with her conclusions (I agree with them) but even if you disagree, you have to admit she's done a lot of legwork.

Argorak 12y ago
Even if they were poor or badly researched, death threats are just way out of scope. Like: NEVER, EVER, IN ANY INTERACTION ARE THEY OKAY, NO POINT TO ARGUE. They are also no joke. (sorry for using all caps for once) (I take explanations for downvotes)
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Saying that death threats are bad is not something anyone disagrees with, as far as I know. It's just an applause light (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/) at best.
  - Argorak 12y ago
    This very page has people arguing that death threats are par for the course on the internet and should be ignored as well as others trying to contextualize them. There is a reason why I wrote this sentence on this very page.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      You said that making death threats was bad, which everyone agrees on. Some people disagree that they are as significant as made out to be. Almost all controversial figures get death threats. Obama gets 30 a day, about 40,000 in total. Yet assassinations and mass shootings are extremely rare.
      - Argorak 12y ago
        No. I said that they are never okay and no joke, which people disagree with (including you, just now, you argue that they are ignorable). Don't rephrase or interpret. Yes, Obama gets 30 per day. What a sad world we live in, in which people are okay with that. Also, Obama can pay for bodyguards. The goal of a death threat is not necessarily the killing, but insecurity and psychological effect.

idlewords 12y ago

Before this was cancelled, Utah State University police announced "enhanced security measures will now be in place, which include prohibiting backpacks and any large bags." But anyone who had a permit to carry a concealed firearm would be allowed to bring it to the venue. I guess the theory is that anyone targeting Ms. Sarkeesian would have gone down in a hail of patriot bullets, but she wisely decided not to test this. From http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54178 http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54178

pjc50 12y ago
Apparently Utah law would make it illegal for them to prevent people from bringing concealed firearms, which is basically a law to maximise casualties from campus shootings.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  I legitimately cannot decide what scares me more, the thought of a mass shooting, or the thought of a bunch of "heroes" with a concealed carry cross-firing. Mark my words, one day a mass shooting will occur, someone will pull out their concealed carry, and a second concealed carry person will come around the corner and shoot the first (or the police will). Once there is panic and an unknown threat, adding more guns into the formula (particular without a uniform to go along with it) will only cause additional confusion.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    Yep, that sounds like normal fear-mongering to me.
    - untog 12y ago
      Not really. Even trained police officers often hurt bystanders when firing their weapons: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooti... If a trained cop does it, I think it is legitimate to be concerned about a member of the public firing their weapon, no matter what their intent.

hnha 12y ago

oh, what a fruitful discussion this might trigger.. What I don't get is how they constantly counter-act the common rules on how to deal with trolls or stalkers. It really feels like they are bathing in the outrage, not interested in actually solving it. And that's one reason why I sadly don't feel any sympathy but rather understand the vocal (non socio-/psychopath) critics. There is no fair discussion so I wish the media would simply stop with their help on filling the fire... Disclaimer: Middle class white male who once got online death threats after banning a sociopath from a site of his. I discussed them privately, did not give any reaction to the freak apart from quickly banning the new accounts and where possible delete the verbal abuse. It took several weeks but ultimately it just got quite and we all live happily ever after.

retrocombine 12y ago
Speaking out against being harassed is not "bathing in the outrage". You sound completely biased, as well. I don't trust you as a neutral observer.
- chippy 12y ago
  I think there's a difference about speaking out about harassment in general and going against the recommendations of the police who should be dealing with a specific threat. I agree though, it's certainly not "bathing in the outrage" at all. Perhaps the added attention to a cause, perhaps the added news coverage is worth going against the advice of professionals when it comes to direct threats to the safety of oneself? Or perhaps the institutions and individuals there to deal with such threats are not doing their job properly? Or perhaps the level of fear of online threats is so great that no local, personal support is enough? I don't know the answers not being in that situation. I can imagine it being very scary though. I'd want to trust someone, anyone, at the very least. Perhaps online social networks can give that level of reassurance for some, for those who depend on them?
  - scott_s 12y ago
    Who is going against whose recommendations, and in what way? Sarkeesian chose to not attend because she feared for her safety. Legally, the police could not prevent people from brining concealed weapons, and she did not feel safe. Your comment implies that she is somehow ignoring advice that would promote her safety, in order to gain more exposure. I don't see that happening.

uiuixqqxxq 12y ago

"Not so popular human rights group" conference also received death threats, but people around Anita were cheering to attackers.

grecy 12y ago

So where are the police in all of this? Are you telling me I can send an email threatening mass murder to whomever I want and there are no consequences. We've seen kids thrown in jail for indirect comments on Facebook, surely this is more tangible.

retrocombine 12y ago
Because are guns.
dgabriel 12y ago
It seems like it's an ongoing investigation, and the FBI are involved.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
smackfu 12y ago
Unfortunately police work takes longer than the time remaining before the event. Better screening and more security is the obvious option, but apparently Utah allows people to carry regardless so it wouldn't do much good.
ijk 12y ago
"between 2009 and 2012, only 10 cyberstalking cases were prosecuted in [The United States]" [1] So the answer seems to be: pretty much. Threatening someone online is highly illegal [18 U.S. Code § 875 (c)], but prosecution is rare. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/01/a-british-troll-was-just-jailed-for-his-tweets-heres-why-that-will-probably-never-happen-in-the-u-s/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/...
- chippy 12y ago
  Number of convictions would be even lower! Do you think the police are being ignored and not trusted in cases of online violence? Perhaps this is why some victims don't follow what I would imagine to be the police advice to not publicise the threats against them.

byerley 12y ago

Boy am I gonna regret this, I know these are polarizing issues, but please take a moment to consider the credibility of the individuals involved and their respective economic incentives. I think that, given objective consideration of the facts, it's clear that Anita Sarkeesian is intentionally fueling controversy for financial gain. Her claims of life-threatening danger have been repeatedly refuted by law enforcement officials. From the article, "USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued." Meanwhile, her Kickstarter campaign raised roughly $160,000 with meager deliverables - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/posts/245217 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-wom... and she's presumably being paid well for appearances. There's a lot of misinformation involved in twitter battles, but one needs only follow the money if you'll pardon the trite reference.

robin_reala 12y ago
That objective consideration you’re talking about? It’s not objective. How could the police have known there was no threat? A threat was issued.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  If a threat was issued, did nobody tell the police? Per the quote above they don't appear to know. I think threatening someone is vile. Our society is based on free speech, and free speech is most key when it is unpopular speech: popular speech doesn't need defending by its nature. That's why flag burning is legal. However if the police are really unaware of the threats made, I wonder if this is another "Meg Lanker-Simons" incident[0] (feminist false-flag). [0]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-hoax-university-wisconsin_n_3210326.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-h...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
idlewords 12y ago

vlunkr 12y ago

I don't understand these people that hate her so much, even if you disagree with her. All she has done is create a series of videos pointing out what she thinks is wrong with the gaming industry and she gets death threats. Why is no one allowed to be critical of video games? If anything, they are just proving her point by responding with violence.

Rubix117 12y ago
Cause the death threats are so real...
- ben0x539 12y ago
  A death threat doesn't become less real by not being followed through it, otherwise it'd be called murder, not death threat.
  - Rubix117 12y ago
    I mean I very doubt they are real, she has been shown time and again to be a liar.
    - _wdh 12y ago
      Do you have a source or owt for that? You can't just drop something like that without any evidence.
    - ben0x539 12y ago
      This is a shitty gamergate meme and has no basis in reality. The evil "women in gaming" conspiracy would have to be very, very well organized to fabricate the amount of false flag abuse they're constantly subjecting themselves to just on twitter.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    The implication (dubious as it is) is that the threats were made by people on her side in order to garner sympathy. I think that would make the threats "not real", if it were the case.

cognivore 12y ago

"But on Tuesday, the director of the centre and others received an email threatening a "massacre style attack" if the talk proceeded." There is an inherit sexism even in the response to this. If this was an email threat targeting say, a kindergarden, or a presidential visit, there would be federal law inforcement coming down hard looking for the source of the email. The specter of "terrorism" would be most certainly be invoked. Instead we have "enhanced security measures." Because apparently it's not terrorism if the target is women.

tedks 12y ago
Patriarchy means womens' lives are worth less than mens' lives. White supremacy means a black person's life is worth less than a white person's life. Homophobia means a queer person's life is worth less than a straight person's life. Capitalism means a poor person's life is worth less than a rich person's life (but they'll come right out and admit this, so it's not as shocking). One day I hope humanity will grow out of its adolescence, burn away the waste that is GamerGate and the Westboro Baptist Church and weev and all the nazis, all the neckbeards, all the Koch Brothers everywhere, and become something beautiful. I'm not holding my breath though.
hnha 12y ago
Aren't most kindergarden workers female? Would there be no law enforcement if the president was female? I do not see any hint of the sexism you describe here.
- cognivore 12y ago
  >> I do not see any hint of the sexism you describe here. << Okay, more simply, in other cases of mass murder/"terrorist" threats, regardless of targets, the federal government gets involved at the drop of a hat. Not so in this case.
  - tzs 12y ago
    The FBI is involved.
- 12y ago

anon3d3c928 12y ago

using a throwaway account because ppl could easily find my twitter, my company, and harass me all day about this (and probably would). GamerGate is very probably a hate group, with no other legitimate purpose. they're known to send people into forums like this to argue politely and coherently that the "movement" is 100% legitimate. typically the person who comes onto a site like this, to argue in that manner, also makes virtiolic sexist and racist claims elsewhere, typically 8chan (previously 4chan - yes, these people are so fucked up that even 4chan banned them). the specifics of the GamerGate swindle are very, very interesting for understanding how social media works, and can be misused. http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-theyre-a-hate-1644984010 http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-t... TLDR: Rick Falkvinge's book SwarmWise, plus a great deal of sophisticated and very malicious social engineering.

Rubix117 12y ago
Yep, because the SJW feminists don't hate men...
le_hackour 12y ago
GamerGate is not a group, Anita. It's an event where multiple industry respected journalists were caught censoring or promoting certain stories in exchange for sexual favors.
sb057 12y ago
I think it should be noted that the article you linked to is published by Gawker Media, one of the companies at the center of this.
- ijk 12y ago
  Would you prefer the New York Times?[1] Or maybe The Washington Post?[2] And let's not pretend that anyone has any evidence of actual problems at Gawker, only disproven accusations. [1] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/intel-pulls-ads-from-site-after-gamergate-boycott/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/intel-pulls-ads-fro... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/...

teamhappy 12y ago

The wording of the title sums up the current state of the debate quite good. I (and I'm sure many other as well) stopped reading and writing about it some time ago. There seem to be endemic problems in all activist movements (you can call it something else if you like) such as the glorification/condemnation of certain individuals, participants being more interested in having it their way than finding compromises, and hype. Effectively what that means is that people pick a thing, fight over it util the debate eventually reaches unforeseen (well, ...) levels of bigotry and hatred and then it stops. Nothing was accomplished* and everybody moves on to the next thing. There were multiple debates about gender roles in movies that all went down a similar path. * That's not entirely true. --- I forgot something. Please stop (ab)using the word feminism. She talks about the representation of women in video games - and she actually calls it that. Feminism is about gender equality. If you'd like to have a debate about the role of men and women in video games, by all means, use the word feminism. --- Also, how can you not see the irony in down-voting my post? Delicious.

ben0x539 12y ago
You're really reaching if you're trying to paint the representation of women as not a feminist topic.
- teamhappy 12y ago
  I didn't.

marknutter 12y ago

These days isn't receiving death threats on the internet kind of par for the course? How many internet death threats have actually resulted in deaths? I think the answer is zero. Why even pay them any attention?

hrktb 12y ago
It would come down to who wants to be the first. Also the people making these death threats are not in a sane state of mind from the start, judging from the published samples.
- DanBC 12y ago
  People can just be assholes without also having mental illness.
  - hrktb 12y ago
    That's way passed the level I'd call being an asshole: https://mobile.twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160 https://mobile.twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160 Also, no one talked about mental illness.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      You talked about mental illness! > not in a sane state of mind Stop stigmatising people with mental illness by associating them with violence.
archagon 12y ago
Not only do these women receive orders of magnitude more death threats than your typical online celebrity, but people do in fact come to their homes, contact their relatives, harass them at work, mail them stuff, etc. Consider also that some studies have shown that more than a third of all women have been sexually harassed or assaulted at some point in their lives, which is mostly invisible to guys like me[1]. That must be a pretty terrifying place to be. If that was me in Anita's shoes, I doubt I'd be able to just wave off these death threats, especially if friends and family were being targeted as well. [1]: You can start reading at this comment — http://www.metafilter.com/85667/Hi-Whatcha-reading#2777344 http://www.metafilter.com/85667/Hi-Whatcha-reading#2777344 — and keep going for a good long while. This thread changed my outlook a few years ago.

metaphorm 12y ago

there's a lot of really bad downvoting going on in this thread. how about you try to have a conversation with each other instead of trying to blanket censor people who you think have a different point of view?

hnha 12y ago

What would be a way to solve these harassment issues?

imaginenore 12y ago

Oh, the same Anita that previously got caught with making fake death threat against herself, the standard feminist tactic these days. Anita is a talentless hack who is trying to ride on the backs of the gullible male developers by whining about non-issues and nonsensical "violence-games-games-causes-real-violence" type of arguments.

vec 12y ago
I'm going to regret this, but here goes. > Oh, the same Anita that previously got caught with making fake death threat against herself Being accused of something does not equate to "getting caught" doing something. > the standard feminist tactic these days. [citation needed] > Anita is a talentless hack She's consistently putting out a large volume of well-sourced content with a relatively high production value. You can argue that she cherry picks her sources (she doesn't) or that her conclusions are wrong (they aren't), or even that she's an ideologue (she is, but that's fine). It's a pretty hard lift, though, to argue that she's not competent and unerringly professional. > who is trying to ride on the backs of the gullible male developers Who is successfully riding on the back of an enormously successful Kickstarter campaign. Kickstarter doesn't publish demographic information on the gender or profession of its donors, but a lot of people showed a clear interest in exactly the > by whining about non-issues and nonsensical "violence-games-games-causes-real-violence" type of arguments. As far as I can remember, none of her videos argue that "violence-games-games-causes-real-violence". Instead, they seem to be arguing that certain types of violence are problematic in and of themselves. You don't have to agree with this assertion, but at least have the decency to engage with the argument she's actually making.
- imaginenore 12y ago
  http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/2eub5g/anita_sarkeesians_threating_tweets_as_screen_shot/ http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/2eub5g/anita...
ben0x539 12y ago
> Oh, the same Anita that previously got caught with making fake death threat against herself, the standard feminist tactic these days. This is bullshit, there's not the slightest bit of evidence that she faked anything. Sarkeesian supposedly fabricating attacks against herself is a gamergate meme that's repeated as fact long before this thing happened and it's always been completely ridiculous.

seany 12y ago

Why do we care about this? She's been proven to be full of crap, so who cares if she isn't speaking? (I'm not saying that threats are acceptable in any fashion)

ceejayoz 12y ago
Your post may be full of crap, but I'd care if someone threatened you with death for it.